From: NY Times Economix Blog
2. Citizens United: The Democrats Strike Back
I hope this graph is readable, but the gist is that since the financial industry began a wave of deregulation in the 1980s, the industry has exploded to grow almost six times the size of US GDP. There is also a large jump around 2000, which coincides with the Gramm-Leach-Baily act, which further deregulated the industry.
It should also be noted that none of the industries on the graph actually produce anything that is counted in GDP other than the service itself. For example: if you meet with your financial representative, the market value of that service is counted in GDP--generally, his hourly wage. But, if you were to decide to sell $1,000 worth of stocks, that $1000 would not be counted.
The distribution of these financial assets is also no secret.
Despite the name, the article gives some details about the campaign finance reform being debated in the senate. I thought it was interesting that the meat of the bill is in restricting any government contractors from supporting or opposing a candidate. This article in the Washington Post claimed that 75% of the largest firms are government contractors, which would seem to put a big dent supreme court's decision.
I still think the only long-run option is publicly financed campaigns. Considering money as free speech and corporations as people is a slippery slope. I also can't help but also see this as a further infusion of neo-liberal economic theory (Milton Friedman's free market approach) into America's political system. Friedman always argued that taxation, regulations, and government redistribution were thefts, or violations of individual liberty. The decision is simply an extension of that argument applied to corporations. It is also a dangerous compromise: the government will continue to impede corporations with taxes, but what the corporations do after that with the remaining funds is unrestricted. The decision reeks of corporate entitlement.
From: Truthout.org.
The government can't fill the nation with fear about constantly impending terrorist attacks, and then expect some citizens (possibly airport security personnel) not to turn into racist idiots.
From: Veterans Today
| Spending Type | Federal Budget | Support for cuts |
| Social Security | 19.6% | 2% |
| Military | 18.7% | 18% |
| Unemployment | 16.1% | 15% |
| Medicare | 12.8% | 6% |
| Other health care* | 10.4% | 10% |
| Interest on Debt | 4.6% | 10% |
| State Department | 1.5% | 28% |
| Veterans | 1.5% | 2% |
| Anti-terrorism | 1.2% | 17% |
| Agriculture | 0.7% | 12% |
| Energy | 0.7% | 14% |
| Crime / Justice | 0.7% | 10% |
| Environment | 0.3% | 16% |
| Science | 0.2% | 14% |
This chart points out the abstract nature of the federal budget. I am sure if you asked people if we need to trim the budget deficit, most would say, yes. I can't go a day without reading some fear-mongering op-ed about the danger of the deficit. The funny thing is that it hasn't worked. Something has changed in the last fifteen years. This same type of fear-mongering nonsense was used by Reagan in the eighties and Clinton in 1995 to cut social welfare programs. Although, I can't see Obama attempting to cut agricultural spending by showing a Mexican immigrant farm hand in a "luxury tractor" rolling around the California valley picking up government subsidies.
No comments:
Post a Comment