For KENTUCKY and AMERICA                 

_________________________________________

Time for the political middle to stand up

By CHARLES LEACH

 

President Obama tried to take a page out of Teddy Roosevelt's New Nationalism speech delivered in 1910 by delivering much the same message. President Obama even went as far as to deliver his speech in 0sawatomie, Kan., just as Roosevelt did, but beyond that there was one major difference.

 

Then ex-president Roosevelt had split with his party (the Republican Party) because of its tack to the right and support of corporations and the transfer of wealth and influence to them. Perhaps the comparison is unfair, given that Roosevelt was out of office and Obama is not, but I don't think it is. The following is an excerpt from Roosevelt's speech in which he pretty specifically lays out the case against allowing corporations undue influence. I don't recall an equivalent statement from Obama pertaining to the undue influence from left wing organizations.

 

… "This means that our government, national and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. Every special interest is entitled to justice - full, fair, and complete - and, now, mind you, if there were any attempt by mob-violence to plunder and work harm to the special interest, whatever it may be, and I most dislike and the wealthy man, whomsoever he may be, for whom I have the greatest contempt, I would fight for him, and you would if you were worth your salt. He should have justice. For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protections to property, and we must make that promise good But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation. The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being."

 

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done.

If Teddy Roosevelt was alive today; this speech leaves little doubt what his position on the Supreme Court's ruling that gave big money interests the right to anonymously spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections would be.

 

Today we are again facing the problem of widening gap between rich and poor that in part, drove Roosevelt to split from the Republican Party; plus the country is facing two huge additional problems. For the first time since the Great Depression, caused primarily by continued widening of the gap between rich and poor and deregulation, the country is faced with potential bankruptcy and for the first time since the civil war the country is too divided to do anything but tear itself apart. At a time when unity and shared sacrifice is required to put our financial house in order, and when the majority of the American people are calling for it, the politicians in Washington are listening only to fringe elements of their parties and to the big money interests whose blessings are required in todays political landscape to keep them in office.

 

President Obama and Speaker Boehner reportedly had a tentative budget agreement that called for $1.7 trillion in spending cuts, including major but not clearly specified cuts in entitlement programs and $800 billion in revenue increases. It was unlikely to get passed by a Congress whose majority had pledged allegiance to Grover Norquist and to the plutocracy for which he stands but before it could be voted on Democrats insisted that President Obama change the agreement so as to call, for $1.2 billion in revenue increases. Although it can be argued that this was more in line with what the Gang of Six, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and just about every nonpartisan economist has called for, in the end it was Democrats pandering to the liberal wing of their party and Republicans standing with the strident faction that now has undue influence in their party.

 

Acknowledging that it was impossible to come to an agreement, given nearly certain ending of a political career for any Republican who votes to raise any taxes and thus breaking the pledge of allegiance to Grover Norquist, a Super Committee was formed to come up with a measly couple trillion in deficit cuts or have automatic across the board cuts that no politician could be held personally accountable for. Is anyone with an I Q higher than room temperature actually surprised that the commission that included three pledge signing Republicans and three Democrats who insisted on a balanced approach to balancing the committee failed? Is anyone now surprised that politicians of both parties are now playing to the active fringe elements of their parties by trying to exempt various items from budget cuts or to abolish the agreement to have across the board cuts altogether?

 

I think there are quite a few ways around the log-jam is Washington that has been built up over the years by ever more vitriolic political rhetoric, especially since its prevalence on AM radio was instrumental in bringing about Republican control of the House in 1994. Back then, as I recall, right wing radio show hosts were invited to DC and made honorary members of Congress in recognition of their roll in Republicans becoming the majority party in Congress. Decades of such rhetoric has created a sort of frankenstein monster that its creators can't control, and are now in fact subservient to, on the Republican side and a smaller reactionary fringe on the Democrat side that has major influence. While the two fringes battle it out, get all the coverage and, on the republican side at least control the primaries, the centrist majorities of both parties are all but ignored. Why? Because they allow themselves to be ignored. As per the old saying, the squeaky wheel gets all the oil so it is time for the moderate middles to not only squeak by shout and threaten.

 

What if we moderates of both parties were to demand that our representatives support and vote for a balanced approach to balancing the budget, a balanced balancing , or we would vote them out of office? Wouldn't that eliminate the hold that the fringe elements of both parties have on representatives and allow government to get back to working for we the people instead of the nut jobs?

 

What if, instead of having a super committee made up of people beholding to fringe elements of the parties come up with plans to balance the budget, there was a straight up or down vote on the bipartisan plan the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform came up with?

 

I'll close with some comments made by David Stockman, concerning the budget crisis, and the political posturing of both parties, on the Diane Rehm Show on NPR Dec. 7. 

 

Mr. Stockman has long been able to tell truth to power, starting when he was budget director through the first Reagan term. Early in in that term (in 1981), he gave an interview to Atlantic Magazine in which he said, " Reagan's tax cut was a Trojan horse to bring down top tax rate" and that, " The supply-side formula formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really trickle down" and, " None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers."

 

In this interview, he said that Reagan had to raise taxes in 1982 and after because the tax cuts were creating huge deficits without producing the proposed economic activities to offset the cuts and went on to say that the same was true now. He then went on to say that the country could not afford any of the Bush tax cuts, even those on middle incomes, or to extend the payroll tax holiday. Although he hit hardest on Republican intransigence when it comes to increasing taxes, he hit on the Democrats' intransigence when it comes to entitlement programs as well. 

 

The time has come to tell elected representatives that continuing to pander to fringe elements of both parties and to big money interests that have been able to buy seats in congress and the senate up to now is no longer an option. The time has come to sign a pledge to work for the good of the country instead of to satisfy Grover Norquist or Move on.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I urge everyone who is tired of the partisan politics that are paralyzing the government, at a time when action is required to solve critical problems, to copy and send the following letter / petition to their representatives and every future candidate for office:

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear ___________

 

 

Politics, as conducted today, is a game in which the people holding or running for office need to come up with big money to pay for the ever increasing cost and escalating technologies of campaigns and even the most decent politicians have to engage in nonstop fundraising. Increasingly, the easiest way to amass campaign dollars has been to obtain them from big money special interests and to engage in polarizing political debate to attract support from fringe elements of parties. This has resulted in what in effect is a coin operated government that is activated only by insertion of money and the gridlock accrued by the elimination of many representatives who refused to sell out to big money or fringe elements. In a logical universe this insanity would be ended, or at least minimized, by banning political ads from pubic airwaves and requiring that stations broadcast debates moderated by non partisan political entities such as the League Of Women Voters in order to retain their broadcast licenses. As that is not likely to happen I intend to do what I can to have a government of for and by the people once more and my first step in that direction is sending the petition below to my current representatives and any candidates for office. When the time comes to vote I will definitely give preference to those who signed and returned this petition or posted a signed copy on line.

 

Pledge To The Political Majority

 

Given the serious problems that must be dealt with, and that political polarization that is preventing government from dealing with them, I pledge to put the welfare of my country above the welfare of my party or my personal ambitions and to work with my fellow representatives to find viable solutions. If this means changing positions I held in what now seems like an alternate reality, and by so doing diminishing my chances of being elected or reelected, so be it. The time has come to stop the ship from sinking. We can argue about what course it should continue on after that.

 

 

 

__________________________             ___________

               Signature                                           Date

_________________________________________

SC Justice Thomas' Pattern of Gross Ethics violations and Conflict of Interest

 v 

NPR's enforcement of Ethics

National public Radio's Michele Johnson, who co-hosts All things Considered, is temporarily stepping down from that post because her husband is working for the re-elect President Obama campaign so as to avoid charges of conflict of interest or bias in her reporting. She will continue to be involved in producing some news shows, just not ones with political content.

Not long ago NPR fired Lisa Simeone from Sound print for violation of NPR's code of ethics by doubling as a spokesperson for Occupy DC. 

Months ago NPR fired Juan Williams for saying, on the Bill O’Reilly Show,  "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." Quite frankly I think NPRs response was way over the top and taking avoiding charges of bias way too far but it fits into a long established pattern of safeguarding against conflict of interest. Now lets look at how another venerable entity goes about, or doesn't bother going about, avoiding charges of bias.

The Supreme court's Citizen's United decision, giving big money interests the ability to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections, is just one in a series of decisions that have shown that the court itself has been overtly influenced by big money interests. 

Remember the 5 to 4 decision that gave the 2000 election to G.W. Bush instead of the man who won the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College vote without the Supreme Court's interference? Well at that time Judge Clarence Thomas's Wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas, was working for the right wing Heritage Foundation collecting resumes for potential Presidential appointments of the George W Bush Administration and she continued to work as the foundation's liaison with the Bush White House while the Supreme Court made decision after decision that might benefit the Bush administration, without her husband recusing himself. Think the Supreme Court should operate as ethically as National Public Radio? 

Last month, on the steps of the Supreme Court, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and others held a press conference calling on the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings investigating some of Justice Thomas's alleged ethical lapses. These include allegations that he failed to disclose at least $1.6 million in income earned by his wife Virginia, who worked for the conservative Heritage Foundation and has been an active opponent of the Obama health care law. Thomas has also been accused of taking unreported free trips on a corporate jet and a yacht from real estate magnate Harlan Crow.

The New York Times published a major report delving into the ethical questions posed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relationship with real estate magnate Harlan Crowe. These recent insinuations on Thomas' ethics are only the latest in a long list that have been leveled at him. It's not unusual for judges to have conflicts of interest, but, as Talking Points Memo put it, "when it comes to ethical complications on the nation's highest court, Clarence Thomas takes the cake." It's worth it to review recent events.

Citizens United and the Koch Brothers. In January of 2008, Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia attended a political retreat run by the Koch brothers. Their subsequent ruling in the Citizens United campaign finance case reportedly benefited the Koch brothers' political activities. In early 2011, the advocacy group Common Cause asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into the propriety of the justices' participation in the case, according to the Times.

Liberty Central and Mrs. Thomas. In January of 2010, Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, founded a Tea Party-affiliated group called Liberty Central, the Los Angeles Times reports. The group opposes various progressive causes, including President Obama's health care overhaul, which is an issue that many believe is certain to come before her husband's court. Moreover, as part of her position, she would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules loosened by the Supreme Court. Virginia Thomas has since stepped down as head of the organization to take more of a back seat role.

The Missing Years of Financial Disclosure. In January of 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that Common Cause found that Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, but the justice did not include it on financial disclosure forms, consistently checking no spousal income. Once the news came out, Thomas amended 13 years’ worth of disclosure reports to include details of his wife's income, Politico reports. He wrote it was a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Common Cause remained unconvinced.

Harlan Crowe and the Pinpoint Museum. In the most recent case, the Times reports that Harlan Crowe, a close friend of Thomas who once gave his wife $500,000 for Liberty Central, is now financing a multimillion-dollar restoration of an old Georgia cannery where Thomas' mother once worked, at the Thomas' behest. The problem here is that the ethics code that binds federal judges says judges “should not personally participate” in raising money for charitable endeavors, out of concern that donors might feel pressured to give or entitled to receive favorable treatment from the judge. In addition, judges are not even supposed to know who donates to projects honoring them. Supreme Court justices are not subject to the federal code of ethics, but other justices have said they adhere to it.

Mrs. Thomas doesn't bother denying her activism and seems to indicate that it is common practice for husbands and wives of judges to be politically active. In late 2009, Thomas started a nonprofit lobbying group, Liberty Central, to organize conservative activists, issue score cards for Congress members, and be involved in elections.[25] The group is aimed at opposing what Thomas has called the leftist "tyranny" of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats and "protecting the core founding principles" of the nation.[26] Thomas was interviewed by Sean Hannity on his Fox News show Hannity in June 2010. When asked about potential conflicts between her Liberty Central activities and her husband's position, Thomas replied, "there are a lot of judicial wives and husbands out there causing trouble. I'm just one of many."

Now I know that this isn't going to go over well with the flying monkeys of the right who have been brain washed into spewing out the words "cut funding" whenever the letters are mentioned but as NPR and PBS go out of their way to be impartial and unbiased while the Supreme Court has become an unapologetic tool of big money interests since veering to the right, so why not let NPR decide what is or isn't constitutional and cut funding for the Supreme Court? 

by Charles Leach

_________________________________________

Romney's America

Is this really the future that Mitt Romney has planned for our country?

_________________________________________

I hope Robert Reich is Correct:

"You Can't Stop This Once It's Started"

_________________________________________

People "Are Occupying Wall Street Because Wall Street Has Occupied the Country"

Our politicians are little more than money launderers in the trafficking of power and policy -- fewer than six degrees of separation from the spirit and tactics of Tony Soprano.......

Bill Moyers

Click Title for Full Article

_________________________________________

Can America still Govern?

Ever wonder how our paralyzed polarized dysfunctional Federal Politics looks to others?   

The Economist (british) pod cast lamenting America's desperate need for a pragmatic center.  

_________________________________________

Mitt say's he is for the middle class - and manages it with a straight face:

Regressive nature of Estate Tax repeal:

As you may already be aware, Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney would like to eliminate the estate tax.

(see Article:Romney’s Estate Tax Cut Would Save The Koch Brothers Up To $8.7 Billion Each)

You may not recognize the term “Estate Tax” because in classic GOP propaganda form the Estate tax has been carefully renamed the “Death Tax”. They have succeeded in convincing most Americans that the Estate Tax is wholly un-American and likely to steal from our children - all of us - from the well-to-do clear down to those who pass from this world with no appreciable property or assets.

Well, let me do something here that the GOP would rather I not do. I will lay out the facts and let you decide.

While fewer than 2% of America’s Richest estates are at all affected by the estate tax, the interest on the ensuing increase of the Federal Deficit/ loss of Federal revenue will be a burden borne by You, Me, our children and their children and every citizen of the United States who is currently, or in the future expected to pay income tax. This is because the elimination of the estate tax will bring further regressiveness to our once progressive tax code. How?  Over the next ten years, the Estate tax will account for approximately 1% of the Federal Revenue  ($368 Billion). By eliminating the estate tax, America’s top 2% will further shift the tax burden to you and me.

The estate tax reduces for a few (less than 2% of Americans) the amount of unearned income they receive for nothing other than having the fortunate circumstance of being born to exceptional wealth (the upper 2% of society). The elimination of the estate tax will effectively reduce the amount of earned income every hard-working Americans will keep while simultaneously eliminating the only protection afforded against an unfettered emergence of an American Aristocracy of Privilege.  You know, the yoke of hereditary privilege against which our founding fathers railed:

 “All hereditary government is in its nature tyranny.” “Hereditary succession . . . is in its nature an absurdity, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary. . . . History informs us that the son of Solomon was a fool.” “To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second . . . is an insult and an imposition on posterity.”- Thomas Paine, Common Sense.

And in America today – a plutocracy where money reigns supreme and has been officially enthroned by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling- money is  government. Our senior Senator form Kentucky has vigorously defended money as free speech. 

Thomas Paine later extended his argument specifically to inherited wealth while lobbying for the establishment of England’s Estate Tax and an early version of Social Security.

The estate tax is paid only once, and from those who had already lived their life. The cost of eliminating the estate tax will be paid by all of us yearly- and likely increase yearly – forever, due to the cost of servicing our increasing federal deficit - and/or the Social Security Trust fund will be completely depleted - thus, potentially depriving the average American of a significant portion of their retirement security in order to ensure that the heirs of unearned millions and or billions will contribute nothing back to a Nation that has blessed them with great comfort and fortune.

While the concept of an estate tax is traced back to real American patriots such as Thomas Paine and Theodore Roosevelt, its elimination has been brought to you by those who hide behind the stars and stripes, while they blatantly demonstrate their never ceasing affinity for the wealthiest few percent of America – even dead ones – at the expense of the rest of us. These pseudo-patriots have unanimously declared that their love of country does not extend to supporting America with even a fraction of the windfall that they reaped from the nation they proclaim to love.

Elimination of the estate tax will enable the heirs of multi-millionaires and billionaires to keep an extra $68 billion in inherited fortunes by 2013, and another $820 billion in lost revenue between 2014 and 2023.

The elimination of the Estate tax means the loss of 1% of Federal Revenue – and our two party show down will refuse any pragmatic off sets by a commensurate reduction in federal spending, therefore further increasing our already unsustainable, grossly irresponsible, and future robbing National debt and or reduction in the vary things that have helped make these individual fortunes possible.

The GOP continues to attempt to appeal to the common man or women by propagating myths such as Family Farms are in jeopardy due to the Estate Tax. They allude to multitudes of farms lost to future generations as a direct result of the Estate tax.  I would be generous to suggest that this was not out-right disinformation or a lie.

At a June 17, 2003 press conference, Tom Bius from the National Farmers Union, which represents over 300,000 small farmers, called on Congress to "stop using farmers to front for complete estate tax repeal." The Farmers Union, at that time, supported reforming the estate tax, but not its complete repeal. The pro-repeal American Farm Bureau, at that time, had failed to produce a single example of a farm lost because of the estate tax, and appropriate reform of the estate tax could easily assure that the family farm would be unaffected by estate tax.  I would suggest that the law be crafted to exempt any true family farm that continues as a productive agricultural venture to be exempt from an estate tax.  However, if the inheritors of the farm were to sell it within a defined period of time- say 10 years -  then the proceeds would be subject to estate tax.

The truth is, however, that the GOP used the image of the family farm simply to further an agenda intended only the save Heirs of America’s top 2% from contributing a single penny of their unearned windfall to the federal treasury.

And if your heart still bleeds for those few potentially afflicted by an estate tax and you are comfortable with the continued federal budget hemorrhage, lets me direct your attention to the fact that the top 1% of Americans currently possess over 40% of our nations wealth, which is twice the concentration of wealth of 1970. And if you still think that our richest 2% need to be protected, consider that in 2002 the Mars family (net worth $30 billion as of 2003), spent $1 million (.003% of their fortune) to lobby for the complete repeal of the estate tax. Their heirs and many others have benefited from the successful buy out of your representatives, and secured billions in un-earned and un-taxed income, while breaking the cycle of public investment from which they have disproportionally benefited.

 

Eliminating the estate tax will increase the federal deficit, shift the tax burden onto those less able to pay and jeopardizes Medicare and Social Security on which millions of Americans depend, and removes a major incentive for philanthropy – which will likely result in major declines in charitable giving, placing many of our civic institutions in jeopardy.

At the heart of the case for retaining the estate tax is recognition that none of us gets to where we are alone. Although I do not seek to discredit individual hard work or creativity, the fact remains that the United States is conducive to the creation of great wealth thanks to public investments made over generations, funded in part by estate taxes.  As I have stated in previous articles (please excuse the repetition), the idea that any man is self-made and owes nothing to society is flawed.  They have benefited from an extensive infrastructure – transportation, energy, etc. They have benefited from a skilled workforce secondary to public investment in public schools and colleges. They have benefited from a stable business environment that attracts investment. They have benefited from national security, law enforcement, public health promotion, government R&D, and the list goes on.  It is appropriate to expect that those who have benefited the most from the advantages of being an American should be willing to continue the investment in America.

Ronald Leach

Brandenburg KY  

ronleach4ky@gmail.com

_________________________________________

Before Bank of America, Before Too Big to Fail

Banking In a bygone Era

By Charles Roger Leach

 

Almost all of the "experts" seem to agree that the current economic melt down was initiated by banks and financial institutions engaging in risky ventures to make a quick buck and they all throw words and phrases like derivatives, credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, upside down in equity, and toxic assets while explaining what went wrong. Not being an "expert", I'm not going to use fancy phrases I don't really understand to explain what went wrong. Instead, operating on the theory that one needs to know how something is supposed to work in order to fix it, I'm going to ask you to accompany me on a journey back in time to when banks were banks and the system still worked.  

 

The year was 1975 and my family had moved back from the Philadelphia area where I had just resigned as VP of marketing for a company that was being    bankrupted by unscrupulous top management whose only interest was in making a fast buck for themselves but that is another story. My new job as regional salesman for another company would allow us to live practically anywhere in the Midwest but while renting a house near Felicity we were seeking a small farm fairly close to Cincinnati where my wife Ruth and I grew up and still had family. On the way home from a customer in Columbus I happened upon a small farm for sale near Lynchburg, and upon a brief inspection with my wife decided to make an offer. What we saw, and fell in love with was an old farmhouse on 19 acres with cute little hollows and valleys along the southern edge. What we didn't see was a house that winter winds rushed through so strongly that they blew matches out and sink holes under the little valleys that opened up after heavy rains and threatened to swallow the barn but that is a story for another time. This story is about getting a home loan from the bank in Lynchburg.

 

After our offer was accepted I stopped in at the Farmers Exchange Bank in Lynchburg to apply for a loan. When I told a lady behind a desk that I wanted to see someone about a home loan she got up, walked to the only private office in the place, stuck her head in, said something to someone inside and motioned for me to go in. Without an appointment I found myself being interviewed, if that is what it could be called, by the bank president Mr. Rosselott himself. After we exchanged a few pleasantries, probably about the weather, the elderly bank president asked what he could do for me. I told him that I needed a loan to buy a home in the area and he asked where it was. Upon being told where it was he leaned back, smiled and said, "The Old Gilland place" followed immediately by "how much do you need and what will you put down".  As soon as I told him he said "no problem", asked when we wanted to close. The deal was done in little more time than it took for me to tell about it and the bank President stood, sealed it with a handshake and told me to give the lady behind the desk outside his office my contact information. Not being able to believe what had just happened I said, "Wouldn't you like to know if I have a job or anything?” He smiled again and said, "You seem like a man who will always be able to find a good job to me and your getting the place for a good price. If you can't make the payments I wouldn't mind owning the place myself." 

 

Evidently the people who made what are now called "Toxic Loans" that brought about the current economic crisis didn't bother checking out the applicant’s finances either but there is where the similarity ends. The old Lynchburg banker knew the property well and what it was worth. The people writing the toxic loans probably didn't even know if properties existed. The old Lynchburg banker accepted responsibility if he made a bad loan. The people making the toxic loans were probably getting commissions or bonuses based on how many loans they made and the loans were being sold to third or forth parties so they and the organization they worked for had nothing to loose if the loan went bad. The old Lynchburg banker probably owned the bank or at least controlling interest in it and his fortunes were tied to its success or failure while the executives of todays large banks make millions, even as they drive them into bankruptcy, and will probably get millions more if they are forced to resign. 

 

Last but most important is the fact that the old Lynchburg banker was making a loan when there were plenty of jobs available for intelligent hard working people and when Lynchburg still was a center for a thriving farming community, not in a time when most high paying manufacturing jobs had been exported and most small farmers had been driven from the land. He was making a loan when the tax rate for top income people was over 70% and millions of people were earning good livings building an infrastructure instead of in a time when the upper income tax rate has been more than cut in half, when many super rich people use tax dodges to avoid paying any taxes at all and when the infrastructure is being allowed to crumble instead of being maintained. Today, even many of the most qualified people are unemployed. Today engineers who could be helping rebuild our economy are standing in bread lines. Today Scientists who could be creating new sources of energy or finding cures for cancer are vying for part time jobs selling goods made in China. Today auto company workers who once made the magic carpets on which Americans rode coast to coast and who migrated to Florida for winter vacations are migrating to tent cities springing up all over the country. 

 

Sure high tech jobs have been created in the last couple of decades but the ones connected to manufacturing have been mostly in other countries and the ones not manufacturing connected have primarily been in health care, with people who still pay taxes and future generations paying the bills for people who can not afford health insurance, in finance creating ways for people to mortgage more and more of their and their children's future, in marketing products made by people overseas and in providing the means by which people can instantly send photographs of Brittany Spears sightings to Entertainment Tonight. 

 

Want to fix the economy? Its simple! Get back to where a banker who knows the local real estate market can accept the risk of loaning home mortgage money to apparently intelligent people who can afford to make a significant down payment, knowing that they will always be able to find a decent paying job.  Lets get back to where local farmers produce most of the fresh food in markets instead of people in Chili. While we are at it, lets insist that jobs that entail primarily the transfer of wealth from hard working Americans to parasites who live off the life blood of the country pay no more than what an average American earns instead of millions of dollars.

 

Charles Roger Leach

 

 

_________________________________________

Romney’s Estate Tax Cut Would Save The Koch Brothers Up To $8.7 Billion Each

By Pat Garofalo on Nov 3, 2011 at 4:20 pm

Mitt Romney speaking at a Koch summit in previous years; David Koch speaking at his own gala

Tomorrow, 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is slated to give a “major spending policy speech” at Americans For Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream Summit. Both the conference and AFP itself are funded by money from the billionaire Koch Brothers. ........FULL ARTICLE

_________________________________________

A Response to Misrepresentation of OWS Protesters

I just wanted to take a moment to respond to the negative comments that are being made about the Occupy Wall Street movement:

These people who are saying that it is a liberal movement, are wrong. Those who say OWS protesters need to go get jobs need to understand that many of them are there to let Wall Street know that they have searched and searched for a job and have seen one door close after another. This movement is not being led by a bunch of lazy whiners. It is being lead by the people, who are facing insane unemployment rates, ridiculously high college tuition rates, fluctuating gas prices, unfair tax policies, public school budget cuts that are eliminating more jobs and cutting out arts programs and are running out of options. Occupy protesters are people who don't think it's fair to be left with the options of unemployment or military service. What kind of choice is that - be unable to pay bills and put food on the table or to face deployment to a conflict we never should have involved ourselves with (Hey, Bush - where are those WMDs?)?

Occupy protesters aren't angry at the right wing or the left; they are angry with politics and the current state of a nation that is failing to uphold it's promise to the people. The OWS movement isn't about taking sides; it is about joining together accross party lines to do right by the people; it's about how CORPORATIONS ARE NOT THE PEOPLE and do not deserve to be treated as such. Occupy Wall Street is about how the top 1% gets richer and richer while the rest of us struggle more every day. It's about making the top 1% pay society back for the opportunities that made it possible for them to rise to the top. It is about fairness, equality, and justice.

The protesters are recent grads who are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in debt and can't find jobs, even with degrees from America's top universities. They are grandparents who worked hard their whole lives and still can't afford their medications, let alone birthday presents for their grandkids. They are current students who know that if things don't change, they have no hope for a good future. They are parents who can't afford private schools and know that the public school system is failing. They are civilians and military, right wing and left, young and old, male and female. They are straight edge and pot heads. They are hippies and bussiness people. THEY ARE THE 99%.

For more from this Contributor  go to

http://wordsofel.blogspot.com/

_________________________________________

Insulated from the Masses, Protected from OUR Reality

America's Upper Echelon Live Safely in a Completely Separate America

 

 

Crumbling Infrastructure, no problem - for the other America

No doubt Audi did not intend or expect to offend with the ad pictured above.  However, I do take offense. While I do not necessarily think the Audi A6 is “the car” of the ultra rich ( the 1% that have brought the Occupy Wall Street and “We are the 99%” folks to the streets), I do believe the message is clear. This car is marketed to offer one more way for the upper echelons of our society to remove themselves from the decay and deterioration that the rest of us have had thrust upon us as the wealth and means of our nation’s very survival have steadily been accumulated by the 1%.  Don’t worry that the highway system and generally infrastructure - built and paid for by prior generations under a progressive revenue system that expected the rich to contribute to the wellbeing of a nation – is deteriorating all around.  Simply buy this car ($41,700 to $56,780 depending on options), the ad suggests, and you may be insulated form the collapse of our infrastructure.

Safe and Secure behind high walls and Security gates. And this newest extravagant means of further separation can be driven safely through their high security gates while coming and going from their fortress homes that alleviate the rich from the risk of mingling with the unclean masses.  They can even avoid proximity to us in stores or grocery; simply send the staff. Never mind that the wealthy often make their fortunes on the backs of the lower classes, and have seen their rise chiefly through the destruction of American  labor and the middle class. Their fortunes are HEAVILY subsidized and protected by  a tax code that has become truly regressive. The money earned by nothing but the fortunate situation of having money to invest (rather than living pay check to pay check like the majority of Americans) -i.e. capital gains - are taxed at an equal or lower rate than all but our poorest bracket! 

Our suffering public education system; again, is not their concern.  They simply send their children to private schools (average annual cost per student for Non-sectarian (non-religious) private schools $17,316 in 2007-08).  When it comes time for College, their children will have no problem affording the best Universities, and will often be guaranteed admission -regardless of academic merit- because of a parent’s alumni status (GW did not have the academic record to get into a public Texas University, but had no problem getting into his fathers alma mater, Princeton). As for the rest of us? Well, in the words of James McMurtry’s song We Can’t Make it Here “They can join the Air Force or join the Corp if they can’t make it here anymore” (video and song linked), or alternatively leave college with insurmountable debt.

CLICK for MORE FACES of the 99%

Healthcare?  "Americans have the best medical care in the world" was the refrain heard from those staunch defenders of the profit first people second status quo during the 2009 healthcare reform debate. And for the wealthy and the dwindling numbers of Americans with comprehensive health insurance, this is true. The problem is that this is not the reality for the greater than 40 million uninsured and the tens of millions of underinsured Americans who are only one major illness or injury away from destitution. International data places the U.S. in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality. And if the data divided the nation as does wealth – ie. The bottom 90% analyzed as the separate nation we have become – I suspect the performance of our healthcare system would rank average among most second world/developing nations.

CLICK for MORE FACES of the 99%

But again, this is not an issue for those in the other America, those behind their security walls with their children in private schools, and with the best healthcare money can buy. They are doing quite well with the current system 

 CLICK for Graphic Demonstrations of the Failures of Supply Side/Reagonomics 

At the heart of what separates the aspirations of a nation as represented by the Occupy Wall Street/”We are the 99%” folks and the GOP’s quest for a new feudalism  -in the midst of despair, fear and division - is our recognition that none of us gets to where we are alone. I do not seek to discredit individual hard work or creativity, but the fact remains that the United States had been conducive to the creation of great wealth and entrepreneurial success thanks to a public investments made over generations.  The idea that any man or woman is wholly self-made and owes nothing to society is flawed.  They have benefited from an extensive infrastructure – transportation, energy, communication, etc. They have benefited from a skilled workforce secondary to public investment in public schools, community colleges, and universities. They benefited from a stable business environment underpinned by sensible regulation that attracted investment. They have benefited from national security, law enforcement, public health promotion, government R&D, and the list of public investments goes on.  It is appropriate to expect that those who have benefited the most from the advantages of  American should be willing to continue the investment in America. The OWS movement recognizes the need to re-instill responsibility, reasonable regulation and sustained investment as well as the consequences that our abdication of these vital investments and responsibilities has wrought over the years of GOP domination.

The key difference between the radical right with their  Plutocrat sponsors and the rest of us - the 99%- is that we are less concerned with how much wealth the top 1% can continue to accumulate or leave their children and grandchildren, and more focused on what kind of America will be left for their children and ours.

 

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

-Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906

 

I think Teddy - once a Republican -would be rooting for OWS.

 

IT'S TIME THAT WE WERE ONE AMERICA AGAIN – E Pluribus Unum

No more privatized gains for the few, and socialized losses for America.

No more their America, at the expense of the majority of America.

 

Ronald Leach

Brandenburg, KY

ronleach4ky@gmail.com

_________________________________________

Losing Their Immunity

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 16, 2011

"As the Occupy Wall Street movement continues to grow, the response from the movement’s targets has gradually changed: contemptuous dismissal has been replaced by whining. (A reader of my blog suggests that we start calling our ruling class the “kvetchocracy.”) The modern lords of finance look at the protesters and ask, Don’t they understand what we’ve done for the U.S. economy?

The answer is: yes, many of the protesters do understand what Wall Street and more generally the nation’s economic elite have done for us. And that’s why they’re protesting......"

Click for Entire Op-ED

_________________________________________

CBO Report on Wealth Polarization

We have been feeling it for quite a while now,  the Occupy Wall Street folks and the "We are the 99%" campaign have been shouting it in the streets.  Now a Congressional Budget Office report has confirmed it.  

"For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007".......

Summary of Report:

"Increased Concentration of After-Tax Income"

"the share of household income after transfers and federal taxes going to the highest income quintile grew from 43 percent in 1979 to 53 percent in 2007 (see Summary Figure 3). The share of after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the popu- lation with the highest income more than doubled, climbing from nearly 8 percent in 1979 to 17 percent in 2007."

"The population in the lowest income quintile received about 7 percent of after-tax income in 1979; by 2007, their share of after-tax income had fallen to about 5 per- cent. The middle three income quintiles all saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points between 1979 and 2007."

CLICK for FULL CBO REPORT

_________________________________________

Four Reasonable and Pragmatic OWS Demands

1.  REINSTATE GLASS STEAGALL

2. AUDIT THE FED

3. Reverse CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION BY AMENDMENT

4. OVER HAUL TAX CODE THAT SERVES ONLY THE TOP 1%

VIDEO BY DCDOUGLAS.COM

_________________________________________

72 years of Life Lessons

 Why one man believes what he does instead of what Rush Limbaugh tells him he should believe

by Charles Leach

Influencing how the public thinks was probably the number one growth industry in the United States even before the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision opened the doors to unlimited big  money pouring into the political process. Big money interests had already pretty much seized control of the public airwaves and major publications, right wing funded think tanks were already turning out enough material to fill said airwaves and publications with right wing propaganda and right wingers had taken over school boards across the country and were having text books and school curriculums adjusted to reflect their views. To highlight how much money was available, and would be spent to continue the brainwashing of the general public, Rush Limbaugh was signed to a ten year, 400 million dollar contract to continue promoting plutocracy. Although in its infancy, the Occupy Wall Street movement shows that the general public is starting to question the wisdom of accepting plutocracy but I fear that, like the tea party movement, it may be hijacked or may settle for playing the blame game instead of taking a hard look at problems, abandoning beliefs that don't apply, and seeking actual solutions. I for one have never gone along with most of the what I consider the garbage that the general public has been lead to believe for the last three decades plus because my life experiences would not allow me to do so. I hope that the Occupy Wall Street  movement is the glimmer of light signifying the dawning of a new day in which new beliefs are formed to lead the country back to where everyone, not just the chosen few, has the opportunity to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Until then I humbly offer lessons I learned in life for consideration................

SEE FULL STORY

_________________________________________

WE ARE THE 99 PERCENT

"We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we're working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent." 

Brought to you by the people who occupy wall street. Why will YOU occupy?

OccupyWallSt.org

Occupytogether.org

westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com

parentsforoccupywallst.com

_________________________________________

So what can $1.2 Billion Buy?

Well, for the Banking and Financial sector it has bought two political parties, your "democracy", and any lingering chance of the "American dream".

Why are the Occupy Wall Street folks taking to the street instead of placing their faith in a future ballot remedy? BECAUSE BOTH PARTES have been BOUGHT BY BANKS and the financial sector. $1.2 BILLION in campaign contributions since 1989!  And before we get on our soap box as progressives and proclaim that the GOP is the greater offender, look at the link. 48% to GOP, 45% to DEMs (7% to other), and Our current "progressive" President has already raked in nearly $3 million more than GW Bush did and has a cumulative total of greater than $16 million. Pretty impressive for such a short political career. Our Democratic Party sold its soul to the Financial Sector when President Clinton pushed through deregulation that even Reagan could not accomplish - particularly the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Payoffs to both parties have been pretty much even ever since.

Ron Leach

Click for Bigger Graph

Graph from zerohedge.com

_________________________________________

We Need LEADERS,  Not LOOTERS

In the U.S. Army, we are expected to exemplify values contained in the Acronym LDRSHIP. Loyalty-Duty-Respect Selfless Service Honor-Integrity-Personal Courage. These values are expected of our troops and demanded of our leaders. I believe our corporate leaders must adopt these values if we are to remain competitive in a global market. The sheer greed of CEOs is disloyal to their communities, their employees and the best interest of our Nation. The ever- widening disparity between CEOs and their workers is unethical, disrespectful to working men and women, dishonorable, and completely lacking in integrity. If American business is to compete in the global economy, CEOs must become leaders rather than looters. To do otherwise is immoral, inconsistent with our American values and truly puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage in the global market.

FOR MORE go to AMERICAN WORKER page

_________________________________________

Roosevelt Sums up GOP Today

_________________________________________

The DATA REFUTES REAGANOMICS

For the Data and Facts Geeks among us,  Please see Graphic Demonstration of the FAILURE of Trickle Down/Reaganomics that the GOP continues to worship.

HISTORICALLY LOW TAXES For Richest Americans, Corporations, Capital Gains, Dividends - Yet the Economy flounders and Debt Spirals - First Graph pulled from Internet Dispels GOP claims on Taxes. The fact is they are HISTORICALLY LOW

DEBT and SLUGGISH GDP While the Rich Get Richer - The second Graph that I created shows the Effects of Reagan/GOP Tax policy on the Federal Deficit (SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL), Increasing wealth of top 1% and the general lack luster growth in GDP since Reagan (and the continued adherence to Reagan Economics)

MOST AMERICANS LEFT BEHIND - The Third Graph Shows how the Vast Majority of Americans (90%) have seen no real gains over the past 30 years while the top 1% have been enriched all while the deficit spirals out of control (see graph #2)

POST REAGAN WEALTH CONCENTRATION - Forth Graph demonstrated the steady rise in wealth accumulation as the top 10% take a ever more disproportionate share of our nations wealth while 90 percent of us are left behind (see graph #3)

HISTORIC TAX RATES FOR MARRIED TAX PAYERS FILING JOINTLY by income brackets.  The Fifth Graph shows the dramatic drop from Reagan to present for the TOP EARNERS, while no significant change for the vast majority of Americans.  Not what you will here from the supply sider Reagan worshipers, but this is reality.   Federal Debt (see Graph 2)  has spiraled out of control in synch with historically unprecedented tax cuts to the top margins.

See Graphs 

_________________________________________

Wake Up America

How the Election of Ronald Reagan began our Collapse

The run up to the 1980 election was a troubled time in the United States and, as is the case today, many Americans were dissatisfied with what was going on and seeking reassurance that life would get better – though without sacrifice on their part. That being the case the choice between three candidates running for president was pretty simple........

by Charles Leach

Please see FULL ARTICLE

_________________________________________________

AGAINST OURSELVES

Plutocracy reigns supreme in the United States, our Democracy has been hijacked, and the electorate has been manipulated into rage against their own and America's best interest - against  "E pluribus Unum", against the interests of 99 percent of us, against future generations, and the continued greatness of the United States

 

Americans are anxious, upset, and ANGRY.  This anxiety and anger is reasonable - the problem is, their anger has been co-opted by an élite few – the Koch brothers, Cores Brothers, Corporate sponsored “Think Tanks”, etc…..- and skillfully used to continue accumulation of all under control of few......

Please see FULL ARTICLE

______________________________________________________________________

Aren't We Already Doing That?

Debunking Perry's "Texas Miracle"

By Charles Leach

9 SEP 2011

The big push from Republicans is to put Rick Perry in the White House so that he can do for the whole country what he has done for Texas. At the outset there is one small problem in visualizing Rick Perry as some sort superman who, once installed as President, is going to magically turn everything around. How is someone who promises to " Make Washington as inconsequential in your life as I can" going to have Washington solve a nations problems?  If he intends to do absolutely nothing why doesn't he say so instead of touting his experience and when is the corporate media going to actually tell the whole story about the so called Texas Miracle?

Please see FULL ARTICLE  

______________________________________________________________________

_