 |
|
Add to My Group
|
August 16, 2008 at 12:27:48
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 8/16/08: by Harold Hellickson Page 1 of 3 page(s) |
|
|
Earlier I wrote, “The elite top one percent in this country possess more non-home wealth, that which is available for discretional spending, savings or investment, than 95% of their fellow citizens, and the middle class earns less in today’s dollar, 2008, than they did in 1973, 35 years ago.” Following more than three decades of national economic gain, the bottom 90% of Americans’ annual income has been on a slow, steady decline. Chris Hedges, speaking at Furman University, said the bottom ninety percent’s income peaked at $33,000 in 1973. By 2005, according to New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston in his book, Free Lunch, it had fallen to a bit more than $29,000. He pointed out that, “For each dollar earned in 2005, the top 10 percent got 48.5 cents. That was the top tenth's greatest share of the income pie,” Johnston writes, “since 1929, just before the Roaring '20s collapsed in the Great Depression.” The rising tide of the nation’s economic growth has not raised all boats. The rising tide only created more depth for the already big yachts to get even bigger. According to the Economic Snapshot of August 1, 2007 from the Economic Policy Institute, www.epi.org, for example, “All of the income growth from 2001 to 2005 (the latest available data) accrued to the upper 5% and, in particular, the upper 1% of households. In fact, the bottom 90% of households experienced a 4.2% decline in their market-based incomes.
The top 1% of households gained $268 billion of total income and the bottom 90% lost $272 billion since 2001.”
How could this happen? Simply put, the top five percent in general and the top one percent in particular have wrestled near complete control of our government and, in turn, our economy, from the rest of us. Bill Moyers has said their “rhetoric turns truth to lies and lies to truth. -- Now it means corporate domination and the shifting of risk from government and business to struggling families and workers -- and patriotism means blind support to failed leaders.”
The current philosophy that gave rise to such a policy shift can be traced to at least as far back as September 13, 1970 ,when Milton Friedman’s article, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits,” was published in The New York Times magazine. Quoted in part, Dr. Friedman said, “When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system, I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned merely with profit but also with promoting desirable social ends; that business has a social conscience and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are -- or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously -- preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.”
The past decades of which Milton Friedman spoke would, of course, include the 1940’s, 50’s, and 60’s, the last three plus decades during which middle class income was rising, rather than being squeezed as it has been during the last three decades of the twentieth and first decade of the twenty- first centuries.
Capitalism can be managed or unmanaged, regulated or unregulated. Free market capitalism means unmanaged-unregulated capitalism. From encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia, “Ronald Reagan presided over the most far-reaching changes in U.S. government economic and social policy in half a century. His administration succeeded in eliminating or reducing many social programs begun by the federal government under presidents FDR and LBJ and in lifting many restrictions on business activities.”
Actually, both political parties, both Republican and Democrat are to blame. From the website “Liberalism Resurgent,” Steve Kangas points out: “As for deregulation, that actually began under Carter, not Reagan. Carter deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use.”
More from Chris Hedges: “I single out no party. The Democratic Party has been as guilty as the Republicans. It was Bill Clinton who led the Democratic Party to the corporate watering trough. Clinton argued that the party had to ditch labor unions, no longer a source of votes or power, as a political ally. Workers, he insisted, would vote Democratic anyway. They had no choice. It was better, he argued, to take corporate money. By the 1990s, the Democratic Party, under Clinton's leadership, had virtual fundraising parity with the Republicans. Today the Democrats get more. In political terms, it was a success. In moral terms deregulation -- the systematic dismantling of the managed capitalism that was the hallmark of the American democratic state -- was a betrayal.”
And more: “It was an incompetent, corporatized Democratic Party, along with the orchestrated fraud by the Republican Party. They let Bush, in violation of the Constitution, pump hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into faith-based organizations that discriminate based on belief and sexual orientation and openly proselytize. They stood by as American children got fleeced by No Child Left Behind. Democrats did not protest when federal agencies began to propagate “Christian” pseudo-science about creationism, reproductive rights and homosexuality. And the Democrats let Bush further dismantle regulatory agencies, strip American citizens of constitutional rights under the Patriot Act and other draconian legislation, and thrust impoverished Americans aside through the corporate-sponsored bankruptcy bill. It is a stunning record.
The corporate state has rigged our system, hollowed out our political process and steadily stripped citizens of constitutional rights, federal and state protection and assistance. The Democratic Party is no longer the party of the working class. It has passively accepted defeat in elections it won. It has run candidates with platforms so tepid the best that can be said is that they are not as terrible as Republican candidates. This cycle of lowered expectations, Nader said, "produces a dying dynamic for our dismantled democracy that has no end point because every four years both parties get worse.”
Peter Camejo has written, “What confuses so many progressively inclined people is they do not really understand that our society is controlled by the corporate power of concentrated money. The corporations and the super rich – through their domination of the government, the media, and educational institutions and of course the two parties – run our society.
The front line in this denial of democracy is the Democratic Party because it is the instrument that controls, channels and co-opts the forces that otherwise could challenge the rule of concentrated money.”
“Financially, congressional Democrats had, through the 1980s and early 1990s, become dependent on campaign cash from corporate special interests, who gave to them not out of ideological sympathy but in return for tax breaks, subsidies, and other giveaways that gave the party the appearance--and often the reality--of decadence and corruption.” contends Nicholas Confessore, “The Myth of the Democratic Establishment,” Jan/Feb 2004-Washington Monthly.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 9 comments |
|
You Decide: Republican, Democrat, or Other
Comment from Ratings: This article clearly states that there really isn't a difference unless We, the People, decide that we want an other. Nicely writeen article that tells what the two big parties don't want us to be thinking about. by Jami Hellickson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:29:37 PM  (0+)
|
|
Sleeping with the enemy
The critics of voting for a Progressive third party have it exactly backward. The Democrats are going to continue giving their main allegiance to our enemies until a significant number of voters rebel. The election when a Progressive third party gets 10, 15, 20% is the moment when things will change. Its not the handful who withhold their votes from the Democrats who are the problem but rather those who continue to give it without question. They are just delaying this moment of reckoning when the interests of average people will once again have a voice in their government. by Doug Rogers (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 152 comments) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:52:20 AM (0+)
|
|
Economic 'rape'
First on the article, What was said is great justification for major tax increases for the upper 25%. My opinion is that ALL income chould be counted the same. We also meed far more progressive tax rates. Example: 35% at at $150,000. 39% at $250,000. 55% at $400,000. 65% above $800,000. With the revenue, we could fix most of the problems that are not being financed, and in a few years, greatly reduce the debt. Second to the comment by Doug Rogers. The only problem with voting for the 'progressive third party' is, the REGRESSIVE right wing would win. I agree the Dems are little better than the Repugnants, but they are a little better, and to some extent, keep the Regressives from realy screwing thinngs up. (more than they already have) by kanawah (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:20:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Worry about the Regressives, vote Democrat
I would agree with you but only if you live in Cleveland and vote for Denise Kucinich. I fail to see how voting Democratic will cause them to revert to a Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson mind set of seeking to establish social and economic justice. Enough third party votes taken from them is the only mechanism of which I am aware that has any chance of gaining their attention except and unless Kucinich were able to take over the party. Fat chance for that. I am sure the party would drum him out if their rules would permit it. Wouldn't surprise me if the party was already thinking about it. by Harold Hellickson (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 97 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:36:28 PM (0+)
|
|
This could be
the best article I have ever read on OEN. Well done and well said. Voting third party is the only way to go. The article makes it very clear that the Democrats have sold us out as surely as have the Republicans. There is no hope whatsoever that voting for a Democrat will make one iota of difference for our future. And it is our future of which we speak. The mantle of political and economic shame is amply large enough for both parties. What they have done to this country in the name of "Morning in America" is nothing less than shameful and the Democratic party has been standing there alongside the Republicans with their hands out yelling "Me too, Me too" as the money is passed around. The lobbyists, the employment lines, the consultant mode in DC has been as good to Democrats as it has to Republicans. Neither party gives a damn about us, no regrets for the lower class, no problem with the dissolution of the middle class. The Democrats only try to make us believe they still care. Time for change. Time for a political revolution that takes care of its' own, where we restore democracy and the rule of law; restore economic justice and rein in the corporations and great wealth. Find someone you can support who does not have the D or R after their name. And vote. by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 1:38:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Confusion still reigns supreme
After charging both Reagan and Carter for the deregulation that freed American business from the shackles that caused the stagflation of the late 60's and 70's, the author goes on to state that this is a bad thing. How can you so accurately identify that both the Dems and Reps are failing us, then rather than blaming the politicians that have been making bad law for (only?) thirty years, you blame the not-so-free-market capitalism that has been stifled by the government's interventions. Just because Fascism is a hot-word, doesn't mean it no longer exists. It is the privileged corporate/government decision-making that is the cause of our economic ills, not the desire to earn enough profit to feed ourselves and grow into something more than we are. It has been said that any regulation of industry by government ends up being taken over by said regulated industry. Look at mining. Look at the telcos. Look at banking. Even energy and farming. All these industries regulations end up being written by industries themselves, while any protections written in for citizens are easily dismissed by the industry-friendly government regulators and administrators. It might not be such a bad thing that the industries police themselves, but in the process of using government legislation to do it, the citizens end up being regulated far more than any industry player. Remember, capitalism is not your enemy. Your enemy is the one who corrupts free trade. Your enemy is the one who taxes your meager earnings to pay farmers not to plant, or subsidizes oil research while taxing gas at the pump. Capitalism is not the problem. It is government as a corporate partner in the exploitation of individual citizens. Without government to force us, these industries would have no more power over you than the tree in your yard, as you would be free to shop wherever you like, buy whatever you want, and use what you buy however you see fit, as long as you don't interfere with the rights of others to do the same. by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 511 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 4:34:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Capitalism is not your enemy
For the moment, I will let these people speak for me. Alan Greenspan: "Income inequality is where the capitalist system is most vulnerable. You can't have the capitalist system if an increasing number of people think it is unjust." Kevin Phillips: "Either democracy must be renewed, with politics brought back to life, or wealth is likely to cement a new and less democratic regime — plutocracy by some other name." John F. Kennedy: "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." by Harold Hellickson (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 97 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:45:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Where's the poll?
This should have included a poll. At any rate, I vote for Other. I think Hellickson is right that both duopoly parties are to blame for our situation, and neither proposes any real solutions. I don't know if there is any chance the Democrats could ever become a positive force, but if they do so I think it will be pressure from third parties and independents. This will only work if those disgusted with the status quo refuse to vote for Democrats as the lesser of two evils, and insist on voting for candidates who favor real change. Unfortunately, most don't seem yet willing to do that, and don't realize what they are doing is encouraging the Democratic Party to remain a status quo party. by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:10:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Where's the poll?
Thanks for your comments, Bill. But about a poll, I think that "no poll" is always preferable to a "non-random" poll whether it is an OEM poll, a TV poll, even, maybe especially, a moveon.org poll which I note you objected to it's very probable misleading results being portrayed as something significant. And, by the way, I applaud you for that. by Harold Hellickson (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 97 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:46:01 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
