When Newt called President Obama the “food stamp President” and was challenged by Juan Williams it was like a flash realization: this IS what this election is all about. They criticize spending tens of millions to help feed the poor and not one word on the billions of dollars we give the rich in corporate welfare.  Dr. King would have asked the candidates “why is it that when we give money to help the poor it is called “welfare” and when we give money to the rich it is called “subsidies?” Or he might ask them “why is it that it is harder now for a man or woman to be economically successful in the U.S. than it is in 19 other countries in Europe and Asia? What is it about your policies that has all but removed opportunity in this society?”

When President Obama took office our economy was in a freefall and we were losing 750,000 jobs a MONTH. His policies stopped that rush toward economic Depression – and he did it without a single vote from Republicans. To have Newt ignore the results of GOP economic policies and claim that the poor are poor because they lack a work ethic, and mock a government that helps feed them when in need was like watching  Bull Conner confronting King in front of an all white audience. Now this was South Carolina, but GOP audiences in past debates have applauded executions and jeered at an active duty serviceman. The fact that South Carolina is suffering the more than most States from GOP economics is apparently trumped by intolerance. White Carolinans would rather cheer intolerance than change their own lives. Who is really being lazy freeloaders?

The GOP has become the Party of intolerance and men like Newt and Romney are carrying their banner. This debate made the choice clear to me do we create a society of compassion and opportunity for all Americans, or do we become a society of intolerance and opportunity for the 1%?   

With the exception of the recently departed Huntsman, all other GOP candidates are excluded from consideration. The GOP has degenerated faster than a remake of “Idiocracy” into a Party with cultural policies that are driven by fear and intolerance, and economic policies which will only complete the destruction of the middle-class and codify our Nation as the fastest growing Plutocracy in the world. A GOP win will be a disaster for our Country economically and civilly.

That leaves only President Obama and a possible Independent, Ron Paul.  There is no question in my mind that Paul’s foreign policy is far superior to President Obama’s and attacks the most destructive influence of our lifetime: the military-industrial complex. Obama has ended Iraq, but significantly increased militarism elsewhere. We now have our military fighting and dying in more Countries than under any Republican administration. The “Masters of War” are cleaning up under President Obama. This is the most compelling argument Paul makes.

One argument against a President Paul is that his economic policies are bizarre. This is true, but the President is virtually a gate-keeper to Congressional budgeting. Paul might, at least, stem the tide of economic injustice and the steady movement toward Plutocracy. For example, Paul says he would decrease Federal regulation of the Wall St. robber-barons, but increase enforcement of existing laws. President Obama has only implemented inadequate and ineffective regulations and virtually ignored criminality on Wall St. A President Paul would at least go after economic criminality, which could arguably have a greater effect than the present policies. Obama and Paul say they will reform tax codes, but who would you trust to actually do it? President Obama has had over three years to do it and has only now begun to talk about it. The government is still owned by the 1%.

Another argument against Paul is civil rights. In the past some flagrantly racist and xenophobic articles have been published in his name. He has disavowed them, but continues to attack the Federal role in the Civil Rights Act, i.e. he doesn’t disagree with the goal, just the implementation. That position pretty much ends any consideration of Paul in my mind. On the other hand, a President Paul could not reverse the Civil Rights Act on his own, and the one consistent feature of Paul has been his insistence on civil liberties, much to the chagrin of the GOP. Whatever harm Paul presents to civil liberties, we also have a clear track record of President Obama attacking them via the Patriot Act and the recent Defense Appropriation Bill virtually abrogating Habeas Corpus rights for citizens. Ron Paul would have vetoed both.

How bad is it when I am actually considering Ron Paul?  Anyway, it is unlikely that Paul will survive the process. He challenges the real power behind all politics these days, and those guys don’t last long…

Apple Corporation is one of the most lucrative companies on the NYSE, but virtually all of its manufacturing is done in China. Apple’s involvement with Foxconn, a Chinese company that manufactures their I-Pad is a good example of what “deregulation” means. There is no age limit on workers at Foxcon . (Remember Gingrich calling Child Labor Laws “stupid”?). At Foxconn, 12 year olds work a 12 to 16 hour work day at wages that barely cover the costs of living, with no benefits. (Perry’s success in Texas at creating jobs meant most of them at near minimum wage jobs, with no benefits. Romney’s company just eliminated good paying jobs with unemployment). Workers at Foxconn could work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for 10 years and still could not afford to buy the I-Pad they are manufacturing.

Oh, by the way, check out the quality of air in Beijing or Shanghai. How’s that de-regulation thing working for ya?

Striking or causing work slowdowns results not only in firing, but also in jail time. (All GOP candidates support “Right to Work” laws and eliminating OSHA regulations). Dozens of workers have been killed at Foxconn in the past year from explosions and other workplace related accidents. Others have died from organ failures resulting from exposure to toxic chemicals. Many workers are totally disabled and fired by their late 20s from preventable injuries and illnesses. Chemical spills and pollution has caused numerous illnesses in the surrounding city. (All GOP candidates support either eliminating the EPA or defunding it to virtual non-existence).

It is true that the unemployment rate in the surrounding Province of Shenzhen is less than 3%. However, Apple Corporation, which knows of all these horrible work conditions, makes a lot of money for US investors. So whenever you hear Republicans talk about eliminating regulations to create jobs, they mean turning the American workplace into another China.   

Yesterday in Iowa, Romney barely wins with Santorum trailing behind (apologies to Google). The real significance of the Romney-Santorum result is not in the religious overtones of an American Mormon virtually tied with a Christian Taliban and the whole pseudo-religious-cultural values nutery going on with the GOP.  The real significance of the Iowa Caucuses is the fact that after 5 years of organizing and over  $10 million spent, Romney could do no better than to tie a man who spent about $1 million who talks to God via the fillings in his molars. The bottom line in Iowa is who and what wins elections (the rich and money). That is the state of our (former) Democracy. The man with the most money will win, because this is a country of the 1%.  This election will not be decided on the policies on issues that really matter to the liberties and security of most Americans. Sure, there will be the usual stuff about “values”, “jobs” and “terrorism”. However, the discussion will be nothing more than appeals to fear and prejudice rather than reality. The results will be virtually the same no matter who gets elected.

Maybe this is the cynical ramblings of a disappointed Obama supporter (Summers, Geitner – really? Afghanistan – really? Military detentions for American citizens – really?) however, the sense that whatever happens in the next elections matters very little to most of us is shared by many, and for good reason. The critique that money buys elections and government serves the 1%, applies just as much to the Democrats as the Republicans. While Romney has been beating off the religious bigotry of the GOP base by implicitly appealing to their racial bigotry against Obama, President Obama has been quietly raising millions from Wall Street firms, millionaires and billionaires, with the same devil’s bargain.

Is 2012 the end of times – or just the end of any illusion of American democracy?

Detroit has borne the brunt of deficit reduction plans from both the State and National levels. In an era of unprecedented national growth during the Clinton Administration, Michigan’s State government (dominated by conservative Republicans) created a budget deficit, primarily by lowering Corporate and property taxes. At the same time, the State reduced the “size of government” by reducing or eliminating State-run public health services, such as mental health institutions. Once the Clinton budget surplus (achieved with a combination of reducing expenditures and raising taxes) were wasted by Bush and conservative republicans in the US Congress, local governments were hit with a second round of revenue reductions.

The result of deliberate efforts to reduce the size of government by starving it of government revenue is that, in Michigan, on the local level, government is much smaller – and the quality of life is much worse. Schools are not only much less effective in teaching students, the buildings are literally falling apart. Roads, water and sewage lines and other forms of infrastructure are, in places, worse than third world countries. Whole Fire and Police Departments have been defunded and disappeared, although crime has not lessened significantly. The lack of State mental Health structures has caused the streets and local jails to become flooded with the homeless, costing local governments far more than government-funded hospitals. Oh, and all those tax breaks for Corporations and the so-called “job creators” has resulted in an unemployment rate among the highest in the Country.

Conservatives complain that Michigan is the victim of a terrible National economy because the Federal Government spends too much. The reality is that when the National economy was booming in the 80s, Michigan created its own deficit by giving away tax breaks and eliminating investments in infrastructure, R&D, etc.

I distrust government when it comes to regulating my personal liberties, but government has a real and important function when it comes to matters of public safety, infrastructure and education. I guess there is my difference with the Tea Party Conservatives: they want to take the government out of building the country and into regulating the bedroom; I think government should stay out of my lifestyle and repair a few bridges and roads (at least). Rachel Maddow has a commercial that makes the point: there was no compelling profit motive for a private company to build the Hoover Dam and, none would build one today. However, the Hoover Dam has resulted in an economic boom and health service that has benefits all of us greatly.  That is the proper role of government.  

Senate bill S.1867, called the National Defense Authorization Act, allows the military to arrest and indefinitely detain any American citizen without a warrant or trial.  It allows the military intelligence community to designate any place in the United States as a “combat zone” and would allow them to virtually patrol our streets, spy on us in our homes and arrest anyone they designate as a “terrorist suspect”. There will be no warrant, no trial – not even a hearing. Citizens can be transported to Guantanamo Bay and held indefinitely, if the military so desires. This is an outrageous attempt to void the Constitution. It’s embarrassing and humiliating to realize that our own Senator Levin co-authored the Bill, and Senator Stabenow voted for it. Even the FBI opposes the Bill!

There is no justification for this Bill. The current law enforcement structures have been very successful in countering terrorist threats. As Benjamin Franklin once said, those who would forfeit liberty for security deserve neither. I encourage all of you to contact Senators Levin and Stabenow and ask them to resign immediately.

Senator Levin:    http://levin.senate.gov/

Senator Stabenow:         http://stabenow.senate.gov/

One message that has become increasingly more consistent among Occupiers is support of a Constitutional Amendment banning all corporate money from government: from elections and from lobbying. It would mandate publicly funded elections limited to individual citizens and distributed equally among candidates. Candidates would be forced to run on the strengths of their policies and character alone and on an even playing field. It would ban any gifts, contributions or economic incentives (such as a promise for employment after government service) from lobbyists. Anyone or any group could lobby Congress, but the only influence they could have would be based on persuasion.

The chances of such an Amendment to be put before the People seem to be very slim, but then again the only other revolution in our history wasn’t given much of a chance either, until we beat the British and won our freedom. You may not agree with the tactics of the Occupy Wall St. Movement, but you can’t rationally refuse to support their goal. Support the Occupy Movement with whatever actions you feel comfortable taking, but certainly you can encourage everyone you know to write your Congressperson and demand that a vote be put to the amendment known as the “Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections.”

Why were the threats of the Tea Party dismissed while the non-violence of the Occupiers is met with brutal violence? You might speculate that the virtually all-white and predominantly middle-aged to elder Tea baggers reflected the composition and politics of the police, while the much more diverse Occupier Movement does not, but I don’t think that accurately reflects the front-line officers (many of whom have expressed sympathy for the message of the Movement). The violent suppression of the Occupiers is function of the fact that the movement has grown and now constitutes a real threat to the power behind the curtains. The Tea Party, for all of its revolutionary rhetoric, is actually a tool of Corporate America, funded by billionaires to focus on making government more amenable to their corporate agendas. The Occupiers actually do pose a threat against the real power in this Country. Economic justice is the real revolutionary cause of our lifetimes, and the 1% are not going to give up their wealth and power without a fight.