Bill Mahr is a funny guy - I'm not. If I could say this as well as he has, I'd get paid to write this rather than amusing myself. But then you can go see why
the rich are like a pinata.
Language on the clip could be an issue - if such a thing is an issue where you are right now.
Showing posts with label Wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wealth. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Masters Of The Universe Need Friends, Too
Now I'd guess that laying any more tax on multi-billionaires than a carpenter would make no sense in the world of the Confederate Party of Republicanism. You could bring up small business, who in the face of a double hit on FICA/SS of 15.7% might scoff at the idea that a tax increase on hedge fund managers from 15% to 40% was a horrid thing.
It is funny how for this bunch anything that dings the uber-wealthy is bad for the little guy, the guy they're actually looking out for. You know, like the way the wealthy have cleaned up and everybody else watched wages flat line or go in the toilet.
What I'd like to know is how this idjit Cantor managed these lines with a straight face and the rest of the room didn't dissolve in laughter?
It is funny how for this bunch anything that dings the uber-wealthy is bad for the little guy, the guy they're actually looking out for. You know, like the way the wealthy have cleaned up and everybody else watched wages flat line or go in the toilet.
What I'd like to know is how this idjit Cantor managed these lines with a straight face and the rest of the room didn't dissolve in laughter?
Friday, August 22, 2008
I Have A House, One
I have a house. I like my house, it is a pretty nice place to live and nicely appointed, with finishes most people don't have. It has features that belong in pretty upscale houses, but there is something other than wealth that has to do with that. I am a construction contractor. I bought a small and quite run down and somewhat damaged 1870s Victorian. Not the big painted lady Victorian, this was the 'double-wide' of the era and built with standards that would be laughed at today. It is a nice house because I put virtually the entire loan into materials and labored like a dog on it - for free. It did cost me my weekends and all my evenings, into early morning hours and a personal construction work week of over 100 hours for months while living in the mess and with an outhouse for a bathroom. Astonishingly, my wife stayed married to me.
I know how many houses I have - one - and I also know what the monthly payment is and the tax bill and when all of these are due. With all the advantages of running a business I do not manage the Oregon median income in a good year (this isn't one). I don't complain about my income, I chose this line of work for other reasons than getting rich. I don't complain that other people make quite a bit more than I do with less exertion and risk. I do complain when someone insists that the wealthy need help staying wealthy and that they do not take the largest benefit out of the system. I not only complain, I scoff when such an argument is made by someone pretending to understand average Americans who isn't sure how many houses he owns - or his wife owns - or their company owns in their interest. Now I do admit I begin to get somewhat angry about such things when the ignorant party has made an issue about the opponent's celebrity or 'elitism.'
I do not deny a person empathy or understanding on the basis of wealth. I do deny them such on the basis of their policies and statements. Franklin Roosevelt was a child of wealth and a wealthy man who demonstrated in word and deed his concern for ordinary Americans. John and Robert Kennedy were wealthy and beloved by ordinary Americans. There are examples galore of wealthy individuals who gave concrete demonstrations of their understanding of the lives of plain citizens. John McCain just doesn't happen to be one.
Let's start at the beginning, George II's tax breaks for the wealthy, McCain wants to make them permanent - on the basis that they'll trickle down; which has not happened once in history. If wealth trickled down the era of the Robber Barons would be called something else. According to John the oil companies need tax breaks and additional incentives. According to McCainomics the American economy is fundamentally sound...we're debt ridden, our military is broken, everyone under the top half of the economic scale is watching their real income slide, the blue collar has been losing ground throughout BushCo, the divergence in wealth distribution is at historical highs, and banks are imploding. On the latter we already have a concrete demonstration of McCain's concern, it was for Chuck Keating not his depositors. Phil Gramm is still McCain's economic advisor, yes "whiners" Gramm, the architect of the Enron loophole and banking loopholes - including lobbying for USB, a foreign bank (in trouble - bank). If you are not wealthy, these people have nothing to say to you or are willing to do for you.
John McCain is a lying hypocritical bastard, POW and all. If you take his "honesty and maverickness" of today as a measure of his behavior in Hanoi you'd have to have doubts about its narrative of today. No, that isn't some partisan BS. Check his ads and statements against the facts and you'll find them wanting in truthfulness - either that is something new or he has always been a liar and manipulator of reality. I was not in Hanoi or Vietnam, but I sure know plenty who were that are entirely unimpressed with McCain's reliance on POW as CiC credentials. I get pretty pissed off with liars, I don't mean a misstatement, I mean lies. McMaverick only exists as a campaign mantra and media invention, there is nothing there at all, look at the record over the last 6 years.
John McCain can have all the respect he earns from me, but he'll have to earn it on something other than the ability to get shot down and play it to the media. Today he's earned my regard as an unprincipled prick...
I know how many houses I have - one - and I also know what the monthly payment is and the tax bill and when all of these are due. With all the advantages of running a business I do not manage the Oregon median income in a good year (this isn't one). I don't complain about my income, I chose this line of work for other reasons than getting rich. I don't complain that other people make quite a bit more than I do with less exertion and risk. I do complain when someone insists that the wealthy need help staying wealthy and that they do not take the largest benefit out of the system. I not only complain, I scoff when such an argument is made by someone pretending to understand average Americans who isn't sure how many houses he owns - or his wife owns - or their company owns in their interest. Now I do admit I begin to get somewhat angry about such things when the ignorant party has made an issue about the opponent's celebrity or 'elitism.'
I do not deny a person empathy or understanding on the basis of wealth. I do deny them such on the basis of their policies and statements. Franklin Roosevelt was a child of wealth and a wealthy man who demonstrated in word and deed his concern for ordinary Americans. John and Robert Kennedy were wealthy and beloved by ordinary Americans. There are examples galore of wealthy individuals who gave concrete demonstrations of their understanding of the lives of plain citizens. John McCain just doesn't happen to be one.
Let's start at the beginning, George II's tax breaks for the wealthy, McCain wants to make them permanent - on the basis that they'll trickle down; which has not happened once in history. If wealth trickled down the era of the Robber Barons would be called something else. According to John the oil companies need tax breaks and additional incentives. According to McCainomics the American economy is fundamentally sound...we're debt ridden, our military is broken, everyone under the top half of the economic scale is watching their real income slide, the blue collar has been losing ground throughout BushCo, the divergence in wealth distribution is at historical highs, and banks are imploding. On the latter we already have a concrete demonstration of McCain's concern, it was for Chuck Keating not his depositors. Phil Gramm is still McCain's economic advisor, yes "whiners" Gramm, the architect of the Enron loophole and banking loopholes - including lobbying for USB, a foreign bank (in trouble - bank). If you are not wealthy, these people have nothing to say to you or are willing to do for you.
John McCain is a lying hypocritical bastard, POW and all. If you take his "honesty and maverickness" of today as a measure of his behavior in Hanoi you'd have to have doubts about its narrative of today. No, that isn't some partisan BS. Check his ads and statements against the facts and you'll find them wanting in truthfulness - either that is something new or he has always been a liar and manipulator of reality. I was not in Hanoi or Vietnam, but I sure know plenty who were that are entirely unimpressed with McCain's reliance on POW as CiC credentials. I get pretty pissed off with liars, I don't mean a misstatement, I mean lies. McMaverick only exists as a campaign mantra and media invention, there is nothing there at all, look at the record over the last 6 years.
John McCain can have all the respect he earns from me, but he'll have to earn it on something other than the ability to get shot down and play it to the media. Today he's earned my regard as an unprincipled prick...
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Three Quarters of McCain's Loafers
You've heard about John McCain's $520 Italian loafers? Well here's 75% of them.
I know, something other than real pretty, in fact after three years of construction work, pretty darn beat. They'll soon go into the manufacturer,
West Coast Boots (Wesco) for a rebuild. These are built right here in Oregon. They are 16 inch top, lace to the toe, logging boots custom fit to my feet. For $380 I get to take good care of my feet that I spend all day on, working in some pretty horrid conditions. This is the real world, John, expensive shoes have a purpose beyond vanity.
I don't begrudge people having nice things, I have some pretty pointless nice things, but I don't propose that making the rich richer will be of any use to people like me. The George Ws and McMavericks think the wealthy need help being wealthy and the rest of you can wait for "tinkle down." If you don't recognize the economic model, it's the one where that warm wet feeling on the back of your neck lets you know what's just been done to your head, RR called it something less accurate. I sure don't believe any President will be able to quickly rescue this nation from the Bush II legacy, if it were just 7 years of George II that alone would mean real problems but other real problems have reared their heads. Continuing his nonsense with McCain means things will only be aggravated with the continuation of W's stuff (that's polite).
I don't propose that a President has to walk in my shoes. It is required that those shoes get recognized, in reality not campaign sound bites.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Money, Politics, Voters
I've said this stuff before, the courts and voters keep agreeing with me, as much as I don't like it, so I'll say it once again - emphatically. "Money as free speech" is not going to go away, the courts aren't going to rule against it, the voters have shown little enthusiasm for it, and it really isn't all that bad an idea. The part that stinks is who seems to own the playing field - Big Money, usually corporations.
It has always cost money to campaign, no there was no television in 1790, but there also was a completely primitive transportation system and widely spread population. They reached their audience through surrogates, just like today, and it cost significant amounts of money. The politicians made do, they collected money and spent it. And yes, big money existed at the time and it was in play. Money is the currency of availability to the voter. You fly in the face of that at the risk of making very poor decisions and forcing more end-runs by office seekers.
Money is not a polluter of the system, the pollution comes from the one-sidedness of sourcing. Large corporations have an incentive to cough up some money to help assure a larger return, and they would be crazy not to. But there is no reason that the tilt has to be so strongly in their favor, they have to answer to shareholders for their expenses and returns, the shareholders in the election process need to step up and invest in their own futures. Those people would be us, you know us, U.S., the voters that get ignored. The second you stop to think about the sheer numbers of voters and then multiply that number by $25 you have some actual cash. There is one problem.
Voters are disillusioned, it is tough enough just to get them to turn out to vote (my vote doesn't count, anyhow) much less get them to cough up some cash (the big boys just buy them). The very biggest problem in this scenario is the opponents of Big Money trying to pass laws, the route to passing those laws is to tell people that they cannot compete. Listen to the contradiction in that argument, you sell the idea of failure on the basis of that failure and pretend that you are educating the voters when what you actually are doing is propagandizing them into the belief that there is no point in doing what you bemoan. I don't doubt the good intentions of most proponents, but having the government finance elections strikes me as a recipe for a whole lot of BushCo behavior. Do you really want the minions of George II making financing decisions about campaigns?
No, I surely do not and I also do not see it as a solution to sell the voter on the idea that he is helpless and needs saving. The voter can afford to spend the price of a 12 pack on a campaign. The voter is not helpless in the face of corporate largess, all the voter has to do is make it prohibitively expensive for them to buy elections. Sure, you read this blog and feel pretty politically active, and you are at the very least more interested than the average citizen, then contribute to your favorite. Write letters, write blogs, spend a couple nickles, and talk to your disinterested friends. You actually have a good argument for that mindset of failure, and it can be meaningful, it can make a difference. It's time to stop whining and take it back, just that, TAKE it back, don't ask, don't whine, just goddam do it.
There are some contribution links on the side bar, every campaign has them on their site, do something.
It has always cost money to campaign, no there was no television in 1790, but there also was a completely primitive transportation system and widely spread population. They reached their audience through surrogates, just like today, and it cost significant amounts of money. The politicians made do, they collected money and spent it. And yes, big money existed at the time and it was in play. Money is the currency of availability to the voter. You fly in the face of that at the risk of making very poor decisions and forcing more end-runs by office seekers.
Money is not a polluter of the system, the pollution comes from the one-sidedness of sourcing. Large corporations have an incentive to cough up some money to help assure a larger return, and they would be crazy not to. But there is no reason that the tilt has to be so strongly in their favor, they have to answer to shareholders for their expenses and returns, the shareholders in the election process need to step up and invest in their own futures. Those people would be us, you know us, U.S., the voters that get ignored. The second you stop to think about the sheer numbers of voters and then multiply that number by $25 you have some actual cash. There is one problem.
Voters are disillusioned, it is tough enough just to get them to turn out to vote (my vote doesn't count, anyhow) much less get them to cough up some cash (the big boys just buy them). The very biggest problem in this scenario is the opponents of Big Money trying to pass laws, the route to passing those laws is to tell people that they cannot compete. Listen to the contradiction in that argument, you sell the idea of failure on the basis of that failure and pretend that you are educating the voters when what you actually are doing is propagandizing them into the belief that there is no point in doing what you bemoan. I don't doubt the good intentions of most proponents, but having the government finance elections strikes me as a recipe for a whole lot of BushCo behavior. Do you really want the minions of George II making financing decisions about campaigns?
No, I surely do not and I also do not see it as a solution to sell the voter on the idea that he is helpless and needs saving. The voter can afford to spend the price of a 12 pack on a campaign. The voter is not helpless in the face of corporate largess, all the voter has to do is make it prohibitively expensive for them to buy elections. Sure, you read this blog and feel pretty politically active, and you are at the very least more interested than the average citizen, then contribute to your favorite. Write letters, write blogs, spend a couple nickles, and talk to your disinterested friends. You actually have a good argument for that mindset of failure, and it can be meaningful, it can make a difference. It's time to stop whining and take it back, just that, TAKE it back, don't ask, don't whine, just goddam do it.
There are some contribution links on the side bar, every campaign has them on their site, do something.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Cheap Labor On Wall Street
Financial Times reports:
"Blackstone co-founders Pete Peterson and Steve Schwarzman will together reap as much as $2.6bn from the US buy-out group’s initial public offering, the firm revealed on Monday in an unprecedented disclosure of its compensation details."
It's amazing the kind of chump change people will work for:
"In Monday’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Blackstone said Mr Schwarzman earned $398.3m in salary and gains from investments last year, while Mr Peterson earned $212.9m and Tony James, the chosen successor to Mr Schwarzman, earned $97.3m."
I'd have to quit eating to buy gasoline...
"Blackstone co-founders Pete Peterson and Steve Schwarzman will together reap as much as $2.6bn from the US buy-out group’s initial public offering, the firm revealed on Monday in an unprecedented disclosure of its compensation details."
It's amazing the kind of chump change people will work for:
"In Monday’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Blackstone said Mr Schwarzman earned $398.3m in salary and gains from investments last year, while Mr Peterson earned $212.9m and Tony James, the chosen successor to Mr Schwarzman, earned $97.3m."
I'd have to quit eating to buy gasoline...
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Labor 'Losers'
Maybe you thought working with your hands was of some value to this nation, well, "ardent Freetrader" Cokie Roberts has this to say in a syndicated column this weekend, "losers and their labor bosses should not be allowed to dictate trade policy." It is apparently just a fine thing for Democrats to make secret trade deals with BushCo.
Now at the risk being snarky, if George W Bush likes something the proper course of action would be to 'back away slowly.' When somebody with his track record is happy about a trade deal the only question is just how badly the average American is going to get screwed. The fact that it is Democrats who are in this mix is insult added to injury. If you look real carefully you'll probably also find that these are the same people who are fans of adding illegal immigrants into the labor pool with an amnesty. If you are American labor, you just got another finger stuck in your eye. (do I sound happy?)
Go ahead and suck up the propaganda crap, this is exactly how co-option works, "free trade" and "poor poor brown people," all sounds real nice and it is exactly propaganda. Starting with Reagan's amnesty construction wages slid to presently around 50% and NAFTA has watched manufacturing jobs leave (it's tough to out-source a building so you in-source). These people do not mean free trade, they still mean managed trade - can you say patents and intellectual property rights - the question is whose benefit it is managed for. Wake up.
Now at the risk being snarky, if George W Bush likes something the proper course of action would be to 'back away slowly.' When somebody with his track record is happy about a trade deal the only question is just how badly the average American is going to get screwed. The fact that it is Democrats who are in this mix is insult added to injury. If you look real carefully you'll probably also find that these are the same people who are fans of adding illegal immigrants into the labor pool with an amnesty. If you are American labor, you just got another finger stuck in your eye. (do I sound happy?)
Go ahead and suck up the propaganda crap, this is exactly how co-option works, "free trade" and "poor poor brown people," all sounds real nice and it is exactly propaganda. Starting with Reagan's amnesty construction wages slid to presently around 50% and NAFTA has watched manufacturing jobs leave (it's tough to out-source a building so you in-source). These people do not mean free trade, they still mean managed trade - can you say patents and intellectual property rights - the question is whose benefit it is managed for. Wake up.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
More and More Abramoff
Kevin Ring is beginning to cause some, um, concern over at the Rep John Doolittle (R-CA) office, he quit his lobbying job last month on the same day the FBI raided Doolittle's wife Julie's office in their home. So? Well Ring is also a former Doolittle aide and later an employee of ... Jack Abramoff. Doolittle took campaign money from Jack and used his sports box. Oddly, Jack Abramoff had a job for wife Julie, and there is some question whether she did anything for the $5K/month. It might be worrisome that Ring is connected to Abramoff who is serving time, Rep Ney who is serving time, and 11 convicted aides and is apparently is under some pressure.
At Preston Gates Ring lobbied Doolittle on water and labor issues. Labor included Doolittle working to help the Mariannes Islands. You might remember that outfit - low paid workers in locked compounds, forced into prostitution and abortions, and denied the ability to return home - essentially slave labor camps, who put on a nice show for GOPs, made their stay very nice and handed around lots of money, even Tom DeLay had fun. Somebody was doing petty well in the Mariannes, and they didn't work very darn hard. Doolittle wrote a letter about how much labor conditions had improved for his GOP colleagues.
You can form your own opinions, but I cannot believe the GOP's emphasis on wealth and power at any cost is blameless in this mess. Some politicians need to pay, not just for blatant corruption, but for the mindset that allowed and encouraged this. Don't expect the GOP to fix it, the Abramoff shot across their bow was last year...
At Preston Gates Ring lobbied Doolittle on water and labor issues. Labor included Doolittle working to help the Mariannes Islands. You might remember that outfit - low paid workers in locked compounds, forced into prostitution and abortions, and denied the ability to return home - essentially slave labor camps, who put on a nice show for GOPs, made their stay very nice and handed around lots of money, even Tom DeLay had fun. Somebody was doing petty well in the Mariannes, and they didn't work very darn hard. Doolittle wrote a letter about how much labor conditions had improved for his GOP colleagues.
You can form your own opinions, but I cannot believe the GOP's emphasis on wealth and power at any cost is blameless in this mess. Some politicians need to pay, not just for blatant corruption, but for the mindset that allowed and encouraged this. Don't expect the GOP to fix it, the Abramoff shot across their bow was last year...
Thursday, March 01, 2007
"Guest" Workers
More like indentured servants if the NYT has its facts in order. Here's the scam, recruiters charge people in foreign countries large sums to get temporary work in the US. After these workers get to the US they suddenly find that 3 years of work is really 3 months or none at all. And where there is work the conditions are abominable. These workers may not like the way they're being treated, but once their erstwhile employer has their passport and they have no money, they're kind of screwed. (not to mention being on the wrong side of a large ocean)
It doesn't take a heck of a lot of brains to see how this could happen, in fact it wouldn't take a heck of a lot of brains to see it coming before setting this system up. What you have to remember is this is work that Americans won't do (cough). While that is the rationale, the actual case is that it is work Americans won't do for that kind of money. Think about this for a second, if they are going to pay to import workers from Thailand, half way around the world, and send them back and still pay them here, there's a lot of money on the table. Unless, of course, there's some serious cheating going on.
Just exactly how brain dead do you have to be to not have a problem with THE WEALTHIEST NATION ON EARTH unable to pay its own people to PICK CUCUMBERS!!!??
In the morning I will go out in the snow and probably mud and start putting together the sticks on a new house. I'll spend a few days mucking around with my crew laid off because I can't afford to pay them for the messing about that it will take and it would mess up their UE checks late in a work week/benefit week. I'll do alright from the house, they'll do...ok if somebody else in their household makes up for what their wages are. Alright for me is skidding around the edge of disaster on a consistent basis, the guys are just teetering on that edge. This is so wrong on so many levels I don't have time to write it - or you to read it.
We keep sending our jobs overseas and giving tax breaks for doing it, our manufacturing, our tech work, and for pete's sake when was the last time you got a cold call from a Sam whose real name was Sam and not Jamilwabberjonkey. Do you have any idea how bad cold calling in this country paid? The jobs we don't send overseas (outsource) we insource. I'm not trying to kick anybody because of where they come from, but I'm real tired of watching the really fat cats of this country get fatter and sell out the workers of this country. There is actual unemployment in this country and then there is the segment that is no longer counted and then there's the segment that isn't about to go out into a job market that will just starve them. I'm not talking about lazy no good lay about drug dealing pimping wastes of skin, I'm talking about the folks that take one look at what they can realistically expect to earn and decide to stay home because it's ridiculous to go do it for that kind of money. Yes, we could do the good Republican thing and yank the safety net out from under them and say, "work or starve," so they'd go work and starve. What are you going to get from a Catch 22 scenario? A Yossarian solution, take your clothes off and quit.
Do I have a good answer? No. I have a partial answer, take away all the abilities to game the damn employment system, no guest workers, no illegal hires, a real wage bottom - tied to a lower "in school minimum." Oh yes, no games, full time students only. Get caught outside the rules, fines and jail time to make a hardened criminal sweat. The labor market will force wages up, it does not do so now because it is not a market, it is seriously gamed by the damn plutocrats. Just to make sure things are getting paid for fairly, a tax code that doesn't favor the plutocrats. Unless you're a tax accountant or use one, you have no idea how favored they are. By the way, if you happen to be illegally working, you can go home and we'll see if we can't work out a way to bring you in first, legally, and as needed. (as an alternative - see illegal employers)
Sound draconian? I'll tell you what's draconian, the life of trying to make it on the scraps off the table - in the wealthiest nation in the world.
It doesn't take a heck of a lot of brains to see how this could happen, in fact it wouldn't take a heck of a lot of brains to see it coming before setting this system up. What you have to remember is this is work that Americans won't do (cough). While that is the rationale, the actual case is that it is work Americans won't do for that kind of money. Think about this for a second, if they are going to pay to import workers from Thailand, half way around the world, and send them back and still pay them here, there's a lot of money on the table. Unless, of course, there's some serious cheating going on.
Just exactly how brain dead do you have to be to not have a problem with THE WEALTHIEST NATION ON EARTH unable to pay its own people to PICK CUCUMBERS!!!??
In the morning I will go out in the snow and probably mud and start putting together the sticks on a new house. I'll spend a few days mucking around with my crew laid off because I can't afford to pay them for the messing about that it will take and it would mess up their UE checks late in a work week/benefit week. I'll do alright from the house, they'll do...ok if somebody else in their household makes up for what their wages are. Alright for me is skidding around the edge of disaster on a consistent basis, the guys are just teetering on that edge. This is so wrong on so many levels I don't have time to write it - or you to read it.
We keep sending our jobs overseas and giving tax breaks for doing it, our manufacturing, our tech work, and for pete's sake when was the last time you got a cold call from a Sam whose real name was Sam and not Jamilwabberjonkey. Do you have any idea how bad cold calling in this country paid? The jobs we don't send overseas (outsource) we insource. I'm not trying to kick anybody because of where they come from, but I'm real tired of watching the really fat cats of this country get fatter and sell out the workers of this country. There is actual unemployment in this country and then there is the segment that is no longer counted and then there's the segment that isn't about to go out into a job market that will just starve them. I'm not talking about lazy no good lay about drug dealing pimping wastes of skin, I'm talking about the folks that take one look at what they can realistically expect to earn and decide to stay home because it's ridiculous to go do it for that kind of money. Yes, we could do the good Republican thing and yank the safety net out from under them and say, "work or starve," so they'd go work and starve. What are you going to get from a Catch 22 scenario? A Yossarian solution, take your clothes off and quit.
Do I have a good answer? No. I have a partial answer, take away all the abilities to game the damn employment system, no guest workers, no illegal hires, a real wage bottom - tied to a lower "in school minimum." Oh yes, no games, full time students only. Get caught outside the rules, fines and jail time to make a hardened criminal sweat. The labor market will force wages up, it does not do so now because it is not a market, it is seriously gamed by the damn plutocrats. Just to make sure things are getting paid for fairly, a tax code that doesn't favor the plutocrats. Unless you're a tax accountant or use one, you have no idea how favored they are. By the way, if you happen to be illegally working, you can go home and we'll see if we can't work out a way to bring you in first, legally, and as needed. (as an alternative - see illegal employers)
Sound draconian? I'll tell you what's draconian, the life of trying to make it on the scraps off the table - in the wealthiest nation in the world.
Monday, February 05, 2007
The Patronage Plan
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate has this to say about patronage: 5 a: the power to make appointments to government jobs esp. for political advantage.
Through the centuries patronage has been one of the banes of governmental efficiency, people got jobs they weren't up to or ran the jobs to benefit their benefactor rather than the citizenry. It is a practice that stretches back to time immemorial though some examples are fairly recent and instructive. The Boss Tweed administration of New York stands out on the scale of corruption, though Chicago and St Louis were right in the running. The institution of Civil Service Boards and Administrations was designed to relegate patronage to the dust bin of history, though it left plenty of nooks and crannies for political rewards in Agency heads, Ambassadorships, and other appointments. One of the great achievements of civil service was that the "troops" were competent enough and merit responsible enough to keep egregious failures as chief from doing great harm. Things have changed.
The The NY Times has an article about contractors which you may find frightening in the extent and breath of US governmental contracting outsourcing. The GSA hired a contractor to process claims of ...(wait for it)... government contractor fraud and abuse. The GSA had to do the hiring because allegations of abuse outstripped its ability to process claims, that means - a lot of claims. From 2000 through 2006 the federal spending on contractors went from $207 billion to $400 billion, yes that's billion with a "B." If there are 300 million Americans, that's $1,000 per man, woman, and child in the country for contractors. Do you feel like you've gotten your money's worth?
Now Republican philosophy of government (less) and free market (for the rich folk) is supposed to accomplish a few things through certain means. Competition is supposed to reduce cost and improve service - 48% of contracts are competitive. Supervision of contracts has gone down, the number of supervisors has remained static while spending has skyrocketed. With reduced supervision getting contracts has less to do with competence and pricing and more to do with contacts and ability to game the contracting process. You cannot have competition in an arena where actions are hidden, companies are not subject to the FOIA and can bury their actions under layers and layers of subcontractors.
To understand the level of contractor spending, Lockheed Martin gets more money than the Dept of Justice or Energy while spending $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations. The top 20 service contractors since 2000 spent $300 million on lobbying and $23 million on political campaigns. Some of these businesses get 90-95% of their income from government contracting, they are no longer businesses but pseudo agencies.
I may be just a small time construction contractor from NE OR, but I can see a lot of money and a lot of opportunities for corruption. Not just in contract failures but throughout the entire system, through the agencies, their political appointees, and their elected "masters" in the White House. It bears remembering that Cheney's actions as CEO of Halliburton took it from one of the most profitable companies in its industry to one facing bankruptcy. BushCo indeed.
Through the centuries patronage has been one of the banes of governmental efficiency, people got jobs they weren't up to or ran the jobs to benefit their benefactor rather than the citizenry. It is a practice that stretches back to time immemorial though some examples are fairly recent and instructive. The Boss Tweed administration of New York stands out on the scale of corruption, though Chicago and St Louis were right in the running. The institution of Civil Service Boards and Administrations was designed to relegate patronage to the dust bin of history, though it left plenty of nooks and crannies for political rewards in Agency heads, Ambassadorships, and other appointments. One of the great achievements of civil service was that the "troops" were competent enough and merit responsible enough to keep egregious failures as chief from doing great harm. Things have changed.
The The NY Times has an article about contractors which you may find frightening in the extent and breath of US governmental contracting outsourcing. The GSA hired a contractor to process claims of ...(wait for it)... government contractor fraud and abuse. The GSA had to do the hiring because allegations of abuse outstripped its ability to process claims, that means - a lot of claims. From 2000 through 2006 the federal spending on contractors went from $207 billion to $400 billion, yes that's billion with a "B." If there are 300 million Americans, that's $1,000 per man, woman, and child in the country for contractors. Do you feel like you've gotten your money's worth?
Now Republican philosophy of government (less) and free market (for the rich folk) is supposed to accomplish a few things through certain means. Competition is supposed to reduce cost and improve service - 48% of contracts are competitive. Supervision of contracts has gone down, the number of supervisors has remained static while spending has skyrocketed. With reduced supervision getting contracts has less to do with competence and pricing and more to do with contacts and ability to game the contracting process. You cannot have competition in an arena where actions are hidden, companies are not subject to the FOIA and can bury their actions under layers and layers of subcontractors.
To understand the level of contractor spending, Lockheed Martin gets more money than the Dept of Justice or Energy while spending $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations. The top 20 service contractors since 2000 spent $300 million on lobbying and $23 million on political campaigns. Some of these businesses get 90-95% of their income from government contracting, they are no longer businesses but pseudo agencies.
I may be just a small time construction contractor from NE OR, but I can see a lot of money and a lot of opportunities for corruption. Not just in contract failures but throughout the entire system, through the agencies, their political appointees, and their elected "masters" in the White House. It bears remembering that Cheney's actions as CEO of Halliburton took it from one of the most profitable companies in its industry to one facing bankruptcy. BushCo indeed.
Monday, July 31, 2006
The Working Poor and the Poor, Poor Pitiful Rich
OK, working poor, you can have your raise in the Federal Minimum Wage, just as long as the downtrodden rich folk get an Estate Tax break. Think this mess will pass? "I (Republican Representative X) voted for the Minimum Wage Increase Bill, so this certainly shouldn't be an election issue..."
Do you suppose the electorate is as stupid as they seem to think? Aw, c'mon, they don't think we're stupid ... Gay Marriage...Flag Burning...Terry Schiavo...Stem Cells...
Well, Iraq.
How much of a plan do the Democrats have to have? "We can do better together" might be enough.
Do you suppose the electorate is as stupid as they seem to think? Aw, c'mon, they don't think we're stupid ... Gay Marriage...Flag Burning...Terry Schiavo...Stem Cells...
Well, Iraq.
How much of a plan do the Democrats have to have? "We can do better together" might be enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)