The Big Three: Belly-up or Bailout?

Now the big three American automakers have made their great journey to the "Land of Milk and Honey" that we call D.C., and they have their hands extended for a bailout. And really, who can blame them? They have seen the federal government give out $750 billion to the financial world, and they want their piece while the getting's good. Unlike Wall Street, Detroit can actually lay claim to making a product that many citizens are reliant on. While it's true that the populace can look elsewhere for automobiles (and many in fact do), it also must be noted that between those who actually work directly for the "Big Three", and all the ancillary companies that support the industry, there are approximately 2.5 million jobs at stake.

I find it completely understandable that folks are resisting forking over more funds for corporations that have a long tradition of mismanagement. I've read estimates that General Motors is losing $1 billion a month. The outstanding question is, "Will any low-interest government loan amount to throwing good money after bad?" If the policies and strategies of car manufacturers in the United States don't change, then there is no reason to believe that an injection of $25 billion into the industry will do anything other than delay its inevitable failure. Still we are told that GM is on the cusp of finally unveiling the Chevy Volt. Maybe this is the chunk of change that will finally put the product over the top?

It's pretty obvious that the reliance on making high-profit SUVs and other large model cars has put these automakers in dire straits. It was fine when gas was consistently cheap... the marketing campaigns were effective enough to convince many suburb/exurbanites that they needed these things for their family trips back-and-forth to Walmart. Once a substantial number were on the road, ownership of such inefficient machines was seen as a status symbol. Then it was easy to justify buying one because you needed to keep up just to be safe among the other behemoths of the road. It was a self-perpetuating cycle that was only stymied by the steep increases in fuel prices. Of course after that it was difficult to give them away.

Still, those who favor such profligate consumer lifestyle choices will say that the state of the "Big Three" has nothing to do with SUVs, but rather the salaries and benefits of unionized auto employees. It's easy to surf the net and find people bitching about "luxury" dental plans and "undeserved" wage increases. Their position is that if we just adjust worker compensation to fall in line with those in third world nations, then we'll be truly competitive. The answer, according to these "free market" capitalists, is "let them go into bankruptcy" so that they don't have to honor their labor contracts. They insist that the preservation of decent jobs is not the business of our national government.

However, I'm convinced that the "Big Three" is going to get their assistance no matter what. The only question is where the money is going to come from. Henry Paulson doesn't want to break it off from the ridiculously large sum he has been given to play with, without oversight. That's for the investment banks. He suggests that Congress take the sum from the legislative allocation that has been made to encourage the production of fuel-efficient cars. But Democrats are not going for it. Apparently they are sick of seeing these large corporations place all their concerns on short-term profits at the expense of technological investments that could serve them well in the future. I can't say I blame them. It sickens me too.

NOTE: One suggestion I've come across that seems just (but not likely) is to pressure oil companies (that have made record profits over the last several years) to extend low interest loans to the automakers. Of course if that did happen, there would need to be close governmental supervision to avoid any resulting influence that Exxon/Mobil would have on the "Big Three". That's already a bit of an unholy alliance.

Ding-Dong, the Witch is Dead. Now What?

There have been a lot of theories tossed around during the last several months to explain the economic crisis that has finally hit the United States. Perhaps it's because the effects of the long-brewing situation intensified during a presidential election, but it's notable just how political so many of the explanations have been. So many citizens are curious as to how the arcane manipulations of the system are going to hit them. For too long, otherwise intelligent and informed folks have taken it for granted that the markets work themselves out over time. There was no great perceived need for the populace to follow along too closely. I am certainly guilty of giving the workings of the economy little consideration.

It's become imperative that I drop my personal distaste for the details of the economy. Everyone seems to agree that we are in for a long period of tumult, and many are sure that we are entering a period of depression. How is that going to affect me and my family? How can I ensure the value of the money I have saved over a period of years? What is my life going to look like if shit really hits the fan? No doubt there are a lot of people asking themselves the same exact questions nowadays. But where can someone with little background in economics turn for substantial answers to these questions? It stands to reason that anything that has been said in the midst of a presidential election should be viewed with skepticism.

I do have recourse to a couple of friends that have been paying attention to the markets for a long time. These individuals have developed perspectives that go beyond the simple conclusion that we are "screwed". They offer insights into what may happen over the next several years. Still, it's obvious that no one can say for sure. People can't even agree on the reasons why we are in this terrible position in the first place. If you've been paying attention, you have no doubt heard from some "free market" capitalists that it's actually the fault of what little regulation has existed in the housing markets over the last decade. These guys are still pimping 80's-era mythology. The last refuge of the ideologue is denial.

Yet there are still "conservatives" that will blame the entire Wall Street debacle on Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and the Community Reinvestment Act. The blame (under this theory) rests solely at the feet of low income (minority) borrowers that got in over their heads with mortgages that they could never afford. If you research the numbers, you discover quite quickly that this is a smokescreen. The percentage of subprime mortgages that were mandated by the CRA is minimal. There were people from all over the class spectrum taking out loans that exceeded the amounts that conventional wisdom dictated as prudent. Who was responsible for perpetuating the myth that housing values would increase by exorbitant amounts forever?

Naturally there were others (besides Clinton) identified as culprits. Alan Greenspan refused to raise interest rates despite the cautionary warnings that observers were delivering. Greenspan, a disciple of objectivist Ayn Rand and true believer in the "free market", failed to recognize the housing bubble until it was much too late to stave off the crisis of its resounding burst. As late as 2004 he was still encouraging prospective buyers to take out adjustable-rate mortgages. Greenspan's love affair with derivatives extended to mortgage-backed securities as well. He absolutely refused to entertain any regulations concerning these unproved and shaky financial instruments. Such tools have been identified as a further compounding cause of today's perilous economy.

Despite the fact that Greenspan was still trying to defend his outmoded libertarian views as late as this past April, he finally admitted his culpability on October 23, 2008, in testimony to Congress. In his dotage, Greenspan finally had to admit the fallibility of his lifelong commitment to "free market" ideology- "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity -- myself especially -- are in a state of shocked disbelief." Always admired for his qualities of understatement, when asked whether that meant his views had been wrong Greenspan responded, "Absolutely, precisely”. Little good that does us now. We'll pay the price of for his faith. But now that the "free market" witch is finally dead, what happens now?

"Socialism" Vs. Progressive Taxation.

In my earlier post about "Joe the Plumber", I wrote about how his elevation (by the McCain campaign and the Right Wing media) to the status of "middle class everyman" obscured the very real arguments being made about taxation in America. Apparently the majority of Americans are secretly seething about Obama's proposal to suspend the Bush tax cuts to the very wealthy. We are supposed to believe that 95% of America thinks that the richest 5% is overburdened by progressive taxation. Evidently no one realizes that we have reached the point where the interest on our national debt is approaching the amount we spend on our federal budget. How we are supposed to finance the government is increasingly an underexamined question.

We are in the midst of a financial crisis that is about to hit the American middle class with the force of a category 5 hurricane, and the GOP and its cronies have been trying to make the "socialist" brand stick to Barack Obama and his fiscal and domestic policy platform. I think that (once again) it's time to get our definitions straight. "Socialism" is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Progressive taxation obviously doesn't fall within the parameters of the definition. But this is what the extreme Right is referring to when it talks about its opponent's "socialist" policies.

Republicans would have you believe that the core principal of Socialism is income redistribution- "Take from the haves to give to the have nots." Not only is this crudely simplistic, but it is a Cold War-based lie that's been repeated since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Perhaps that's why the GOP is running on an anti-intellectual and anti-academic platform- because careful analysis exposes their argument for what it is. The US has been traditionally referred to as a "Capitalist" country. It is therefore illuminating that the vast majority of American economists (81%) support progressive taxation (SOURCE) and Obama's policy positions (SOURCE). But why should you bother listening to the experts when you have "your own" strong opinions?

What does a study of history tell us? If you are dead-set in changing the definition of the word "socialism" to include progressive taxation, then you have to accept that the USA has been socialist since 1862, when the first progressive income tax was passed in this nation (SOURCE). It is therefore an AMERICAN VALUE that has carried us through the years and helped us become a superpower. If you are against this tax policy, the case can be made that you are ANTI-AMERICAN. Naturally a "free market" idealogue is going to attempt to fight this conclusion using any means necessary. But the reality is that their alternative is a fantasy- "free markets" have never existed anywhere except in theory. It's a grand "utopian" fairy tale that wealthy people (and sycophants) have used to put the masses to sleep.

You often hear the "free market" dictum that “wealth creates wealth”. It’s not that there’s no merit to this argument. That’s why I don’t necessarily support “socialism”. But on the other hand, entrenched wealth creates obstacles to competition and innovation. The ideas that make men wealthy eventually become outdated with the changes in the environment. Yet wealthy men often have little incentive to adapt to those changes, because they risk losing their competitive advantage. They are more motivated to protect their wealth artificially by working to maintain the status quo. They have the resources to set the conditions to attain that end. Progressive taxation works against that stagnation.

Thomas Jefferson said, “"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I’m not in favor of class warfare or anarchic revolution. I believe in incremental social change. By shifting the tax burden on to the wealthy, you free up the middle class to provide new ideas to adapt to a changing society (and to put their own money behind these ideas)- something that the entrenched wealth of the upper classes has proved itself incapable of. Entrenched wealth stifles innovation and competition the same way ruling classes have in so-called "socialist" nations. Progressive taxation doesn't "punish" achievement. That's a ridiculous notion. It fosters enhanced economic class mobility, which is crucially necessary in encouraging the adaptation necessary over the long run.

Who is “Joe the Plumber”, Really?

A few days ago the American citizenry was introduced to a new political figure. He's a man named Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher, and he lives somewhere in Lucas County, outside of Toledo, Ohio. He came to national attention via an interaction he had with Barack Obama over the weekend. The candidate was canvassing door-to-door in Wurzelbacher's neighborhood on Sunday, when the two fell into a discussion about Obama's economic policy. "Joe" asked the Illinois senator if he believed in the "American Dream", and started peppering him with questions about taxes. A FOX News crew was there to record the entire exchange, and it was soon spread throughout the web.

When John Mccain's campaign learned of the footage, they apparently scrambled to integrate a narrative about "Joe the Plumber" into their debate strategy. A strange version of Wurzelbacher's "story" was introduced by John McCain right from the start. He portrayed "Joe" as someone who wanted to buy a small plumbing business, and was concerned that Obama's proposed tax structure would hurt him. McCain kept returning to "Joe" throughout the 90-minute contest, at one point exclaiming maniacally, "Congratulations Joe. You're rich!! You're rich". The Arizona senator made a point of pulling out a quote from the Obama/"Joe" recorded dialog that suggested that his opponent wanted to "spread the wealth around" in America*.

In the process, "Joe the Plumber" became a talking point and a minor celebrity. But it quickly became apparent after the debate that Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher wasn't exactly what he had at first seemed. To begin with, it turns out that "Joe" really isn't a plumber at all. He's neither licensed nor registered in the profession, and consequently not supposed to be practicing plumbing in Lucas County. Additionally he makes around $40,000 per year, and is in no position (as a divorced father) to buy the company he works for, or any other company for that matter. In fact he has several outstanding liens against his house, including one for neglecting to pay his property taxes.

"Joe the Plumber" is in a heap of trouble, and he has sacrificed his privacy for fifteen minutes on the national stage. He's been used by John McCain and the GOP, and is quickly replacing Sarah Palin as America's Greatest Joke. Rather than an entrepreneurial hero, it appears that Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher is merely yet another partisan tool to be exploited in the Republican's desperate attempt to hold onto political power. The ironic thing is that "Joe" would in fact benefit under Barack Obama's tax structure. When Barack Obama talks about "spreading the wealth", he's not talking about handouts. He's talking about shifting the very real tax burden of this nation on to the wealthiest members of society.

The entire "socialist" meme being pushed by the McCain/Palin ticket is a red herring. The reality is that there won't be any broad new social programs, no matter who is elected. The difficulty lies in financing the obligations that our society has already accrued. Our government is over $10 trillion in debt (when we include the money to be spent in the bailout), and the interest on that sum is astronomical. This is eroding international confidence in our currency. What "Joe the plumber" really represents is the large contingent of middle class schmucks that wouldn't recognize their enlightened self-interest if it bit them on their collective ass. People like Wurzelbacher, who still believe in realizing the "American Dream" through the "free market system" are drinking the Kool-Aid that is destroying our country.

* To really understand what transpired between Obama and Wurzelbacher, you have to see the complete video and/or read the trancript. You can do that HERE.

NOTE: If you didn't see it in the above link, you can find out how the McCain and Obama tax plans will affect you HERE.

EESA and the Transformation of American Economic Values.

Once again we are being told that the Wall Street bailout (I mean "rescue"... or is it "stabilization"?) was on the verge of accumulating enough votes to pass. The terms of the deal (now titled the "EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008") are available in complete and summary form on many sites throughout the Web. The fact that the breakdown of the bill was not presented in bullet form is a bit disconcerting. It's as if Congress wants the reader to work in order to understand it. The obfuscation written into all pieces of legislation inhibits most people from truly engaging proposed bills. If there is a truly "elitist" bent in modern-day American politics, it is most evident in this bipartisan approach to "transparency".

Make no mistake about it... the Democrats will own whatever bill eventually gets passed. Some will point out that the president can veto the bill, but it appears unlikely that any version will be voted on if that possibility exists. So the extent to which the EESA protects the interests of the taxpayer is determined by whatever concessions the Dems can wrangle from George W. Bush and Henry Paulson. Certainly House Republicans will try to take credit for introducing their own version of the legislation, but these claims will be mostly disingenuous. The fact is that the only addition they have contributed is a government-run insurance company for bad private investments (which seems like a function similar to that of AIG).

It's not like the small cabal of House Republicans* that were ushered into the White House by John McCain last Thursday didn't have a lengthy wishlist. But first and foremost, they wanted to test their economic theories of the "free market". At the heart of the matter, they are resolutely against any government intervention. In other words, they'd let the situation play itself out if it were left up to them- stability of the nation be damned. It doesn't really matter that the vast majority of national and international economists (from all points along the political spectrum) have warned that action is necessary to avert a major worldwide crisis. To give you a sense of where House Republicans are coming from, keep in mind that their main objective was to push for corporate and investor tax cuts to be included in the bill.

Despite what the disciples of pure economic theories believe, we are witnessing a major transformation in the way that global markets are managed. It is no longer possible to convince the majority that deregulation is an ultimate good. Those policies have allowed certain banking corporations to get so large that they can effectively hold the health of the country for ransom. This is effectively extortion by the very players that got us into this mess with their advocacy of completely unfettered markets. What I find particularly galling is that John McCain continues to enable those with this philosophy while simultaneously proclaiming himself the contemporary Teddy Roosevelt. This is a mortal insult to that great former president's legacy of trust-busting.

Now I'm not saying that I wholly support the bill that Congress turned down today. I would have preferred that the government simply offered loans at moderate interest rates, instead of offering to buy highly dubious assets at a reduced price. If these turn out to be worthless, the taxpayer would lose big under such a plan. I also appreciate the lip service devoted to regulation and oversight. We've heard that before, and for it to be effective government must attempt to be incorruptible. Still I am thankful that we don't have the Congress that presided over the economy for the first six years of Bush's presidency without confronting the impending collapse of Wall Street. If we've learned anything from the last ten years, it's that laissez faire capitalism is a potentially fatal strategy as it essentially rewards unlimited greed, borderline-criminal short cuts, and a dangerous degree of deception.


*The reponsible parties for inaction include John McCain, Eric Cantor (VA), Paul Ryan (WI), Jeb Hensarling (TX), John Carter (TX)... and ?

Mr. McCain Goes To Washington.

I’ve heard a lot of people from all different political persuasions weigh in on John McCain’s latest political gambit. Some were certain that it was a political trick to escape the debates. Others claimed that he was just acting out the essential risk-taking predisposition at the core of his personality. Quite a few suggested that the move was motivated by desperation. I’ve done a lot of thinking about John McCain’s motivations over the last twenty-four hours, and it finally occurred to me that there was a crucial component of the situation being overlooked. Could it be possible that McCain exercised his only option, given the situation on the ground?

Look at it this way… McCain is selling himself as a "maverick" that is willing to reach across party lines and work in a bipartisan fashion. Sure he flaked out when he realized that government intervention was necessary to “rescue” Wall Street from the position that it put itself in. He’s always been known as an impulsive guy. He genuinely wanted to believe that the “fundamentals of the economy were sound”. When he heard that the worst was yet to come, he went apoplectic. He looked around for a scapegoat and called for the head of SEC Chairman Christopher Cox (reportedly a long-time friend). Falling back on his long-held reputation as a proponent of free market Capitalism, he came out immediately against the bailout.

Let’s face facts. There is a base constituency that is at the heart of the GOP that is fundamentally devoted to completely deregulated “free markets”. Any Republican who has subscribed to this perspective cannot come out in favor of a government intervention, especially the likes of which the Bush Administration has proposed. To do so would expose him/her as a complete hypocrite. That’s the tragic flaw of the idealogue… they lock themselves in. On one level John McCain has always wanted to reassure this wing of his party that he is “on board”. Recall his proclamation to the Wall Street Journal on March 29, 2007- “You are interviewing the greatest free trader you will ever interview, and the greatest deregulator you will ever interview.”

It’s true that John McCain has always been attracted to hyperbole. But I trust that at his core, he really believed it when he said it. How galling it must have been to realize that he was caught up in a quagmire that demanded one of the largest government interventions in our history. And he also must have figured out that he couldn’t sit this one out. After all, he’s running to be the nation’s leader. Yet at the same time, he must have known that he would be essentially irrelevant to the process that would work out this issue. The Congress is controlled by Democrats, and like it or not any solution will be theirs to own. They don’t need a single Republican supporter, because whatever bill they work out with Bush and Co. will not be vetoed.

So what do you do if you are John McCain? Try to insert yourself and try to look useful… like a “statesman”. It doesn’t hurt if you can use the opportunity to threaten non-involvement in a crucially important presidential debate and criticize your opponent for continuing his campaign (while you step up your own). Now you (in your role of John McCain, after your 22-hour flight from New York City) are in Washington and completely superfluous- effectively shut out of the process and needing to look busy. If you try to muster your colleagues to join you in support of the legislation, you alienate them from those they claim to represent back home. If you are unable to get their support, then you look like a failure. If you join the Democrats, you look like a turncoat and a hypocrite.

The reward is entirely front-loaded. What’s to gain on the back end? All McCain has to look forward to is some good PR to offer to moderates and the undecided… that is, if he can get the press on his side. That’s going to be hard to do with the constant criticism he has directed at them over the last few weeks. And how does he vote for a “rescue” that he had no part in engineering, and still distinguish himself from Obama, whose side he has effectively joined? Who’s going to trust John McCain - the Republicans, the Democrats, or the media?

John McCain, "The Greatest Deregulator".

The US economy seems to be coming apart at the seams. The Federal Reserve recently announced its latest bail-out- the AIG Corporation. The Reserve has offered an $85 billion loan to be paid back over the course of the next two years. Of course this comes on the heels of government rescues of other private corporations like Bear-Stearns and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (which readers of this blog certainly do not have to be reminded of). It's interesting to note that previous to this latest action, federal officials importuned the private sector to come up with some funds to save a crucial cog in its machine, but alas, when true saving is required it seems the government is always the fallback plan.

This is especially galling given that the private sector bemoans government intervention whenever they perceive it as a risk to their unfettered pursuit of short-term profits. I can't tell you how many times I've had to listen to armchair economists and "libertarians" extol the virtues of the Private Sector, and its vast superiority at meeting the needs of the American citizenry. These folks push for deregulation at every turn, and turn their heads when their Wall Street idols extend their hands for more taxpayer dollars to save their collective ass. The fact is that their self-interest always overwhelms their principles. When push-comes-to-shove they remind us that we are all "collectivists" when we are in trouble.

So the financial markets continue to make crucial mistakes that we are asked to pay for when times are bad, and then fight tooth-and-nail against giving anything back when things are going "well". When any politician even hints about raising corporate taxes, he/she is branded a "socialist", yet when "free market" adherents get themselves and the nation's economy into a crisis and require corporate welfare from the government, they are quick to remind us that "we are all in this together." I'm no expert in economics (and neither are you), but it doesn't take a genius to realize that we are getting bilked. There are very real individuals exploiting the myth that Capitalists can do no wrong.

These corporate pirates build their "house of cards" and resent anyone who wants to take a close look at its foundation. According to their worldview, government is corrupt and inefficient and has nothing to offer in its regulatory capacity. That's why a guy with a record like John McCain is so alluring for them. By his own admission, he doesn't know much about economics either. But he does have a solid record of being anti-regulation. His most notable bipartisanship effort was his membership in the Keating Five. That esteemed group of senators ignited a major scandal as part of the Savings and Loan crisis of the 80's. It cost the American taxpayer more than an estimated $180 billlion.

So John McCain does know a thing or two about the perils of relinquishing government oversight of crucial US financial markets. So why does he take such great pains to remind us that he is the "Greatest Deregulator"?* Besides the fact that it is the one time he seems to be telling the truth, it could have something to do with his top economic advisors. In the 1990's, Phil Gramm worked overtime as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee to deregulate the banking and financial services industry. And then there is Carly Fiorina, whose biggest claim to fame so far is having been fired by Hewlett Packard for having engineered a failed merger with Compaq. Of course McCain mostly uses her to level charges of "sexism" against Barack Obama. But at least she admits that neither McCain or Palin have the executive experience to run a major corporation.





Bottom line- the "markets" are not going to sort themselves out. We need to start thinking on a longer-term basis. Neither John McCain nor his advisors can be trusted on the subject of the economy.


* “You are interviewing the greatest free trader you will ever interview, and the greatest deregulator you will ever interview”

-John McCain, As Quoted in The Wall Street Journal, March 29,2007.

Going Out of Business 2008-Style.

Wickes Furniture. Levitz. Sharper Image. KB Toys. Skybus. CompUSA. Select outlets in chains such as Eddie Bauer, Ann Taylor, Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug, Gap, Foot Locker, Zales, Sprint Nextel, Wilsons Leather,Pacific Sunwear, and Home Depot. General Motors (??) The last time I Googled "going out of business sale 2008" and limited my search to the previous month, I got 1,960,000 hits. Rumors of a coming recession from three years ago have morphed into concerns about a full-on, 30's-style Depression. Besides the fact that malls nationwide are going to get increasingly desolate, the amount of jobs cut is likely to be staggering. Perhaps Walmart will take up the slack, but somehow I doubt it.

In a society with members increasingly defined by consumer "lifestyle", there are going to be a lot of lost individuals stumbling about in the coming years. It might be a good time to look for identification elsewhere. When the shit hits the fan, it's not going to matter what brand of handbag you are carrying. Forget airplane travel... if you can afford to fill your tank, you will be deemed a success- especially if you still have a job to commute to. It's time to re-establish your relationships to the simpler pleasures in life. Take your kids to the park and the library. Have a good ol' fashioned backyard barbecue. Learn to enjoy gardening. Dig a well on the periphery of your property. Install solar panels. Buy a gun and learn to use it.

Things just may get nasty this time around. People have grown up expecting material prosperity. Very few folks planned on doing worse than their parents. Our youth have been force-fed on the myths of perpetual financial growth and the promise of unfettered Capitalism. But what happens when the bulk of the population figures out that it is really a zero sum game? I hope there are some natural barriers between your neighborhood and the poorer ones. Because a significant proportion of the population is going to be severely under-prepared for the coming hardships. And they are going to be desperate, and driven by a sense that they have nothing to lose. The concept of ill-gotten goods may disappear.

Some pundits will tell you to buy gold. They will point out that the US dollar is not officially backed up by anything. For the most part this is true. The perception of value is the only thing that underscores our currency. The truth is that cheap energy (in the form of oil) has bolstered our economy for years. Foreign nations have had to keep a reserve of US dollars in order to buy oil. Now several oil-producing countries are starting to accept other currencies. Sometime during the Bush Administration the US lost its superpower status. If that weren't the case, nobody would be suggesting you invest your wealth in precious metals. What's going unsaid is that gold lacks inherent value as well. There's no reason that people should agree to consider the substance precious- besides tradition.

Food. Clean Water. Fuel. Shelter. Guns. These things will retain their value no matter what happens in the world. But perhaps we won't get to that point. Maybe this whole thing is overblown. The federal government might just tighten up and maintain basic order. However the basic assumptions within our society will inevitably have to change. For those unstinting proponents of the "free market", there's a lot of frustration coming down the pike. How long do you really expect "socialism" to be considered an evil monster by a growing underclass? Without the promise of infinite wealth, collectivism looks increasingly attractive to frustrated citizens. Taxing the rich may not remain so unpopular in the near future. We may see a "Newer Deal" within our lifetimes. Or maybe we'll cease to exist as a coherent society.

What is a "Progressive" ?

I suspect that many people who characterize themselves as 'liberals' tend to have a more positive sense of humanity than others. Perhaps they believe that there is an innate sense of good in most people that will surely come out if it can only be nurtured. That's why they are always proposing legislation based in a deep compassion for the disadvantaged. Hungry people should be fed. Ignorant folks should be educated. The sick should be healed. If nothing else, it's a tremendously noble perspective. Life is not only about personal prosperity, but also about the well-being of the least among us. To suggest that one should only act to advance his/her own self-interest is anathema to liberals.

I'll confess to having the tiniest bit of vulnerability to this way of thinking. It's like the merest hint of conscience gnawing away at me from the back of my brain. I don't feel it in my heart or in my stomach. But I am aware of its existence. Truth be told I actively submerge it in day-to-day life, and it's not that difficult to do. When a stranger asks me for something, it's not hard for me to blow them off and justify the snub in one manner or another. When I was in college I was a bit of a 'bleeding heart' for a month or two, and I felt taken advantage of pretty regularly by the manipulative and duplicitous. So I don't lose very much sleep over denying beggars in the street. I don't actively contemplate the diseased and the weary.

It's true. No matter what some may think, I am assuredly not a 'liberal'. I'm pro death-penalty and against a welfare system that encourages its recipients to procreate. I'm ok with gun ownership and private property. However, don't insult me by calling me a 'Conservative'. In this day and age, there's not a lot worse you can say to me. As far as I'm concerned, that whole lot is exceedingly selfish, reactionary, and close-minded. They want to legislate morality, yet they refuse to assume personal responsibility for the problems of society. They fight abortion and birth control, yet have no plan to counter overpopulation. They stumble about, puking out phrases like "laissez faire capitalism" and "free markets", as if they were vital components of a new American religion. Quite simply I am sickened by all of that nonsense.

Where does this leave me? If I'm not 'red' or 'blue', then what exactly am I? Despite the inherent problems with the phraseology, I guess I'd have to classify myself as a "progressive". And I hate that word almost as much as the other labels. I reject the fundamental notion of 'progress'. Many of the things classified under this banner have been manifestly bad for life on Earth. Suburban developments, agribusiness, SUV's, expansion, sprawl, aggressive militarism, rampant consumerism, working overtime, corporate welfare, etc.- I question the classification of these 'advancements'. It's a tricky notion to precisely describe my politics. When I call myself a "progressive", I'm speaking in the old sense of the word.

Progressives reject ideology and dogma. They recognize these forces as antithetical to civil discourse. They solve problems by studying the environment in which they occur, identifying root causes, and attempting to develop plans to correct their root causes. This isn't a theoretical approach to society. It's essentially pragmatic. Progressive priorities include minimizing government corruption, regulating corporations, protecting the environment, and improving health care and education. This means that, while I don't want to see the government spending inefficiently, I do not bitch about having to pay my taxes. I recognize myself as an individual, as a member of the human race, and as a partner in the stewardship of the planet. Finding the balance between these affiliations is often difficult, but it's ultimately necessary.

The Failures of the Fourth Estate.

Isn't it usually the case that a few 'bad apples' ruin everything for the rest of us? I'd be happy to let 'the marketplace' set the terms and limits on a particular service or good if so many folks didn't use the concept as a facade behind which they happily continue their dirty dealings. Unfortunately there is just too much wrong being committed by people who are beyond the reach of public accountability. The system is set up to reward those who have the money to buy off our politicians, and I fear that substantial change is just about impossible. All we can do, as concerned citizens, is continue to shine the light and draw attention to the worst of the ne'er-do-wells. The fact of the matter is that humanity has not proven its ability to act in its own enlightened self-interest.

I would be a greater champion of unfettered freedom if it didn't necessarily mean membership in a group that boils every problem down to decreasing taxes. Too much of that club is only interested in short-term profits. They have no concern for the larger issues, and will do everything they can to avoid having to confront them- especially if it entails any form of personal cost. Others' problems are simply not their own. Their participation in the affairs of their fellow citizens is limited to curtailing social liberties- such as sex, drugs, and access to birth control. I'm not even convinced that they genuinely care about those issues. They just use these divisively to promote their own not-so-secret agenda... unregulated profit.

Witness the political 'Right' and their concept of 'fair and balanced'. They have seized the airwaves using a strategy mixing rabid nationalism, cultural jingoism, hate-mongering, deception and obfuscation. They've assumed command of the great symbols of US hegemony- the dollar, the cross, and the flag. Alternate voices are not being programmed or supported by the corporations that own the media. Unconstrained self-interest is not only encouraged, but demanded. The messenger is embraced only as long as the message is to consume indiscriminately. The Fairness Doctrine, which served the public by protecting them from an unchallenged stream of pro-corporate values, was repealed by Ronald Reagan and his rogue F.C.C. in 1987.

Nowadays Reagan's dismal record as president has been rehabilitated by the deregulation forces that fight to maintain a nation dominated by unchallenged corporate interests. We are subjected to crassly sentimentalized versions of 'The Gipper" on network television. Meanwhile a distinguished war veteran like John Kerry was sabotaged in his presidential campaign by Sinclair Broadcasting, which attempted to force its 62 television stations to air 'Swift-Boater' propaganda in the guise of a 'documentary'. Ironically, such blatant attempts to subvert democracy with lies are hypocritically overlooked by the countless conservative pundits who decry the 'liberal bias' of the media. Unfortunately there's hardly anyone left behind the pulpit to challenge such a ridiculous assertion.

Thank God the Internet exists to provide the opportunity for true democratic participation. There used to be a time when various outlets offered a wide range of political opinion. Nowadays even CNN is forced to hire hacks like Glenn Beck and Tony Snow. These guys don't offer any alternative to FOX or the networks... they ARE the establishment. The only 'progressive' broadcasters are Pacifica and Democracy Now. Try tuning into those grassroots sources in Western Pennsylvania. If you live within a-mile-and-a-half of Carnegie Mellon University, then you are welcome to. Otherwise don't bother looking, because you will only get more frustrated.

Cars and Taxes.

I know that one of the the things I have gone on about on this blog is the relationship between Americans and their cars. I can't think of any other accessory that makes people act more selfish than the automobile. Let some slight and weak individual get behind the wheel, and soon he/she is acting like they are the"alpha male" of his/her tribe. Somehow the 1000 lbs+ of metal and plastic armor surrounding them makes folks pretty bold. Things they would never consider doing when approaching a stranger on a back alley night-time street become standard operating procedure. I know you've seen examples of what I'm talking about. Soccer moms flip you the bird. Little men in suits tail your bumper. Wizened elders act like they own the road. Pull up next to one of these drivers and try to confront them through their open window, and you get a sense of their perceived invulnerability. It's a lot of big, big talk.

Considering the way advertising portrays car ownership, I guess it's easy to understand why so many are afflicted with preposterous ideas. Cars are one of the most obvious conveyances of status in this society. Americans revel in their ability to purchase the biggest, most expensive automobiles- regardless of the effects their decisions have on the environment, politics, the economy, or their fellow human beings. People justify their consumer choice with platitudes of their own self-importance. They will point out that they have worked to realize their dream of owning a Hummer. They believe that others will admire them for owning a Lexus SUV. They are keeping up with the Joneses. Their convertible sports car will get them laid in their middle age. Their Porsches and BMWs will help them "close the deal". Or otherwise they are merely enjoying their God-given "freedoms".

Take a look at how self-satisfied and smug your fellow drivers are, as they chat on their cellphones and blindly cut you off in traffic. Or just bring up the topic in conversation. It seems that a lot of folks don't even need to be in their cars to think and act completely irrationally when it comes to their vehicular "rights". Americans lose all sense of logic and fairness when it comes to their automobiles. A recently proposed bill in the PA state legislature and the resulting "discussion" on AM talk radio clearly illustrate the perceptions of many of our fellow citizens. Under a GOP plan, tolls would be places on PA interstates 78, 79, 80, 81, and 95. The rationale behind this legislation is that it is needed for bridge and road repair. It's an alternative to leasing the PA turnpike or increasing the state fuel tax. The tolls would be administered by the Turnpike Commission.

What are the responses to these tolls? They are predictably almost universally negative. Put aside for a moment the irony of Republican party politicians advocating that drivers pay for the services they use, while they bitch about high taxes on gasoline out of the other side of their mouths. These are the exact same guys that would like to see the entire interstate system privatized- as if that would increase the accountability of the people that maintain the roads... as if making it a for-profit venture is going to reduce the ultimate costs for drivers. Most people simply don't want to pay for a road system out of their own pockets. If they pay at the pump- then the government is gouging them, and the oil companies can blame our leaders for the high prices. When you bring up the prospect of tolls, you hear a lot of crying about how the politicians are corrupt and inefficiently spending what tax monies they do collect. They say that PennDot shouldn't require anymore money whatsoever. No matter what the government does to remedy the condition of our roads, they will always be charged with corruption and waste.

Simultaneously, the same people that bitch about the flaws in the government's operation and maintenance of the interstates will whine whenever there is talk of an increase in the funding of public transportation. Why should suburbanites and exurbanites have to pay for city folk to get around? Never mind that the lives of those outside the cities are subsidized by federal and state tax dollars that urbanites pay out of their wages. The factors that have allowed people to escape and ignore the social problems in the city are cheap oil and the public subsidization of interstate roads. People bitch about the (actually very small) percentage of their tax dollars that is earmarked for social programs to help the lower classes. Yet no one ever talks about the fact that our federal government artificially depresses the price of gasoline in this country with an aggressive and costly foreign policy. It's a vicious cycle that keeps our economy wholly dependent on the rapidly failing oil paradigm.

Somehow this reality never gets talked about on AM radio, or among "free market" conservatives. And while cities can be transformed to meet the changing variables of time, suburban/exurban development and its accompanying "car-culture" are not only unsustainable- but also so artificial and wasteful that they can't ever be transformed into something useful. The strip malls and the sprawl model of development are only possible with the state and federal government subsidization. The only source of such funding is taxes. Period. Now shut up and pay.