The Peasants Need Pitchforks

AFP image

Robert Scheer
TruthDig

A “working class hero,” John Lennon told us in his song of that title, “is something to be/ Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV/ And you think you’re so clever and classless and free/ But you’re still fucking peasants as far as I can see.”

The delusion of a classless America in which opportunity is equally distributed is the most effective deception perpetrated by the moneyed elite that controls all the key levers of power in what passes for our democracy. It is a myth blown away by Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz in the current issue of Vanity Fair. In an article titled “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Stiglitz states that the top thin layer of the superwealthy controls 40 percent of all wealth in what is now the most sharply class-divided of all developed nations: “Americans have been watching protests against repressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet, in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.”

That is the harsh reality obscured by the media’s focus on celebrity gossip, sports rivalries and lotteries, situations in which the average person can pretend that he or she is plugged into the winning side. The illusion of personal power substitutes consumer sovereignty—which smartphone to purchase—for real power over the decisions that affect our lives. Even though most Americans accept that the political game is rigged, we have long assumed that the choices we make in the economic sphere as to career and home are matters that respond to our wisdom and will. But the banking tsunami that wiped out so many jobs and so much homeownership has demonstrated that most Americans have no real control over any of that, and while they suffer, the corporate rich reward themselves in direct proportion to the amount of suffering they have caused.

Instead of taxing the superrich on the bonuses dispensed by top corporations such as Exxon, Bank of America, General Electric, Chevron and Boeing, all of which managed to avoid paying any federal corporate taxes last year, the politicians of both parties in Congress are about to accede to the Republican demand that programs that help ordinary folks be cut to pay for the programs that bailed out the banks.

It is a reality further obscured by the academic elite, led by economists who receive enormous payoffs from Wall Street in speaking and consulting fees, and their less privileged university colleagues who are so often dependent upon wealthy sponsors for their research funding. Then there are the media, which are indistinguishable parts of the corporate-owned culture and which with rare exception pretend that we are all in the same lifeboat while they fawn in their coverage of those who bilk us and also dispense fat fees to top pundits. Complementing all that is the dark distraction of the faux populists, led by tea party demagogues, who blame unions and immigrants for the crimes of Wall Street hustlers.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

The U.S. Government Must Go!

Dees Illustration

Mike Rozeff
Lew Rockwell

A chorus of U.S. and international officials keeps chanting that "Gaddafi must go" because, they keep repeating, he has lost legitimacy.

Let’s turn the tables. How legitimate is the U.S. government? I’m not talking about the popularity of particular persons like Obama, Bush I, Bush II, or Clinton. Changing faces, political parties, and administrations in Washington is a lost cause. I’m talking about national government itself. Should Washington be dismantled? Has Washington lost legitimacy as a government? If so, as a remedy, as a guide to action, as an objective to work toward, the U.S. government must go!
There are many valid ways to criticize the U.S. government. Any small government or anarchist perspective gives rise to a critique. Any adherent of constitutionality has another critique. For example, Lysander Spooner’s critique is devastating. Anyone who looks to the government’s effectiveness in serving the public will have yet another perspective. Anyone who restricts attention to economic and monetary matters will find plenty to criticize. Anyone who focuses on rights and liberties will be able to make important criticisms.

Here my perspective is to question the legitimacy of the U.S. government. Legitimacy is the perspective being used loudly by many world leaders against Gaddafi. I wonder, can we camp on their grounds and turn their own ideas against them?

World heads of state do not usually shine the light of legitimacy on one another, much less on themselves. Oh no, they are very quiet and reserved in that area. They don’t want people questioning their legitimacy, so they don’t raise the idea. Libya is atypical. Some leaders are using the rhetoric of legitimacy against Gaddafi. They believe that they can confine its use to him. They believe that they can restrict illegitimacy to instances of outright violence and ignore hidden violence. This serves their purposes.

In the post-Soviet era, criticisms by world leaders of the U.S. tend to be restrained, muted and timid. The world’s states are essentially in cahoots with one another. Many are beholden to the U.S. or tied in via relations of one kind and another. They cannot be too critical. Many have their own domestic problems and don’t want to stir up nests of hornets.

We are not so confined. If we use Obama’s criterion that violence against one’s people is a sign of government illegitimacy, then how many world governments are themselves legitimate? They all use violence and the threat of violence to maintain themselves. The fact that the threats of violence are effective and prevent outright blood on the streets doesn’t remove the presence of violence as the government’s means of controlling its citizens. Once we look under the hood at the motor of government, we find violence. At what point does such violence mean that the government’s leaders or the government itself – its very form – have lost legitimacy?

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

GE 'zero' US tax furor reignites calls for reform

Revelations that General Electric paid no US taxes last year, despite bagging a $14 billion profit, have reignited debate in Washington about tightening up corporate levies.

© AFP/Getty Images Scott Olson

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Revelations that General Electric paid no US taxes last year, despite bagging a $14 billion profit, have reignited debate in Washington about tightening up corporate levies.

No one, it seems, is very fond of the US corporate tax system.

Businesses bemoan the 35 percent minimum rate that is among the highest in the world, and taxpayers are furious at how easily big firms seem to pay much less.

But in recent months the issue has been overshadowed by multiple global crises and a fierce argument over government spending.


It resurfaced with a bang last week, when it emerged that manufacturing titan GE paid no taxes to the US government in 2010.

"GE did not pay US federal taxes last year because we did not owe any," spokeswoman Anne Eisele told AFP, rejecting suggestions the United States' fourth largest company was gaming the system.

But as millions of Americans struggle to make ends meet, and the Federal government fails spectacularly to do the same, that disclosure has caused consternation.

"The wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations must do their share to help bring down our record-breaking deficit," Democrat-allied Senator Bernie Sanders said Sunday.

Supporters of reform, from big business to the White House, are re-polishing their arguments.

The White House argues an overhaul could help bring down unemployment. Big business agrees a lower rate would aid growth.

Despite this broad coalition, experts say the prospect of a quick deal is illusory.

They argue the government has few options if it wants to substantially lower the minimum rate and not add to the deficit: Expand the number of people paying corporate taxes, or get more revenue.

"If you want to get the corporate tax rate down from 35 to 28 percent -- that is a 20 percent cut in the tax rate -- you have to have increase the tax base by 20 percent, or offset it," said Alan Auerbach, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

"That is a big increase."

President Barack Obama has leaned heavily toward closing loopholes, arguing that "revenue neutral" reform must spell an end to some antiquated, but much-loved, tax breaks.

"I don't think there is anyway to do this without winners and losers," said Seth Hanlon, the director of fiscal reform at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Cutting roughly four billion dollars a year in oil and gas sector subsidies are a regularly cited example of cuts, so too is tightening manufacturing deductions that are used well beyond the sector.

But the most lucrative target for the Internal Revenue Service may be cracking down on overseas tax shelters.

Under current rules US firms pay tax on foreign subsidiaries only when profits are sent back to the United States.

© AFP/File Nicholas Kamm

Treating subsidiaries as domestic businesses for tax purposes could spell vastly higher tax bills for firms like GE.

While the company says much of this year's tax savings come from losses at GE Capital, even before other write-offs its effective US tax rate was just over seven percent -- thanks in part to some profits being kept overseas.

"If you just look at our statutory rate, it's high," said Annette Nellen, an accounting professor at San Jose State University, but "the effective tax rate for many companies is a lot lower."

Outrage or not, tough bargains will need to be reached if a reform deal is to be reached.

"It is going to depend on who all steps forward to say 'oh no, no, we can't get rid of the research credit, we can't get rid of that work opportunity tax credit,'" said Nellen.

"If you get enough people stepping forward to say you can't get rid of this stuff, then Congress I think will just step back and say, we'll leave the rate where it is."

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama Proposes Harsh New Copyright Laws for Internet

Do Obama's Proposed New Copyright Laws Go Too Far? (Part I)

Obama Administration IP Czar Victoria Espinel

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

On Tuesday, the White House's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, provided Congress with a White Paper (available for download here), outlining a series of the Obama Administration's recommended legislative changes to combat online piracy and counterfeiting.  Significantly, the recommendations include making it a felony offense to stream infringing content and giving Federal agencies wiretapping authority to obtain evidence of criminal copyright and trademark offenses.
The White Paper is the product of the IP Czar's review of "existing laws to ensure that they were effective and to identify deficiencies that could hinder enforcement."  The review was conducted in conjunction with a group of federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the State Department.

These new proposals, as well as the Obama Administration's recent questionable domain seizures and previous controversial proposed laws, such as COICA, have raised questions about what Obama's legacy will end up being with regard to internet issues.


In the White Paper, Espinel attempts to camouflage some of the potentially controversial recommendations behind lofty goals like health risks, national security, counterfeit drugs and combating criminal gangs.  However, many of the key measures, such as the new wiretapping powers and increased sentencing for repeat offenders, appear to be potentially applicable to any website operator and not limited to any one group or purpose.

Several points of the White Paper also still need to be investigated and clarified.  For example, it requests that Congress change the law to clarify that "infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony."  However, there is no attempt to clarify what activities fall into the category of "other similar new technology."  Does this only refer to technology that has not been invented yet?  Are search engines that list streaming sites the type of "other similar new technology" that will be subject to felony charges?

Around the web, the initial reaction to the White Paper is mixed.  CNET hints that we should question the motives behind the Obama Administration's crackdown on copyright infringement by pointing out that "No less than 78 percent of political contributions from Hollywood went to Democrats in 2008, which is broadly consistent with the trend for the last two decades, according to OpenSecrets.org."

Techdirt is more direct with its criticism, pointing out:

The thing is, every time the government ratchets up IP laws in ways that don't match with the way most people view the world, the less respected those laws become. Rather than actually increasing enforcement, these moves decrease respect for those laws.

On the other hand, Ars Technica applauds the fact that "The list largely avoids big controversies—Web censorship, 'three strikes' rules—in favor of a focus on health, safety, and serious criminal activity."

While I agree that these proposals could be worse, I believe the White Paper's potential to arm the United States government with another powerful new set of weapons aimed at websites demands more analysis than I can do in a single article.  Therefore, this will be the introductory post of a multi-part analysis that I will roll out over the course of the next few days that will provide a more detailed review of the recommendations in the White Paper, as well as what these recommendations tell us about the Obama Administration's intellectual property philosophy and agenda.

Part II will review the Government's proposed new wiretap authority for copyright offenses.

David Makarewicz is an attorney practicing internet law concerning privacy rights and copyright defense for websites and blogs. Visit Dave at Sites and Blogs to keep up with breaking Internet news.

Related Articles:

Four time bombs that will blow up Wall Street

Ron Paul: Hemp for Victory

Ireland's Prelude To Revolution: IMF Bankster Party Tossed ...

Global food price inflation leads to world food crisis

Soaring Food Prices in India Lead to Protests

LinkWithin

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Rescue Choppers Or Corporate Jets? The Biggest Fraud Of All

Japan devastation/AFP image

Dylan Ratigan
Daily Bail

I've been glued to my TV and computer all weekend watching the horrors unfold in Japan. I don't know very much about the Japanese budgetary situation, how much the clean-up is going to cost, etc. But I know that no one in Japan right now is worrying about the Japanese budget deficit, or whether there is any waste in the emergency services departments of local or national governments, or whether the emergency shelters holding millions of people could be provided any cheaper. At times like this, people are desperately hoping that someone can save their friends, family, and make sure that supplies move to people who need them.

And in all the footage of people being saved, I haven't seen one mega-bank rescue anyone. I saw help from a lot of volunteers, firemen, rescue workers, doctors, nurses, etc. But not one bank. And that was true during snowstorms in North Dakota, the floods in New Orleans, and the earthquake in Haiti. Oddly, though the banks are sucking up enormous amounts of our budgetary resources, they don't own rescue helicopters, they don't track earthquakes, they don't study tsunamis, and they don't deal with radiation poisoning.
According to Simon Johnson, roughly 40% of the increase in privately held government debt over the past few years is due to the financial crisis caused by these mega-banks. Yet, the Federal budget debate is centered on slashing spending on things that we actually need, things that, when a crisis happens, saves our lives.

Instead of taking back the money spent on these bailouts, the new "tea party" Republicans are instead trying to slash funds for the agency that warned our West Coast of the tsunami. How many millions of dollars did NOAA save by giving us due warning and letting us protect property? We'll never know, just as the Japanese can't know how many hundreds of thousands survived due to a strong infrastructure and well-funded preparations.

I don't mean to pick on the Republican leaders, though actually, yes, I do. Just cutting government programs sounds good, until your friend or family member is hanging on a rooftop somewhere praying for a rescue, a rescue that would have had to have been planned and pre-funded years before since helicopters can't actually be wished into existence upon demand. But let's be clear, the dynamic that is starving our government of revenue is one that the Democrats created from 2008-2010, when they allowed and encouraged the big banks to feed on the government trough. This bipartisan corrupt racket, where Democrats help banks loot and Republicans give the bill to the rest of us, needs to end.

Read Full Article

Related Articles:

Bahrain protesters swarm square, police flee

Middle East: Revolutions and Propaganda

US ship to 'bolster' Europe's missile defenses

Globalist Grandmaster Zbigniew Brzezinski Discusses How to ...

Why I'm Buying Silver at $30

LinkWithin

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Al Franken: ‘They're coming after the Internet’

Mike Zapler
Politico

AUSTIN, Texas — Sen. Al Franken claimed Monday that big corporations are "hoping to destroy" the Internet and issued a call to arms to several hundred tech-savvy South by Southwest attendees to preserve net neutrality.

"I came here to warn you, the party may be over," Franken said. "They're coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom.”

Net neutrality, he added, is "the First Amendment issue of our time."

Receiving a hero's welcome from the liberal crowd, Franken took repeated shots at big telecoms, singling out Comcast.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Number of the Week: Companies’ Cash Hoard Grows

Mark Whitehouse
Wall Street Journal

$1.9 trillion: Corporate America’s cash

U.S. companies’ cash hoard keeps getting bigger, a trend both good and troubling.

After hitting new highs in five of the last six quarters, nonfinancial corporations’ cash and other liquid assets reached $1.9 trillion at the end of 2010, according to the Federal Reserve. That’s 7% of all their assets, the highest level since 1963.

On the bright side, the cash pile reflects the resilience of America’s companies and capital markets. Thanks in part to improved resource-management systems, executives have been able to act with lightning speed, slashing costs during the recession and hiring only as much as they need during the recovery — tactics that have generated record profits, if not jobs. Dynamic bond markets have allowed big companies to raise vast amounts of money even as banks have pulled back on lending. That has helped the U.S. avoid the kind of bankruptcy epidemic many had expected.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner