This piece was reprinted by OpEdNews with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
-- in 2004, a little known practice called "caging" purged 1.1 millions voters; it's used to suppress minority voters by delisting them for failing to answer "do not forward" registered mail sent to homes they're away from for various reasons; Palast predicts far greater "caging" this November; and-- post-2004, "states used dubious 'list management' rules to scrub at least 10 million voters from their roles."
Palast and Kennedy believe Republicans intend to steal the 2008 presidential election. Much like they did in 2000 and 2004. They state: "Republican operatives - the party's elite commandos of bare-knuckle politics (are) systematically disenfranchis(ing) Democrats. If Democrats are to win (in November), they must not simply beat John McCain...they must beat him by a margin that exceeds the level of GOP vote tampering."
If the latest Pew Research poll numbers are accurate and hold, Obama appears headed to do precisely that, and on November 5 headlines will read: "President-elect Obama." On October 21 (based on October 16 - 19 polling), Pew noted that "Barak Obama's lead over John McCain has steadily increased since mid-September," and he now "enjoys his widest margin yet over McCain among registered voters, at 52% to 38%" with 10% undecided or for other candidates. "When the sample of voters is narrowed to those most likely to vote, Obama leads by 53% to 39%."
Palast and Kennedy are on top of vote tampering whoever wins in November. They released a 24-page full-color comic book called "Steal Back Your Vote." It's available in print or can be downloaded on "StealBackYourVote.org."
Dirty politics and fraudulent finance are close bedfellows. Together they explain much about the current economic crisis. Its effect on ordinary people, and what might be expected ahead. Given the current climate (vote tampering notwithstanding), it should be a slam dunk election for Obama. People in distress mostly blame incumbents. It showed in 1932 when Franklin Roosevelt trounced Herbert Hoover carrying 42 of the (then) 48 states. A majority 57.4% to Hoover's 39.7% and 472 Electoral College votes to 59.
Given it was three years after Wall Street crashed. In July that year the Dow average had lost 89% of its peak valuation, and in August unemployment reached 25%. Using realistic figures, it's half that number today. But increasing to where it may reach alarmingly high levels before the current downturn bottoms.
Few today expect the 1930s to repeat, but economic conditions are worsening. Housing, consumption affecting retail sales, and production dropping 2.6% in September. The largest monthly decline since May 1980. The Philadelphia Fed said its manufacturing index plunged at the fastest pace in its 40-year history to a minus 37.5 reading. The sector overall had job cuts every month since July 2006.
It may be 2010 at the earliest before conditions stabilize. Consumer sentiment is near record lows. Millions of homeowners face foreclosure. Loss of income. Jobs and inadequate social safety net protections are in place for backup. People are worried, angry and with good reason. Yet if Palast and Kennedy are right, Republicans may retain the White House given the level of fraud they uncovered. It says much about our faux democracy and offers faint hope for better times in 2009.
Future Prospects - Bleak and Growing Bleaker
Maybe not as bad as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard saw them last month in the UK Telegraph. But who knows. He may be right. His September 22 column was headlined: "Crisis may make 1929 look (like) a walk in the park." He cites meager and fleeting effects from "buckets of liquidity" and quotes economist (92-year old) Anna Schwartz saying "Liquidity doesn't do anything in this situation. It cannot deal with the underlying fear that lots of firms are going bankrupt. The banks and the hedge funds have not fully acknowledged who is in trouble. That is the critical issue."
Schwartz also gave the Wall Street Journal an October 18 interview in which she said Treasury and Fed policies are wrong. She repeated that liquidity isn't the problem. At issue is uncertainty "that the balance sheets of financial firms are credible." As a result, credit spreads haven't budged because you don't know who's solvent and who isn't and too many are in the latter category.
Liquidity was the issue in the 1930s when the money supply contracted sharply. Not today with bank problems on the asset side of their ledgers. "All these exotic securities that the market does not know how to value. They're toxic because you cannot sell them. Your balance sheet is not credible, and the whole market freezes up. We don't know who to lend to because we don't know who is sound." Schwartz is worried that Paulson is trying to save banks, not the system. Insolvent ones and said we shouldn't "be recapitalizing firms that should be shut down." They should be allowed to fail. "Everything works much better when wrong decisions are punished and good (ones) make you rich."
She commented also on what caused the current crisis. Like in the 1920s, it started with a "mania." In every case, it was expansive monetary policy generating an asset boom. She's very critical of Alan Greenspan dropping interest rates to 1%. Seeing the negative effect and doing nothing about it. She's no gentler with Ben Bernanke and accused him of fighting the last war. The result so far is failure. "So my verdict on this present Fed leadership is that they have not really done their job."
As a result, lenders are hoarding cash and economist Peter Spencer said that global authorities have just weeks to make things right. Instead they're making them worse. Unless changed, things may start to implode.
Economists like Nouriel Roubini aren't as dire but nonetheless see grim times ahead. His October 17 commentary echoed them:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
