But, then, the Mosque, and America's peaceful, United States loving, Islamic communities are not, and were never the issue for Republican manipulators of the facts. The issue was, from the beginning, how to motivate conservatives to the polls in November to vote for Republicans. The Mosque and its location are simply tools to that end. The lie was necessary to make the tool work on the fears of stupid and uneducated Republican voters. A great many Republicans are neither stupid nor uneducated, however. And therein lies the war taking place inside the GOP, that is going to cost them in November's elections, despite all other political conditions being ripe for their taking back the House of Representatives and Senate majorities.

This is not, however, a problem only for Republicans. There is a deeper and more threatening reach to this story for all of America. The bigger issues are about philosophy, principle, and leadership. The Democratic and Republican Parties are undermining the best of these in the name of political warfare and manipulation of voters with deceit, propaganda, and the best sophistry money can buy. America has a long and shameful history of making enemies out of their fellow countrymen, beginning with the Revolutionary War. Yet, America's founding principles speak to equality and unity as the strengths that could underwrite a long and prosperous future for our new nation.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

From our U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If those making decisions for many, err or become corrupt, the consequences for all those living with their decisions can be enormously negative. To neglect the welfare of individuals in a society can, and will, produce very costly consequences like Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, the Uni-bomber, the urban rioters of the 1960’s and early 1970’s, and organizations like the the KKK, Aryan Nation, Weathermen, Black Panthers, or, on an even larger scale, the Confederacy, threatening to tear our nation apart.

A society is only as great as the least of its own citizens. A society that ignores and neglects the plight of its members, has neither peace nor civil order in its future. A concept many Republicans and conservatives cannot, and will not, subscribe to the wisdom of, unless, and until, they perceive themselves becoming the neglected and ignored. This extremist activism by the Right has many factions, but, none as large as the Fundamentalist Right Evangelical Christians, who have watched their agenda on abortion, stem cell research, marriage, and an unconstitutional concept of America as a Christian nation get moved to the back of the political bus. The Mosque lie, is hitting all the right FREC emotional buttons to reactivate and re-energize their political participation for the November elections.

The GOP is very divided. In May of 2009, some leaders in the Party set out to reshape their public image. That image however, is as fractured as the Party's ranks are. As the above referenced poll indicates, the general public holds a very poor opinion of the GOP as the Party to manage government, with only 24% holding a positive rating, compared to 33% positive for the Democratic Party. Reshaping the Party's image, put the cart before the horse. First, the GOP had to reshape their platform and internal unity around that platform. They didn't. As the poll shows, their public image has not improved.

The N.Y. Mosque protesters don’t realize the potential consequences of their actions in the potential for erosion of civil and religious liberty, let alone their growing role in aiding and abetting our enemies, the Taliban and al-Queda, by giving credibility to our enemy's propaganda of the U.S. engaged in war against the religion of Islam. The consequences of such ignorance by Mosque protesters can only be mitigated by a national rebuke of such ignorance. Seems the GOP is not willing to step up to the challenge and defend our nation’s future, even in this. They myopically focus on manipulating their base, instead of remaking their party.

Evil will grow in strength when good people stand silently and fearfully by is one of the great lessons of Hitler's Germany. America’s great potential rests upon taking care of the least and most vulnerable, insuring dignity and liberty for even these. But, it also rests upon its courage to denounce those within it, who would subvert that potential with cowardly and aggressive prejudices and bigotry that would cast all of a skin color, or religion, or economic class in the same mold as the derelicts within those groups.

Now is the time for all good folk of the Republican and Democratic parties to rise united in denunciation of those who would take us back to our darker history of civil war, deprivation, and inhumane treatment of each other: the thinly veiled agenda of Glenn Beck's 'divine' oratory this last weekend. Our political parties have ample common enemies of our nation and ideals, to unite around. The offer to do so has been made by President Obama, repeatedly. None from the GOP have risen from the prepubescent shame of election defeat, to become great again in accepting the offer, proud and good American to proud and good American. Where are the GOP’s Ronald Reagan protege's, who would put nation and future first; rising above politics, to tend to our common enemies in united fashion? Debt, ignorance, lies and propaganda, lack of accountability and responsibility, ideological extremism and the corrupting influence of money in our political process are all enemies of America seeking to destroy her future.

If the GOP wants to resurrect their Party, they could do no better than to make addressing these real enemies of America the foundation of their platform and election campaigns..Resentment over having lost the majority in government, and internal warfare between moderates and far right conservatives within the Party, keep the short sighted GOP leaders and its potential great leaders from rising to the occasion. Such petty and small minded rivalries will likely cost the GOP in November any majority.

Our nation continues to suffer the consequences of the GOP’s inability to bring forth great American leaders. They fight pettily over the paltry prize of Party leadership instead. The David Horowitz' and Glenn Becks have become the public face of the GOP and such faces will never rally a majority of consent and unity from the American public. Stop the lies and rally around defeating our nation's enemies, without, and within. That is the path forward for the GOP, should they depose David Horowitz and find new leaders to embrace this agenda for America's future.

(Parts of this article are reprinted here from another at PoliWatch.Org.)

FDR was able to shake the depression with the advent of WWII. It might be a long shot but the Repub’s could declare war on the drug cartels. If fought like the Iraq/Afghan wars it could last longer than WWII giving political cover for a good number of years. They could drag it beyond Mexico to Venezuela, Columbia and points South, even to Africa.

Seems plausible that war could be brought to the drug cartels in the same venue that we took on the Taliban and Al-Queda. Doesn’t have to be against the foreign govt’s. War against terror should fit the drug cartels nicely.

I believe 72 potential immigrants were recently captured by the cartels and when they objected they were murdered on the spot. Also, a number of people along the border were found thrown into a well, some said to be thrown in alive. Still others, found dead in trash disposal areas. Some 28,228 have been killed along the border since Calderon took office, more than US fatalities in the Iraq war..

Today two car bombs went off in N. Mex. and the US Consulate in Monterrey is sending children of Consulate employees back to the US. Fourteen drug related killings reported in Acapulco. Grenades were also thrown at Televisa in Monterrey and Matamoros across from Brownsville, Texas, earlier this month. The media has all but shut down across much of the Northern border leaving the cartels to pillage and plunder at will.

Can you imagine some dude puffing on a joint while postulating the cartel thing? I don’t think the Barbary Pirates acted this badly. Noriega was a cream puff compared to these modern day druggies.

I read recently where the FED is ferreting out about 1% of money associated with drugs. There is some talk that any purchases in Mexico over $10k or so to be done other than cash.

I could see the Republicans setting up a number of ‘Arpaio’ type tent city jails and take the war to the cartels. I see nothing to gain re recovery from the great recession unless some protectionist's measures are taken. Can’t see that happening under the Repub’s. But, they very well could score some points with the voting public by taking on the cartel’s as terrorist organizations.

When a movie actor is charged for statutory rape in Arizona, should the courts honor the actor's request to be tried in Hollywood, Ca. where the jury pool would be more sympathetic to the actor's plight? Should all politicians indicted for crimes be allowed to pick and choose the voting district where the jurors are more likely to have voted for the politician? If one commits a crime, should their politics be a factor at all?

These are tough questions in a society that revolves around political warfare between the two major Parties, and friends and associates are chosen or rejected by many on the basis of what Party they belong to or sympathize with. Isn't justice supposed to be blind to such issues? Whether or not it is supposed to be, Tom DeLay clearly believes justice is not blind to politics and he wants to take advantage of that.

Tom DeLay's request assumes that Americans in Austin and his home County are prejudiced along political lines and he cannot, therefore get a fair trial in Austin, and can received favored treatment in his conservative home county, Fort Bend, North of Houston. Is Tom DeLay's assumption correct? And if so, what does that say about America, and its people, and its judicial and justice systems?

Most people would agree that a murderer's or rapist's politics would have no meaning to a jury hearing the facts of the defendant's case in most places in America. Why should it be different in a case of money laundering for Tom DeLay? Is there a threshold of severity of the crime that has to be reached before politics no longer becomes a factor?

These questions are not easily answered. What about a white man in Mississippi charged with the murder of a black man? Can this defendant get a fair trial in a predominantly white County of Mississippi? How about a predominantly Black County in Mississippi? Should a judge be blind to such considerations in determining where a defendant should be tried, or, should a judge take such considerations into account when trying a white person for murder of a black person?

If a judge should take such considerations into account, then what is to stop a judge from allowing their own politics to determine where Tom DeLay is to be tried? Is that just? Judges routinely instruct the jury that their decision is to be based solely on the facts of the case presented to them. Don't judges have the same obligation in determining where the case is to be tried? Should politics even enter into the decision of a judge as to where the case should be tried?

Winston Churchill once said: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." It is this writer's opinion that Tom DeLay's request should be denied.

There is nothing perfect about America's judicial and justice system, but, it is the best system ever devised, even with its flaws. If in a judge's opinion, a defendant will not likely receive a fair and impartial decision by the jurors in one location, that judge has an obligation to consider another place where that defendant can be more assured of a fair and impartial decision by the jurors.

However, Tom DeLay's request is not to be tried where he is likely to receive a fair and impartial decision. His request is to be tried where he is likely to receive a biased and politically prejudiced decision in his favor; his home County where voters overwhelming elected him, again and again. Like many politicians, Tom DeLay is not concerned with fairness or justice. He is concerned with twisting events to his own personal advantage. He does not seek fairness in his trial as sought by the founding principles of our nation. He seeks partiality and bias from our justice system, in his favor.

There are Counties in Texas that are more balanced on the liberal/conservative numbers, and who have less or no personal experience with Tom DeLay. It seems to this writer, that if the judge is to change the venue for the trial, that judge has an obligation to choose just such a place, in order to best assure a fair and impartial decision by a jury.

(This article was previously published at PoliWatch.Org.)

Other than these obvious and general positions, VOID takes no position on policy debate issues. VOID is unique in this way, focusing like a laser on the source of bad governance, the incumbent reelection rate regardless of how bad government gets. The idea of the vote was conceived and designed in this country to remove politicians from office who fail in their obligation to make the government work for the best interests of the nation and its people.

The idea of the vote was a response to King George of England having no obligation to the people and the people having no recourse regarding his remaining in power over them. Democracy is intrinsically built upon the concept of the people's legal ability and social capacity to remove politicians from office when they fail to provide the government which the people pay for, and give up some liberty for.

Personally, I am pleased to see the Tea Party, the Coffee Party, and other right-left leaning organizations promote the concept of voting out incumbents as recourse to perceived bad governance. It strengthens the anti-incumbent movement and growth, and hastens the day when the political parties and politicians will be forced to acknowledge that wealthy campaign donors no longer hold the keys to reelection, but, the anti-incumbent voters do. Then, and only then, will our politicians address the common concerns of the voters instead of their wealthy special interest contributors.

One of the major differences between the agenda of wealthy special interest donors and the American public in general, is that the wealthy special interest donors are myopic in seeking favorable legislation and administration toward their short term financial and regulatory gains, whereas, the public is more concerned about the long term quality of life in America, for them and the future of their children. The anti-incumbent movement can force the politicians to shift their priorities from those wealthy special interests to those shared by the American public: better education, more and better paying jobs, savings security, national security, and taxes which pay for national necessities, not wealthy special interest gains.

These objectives are common amongst anti-incumbent voters, independent, left, and right leaning. Potentially, this makes the anti-incumbent voting block very powerful in forcing government results which most people in America would approve of. The Tea Party and The Coffee Party can pursue their left and right leaning perspectives on specific policies. That's fine with VOID, as long as they are ALSO promoting the use of the vote for challengers instead of incumbents as the method by which the American people wrestle back control of politicians from the wealthy special interests who now buy the government that serves their ends, even to the destruction of America herself.

In the end, these organizations are promoting Democracy as it was intended to be, government of, by, and for the people, not the politicians, or their wealthy campaign contributor puppeteers. Enormous improvements and gains for America, her political system and our government lie ahead if the anti-incumbent grass roots movement is capable of reducing the incumbent reelection rate from 90% on average toward 50% or less. No politician wants to be a one term representative, and they will work very hard to meet public expectations if their reelection depends upon it. That is what VOID is about. It is sound, it is timely, and its concept of reinstating real democracy is growing.

One last observation. The Tea Party is having a profound effect upon the GOP, forcing them to reconsider their strategy and tactics. Whether one agrees with their considered options or not, the anti-incumbent pressure from the Tea Party is forcing incumbent politicians on the Right to question their priorities. That is a beginning of change within the GOP. Something similar is beginning to happen with the Democratic Party as a result of the Coffee Party's efforts. If the anti-incumbent movement takes root amongst centrist independents, as well as the left and right wing pressure groups, I am convinced very positive results will be realized over the coming elections for the nation, our people, and our future.

(A substantial portion of this article is reprinted from an article originally appearing at Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy on August 14, 2010.)

Over the decades, millions of bridges to nowhere with various names like 'invading Iraq', subsidies to religious charitable organizations, and 100's of billions of tax payer dollars paid to corporations like Haliburton for literally nothing of benefit to America or Americans in the name of national security, have put America's financial health into the Emergency Room. The steady growth of national debt combined with the steady erosion of real wages since the 1970's has brought America down to its economic knees. And from this position, America has to fight at every level of the public sector to pass legislation that will halt deficits and this lethal growth of national debt.

Yet, that is not how our representatives in State and federal governments view their position as political representatives. The vast majority of our representatives are still in Ted Stevens mode. They continue to place their political aspirations and goals, and the demands of their local constituents, ahead of the demands of our nation's economic health and well being, going forward. This is akin to taking aspirin to treat brain cancer. The headache may go away in the short term, but the cancer will grow unabated, and kill you. The State and local governments along with all who live under them, cannot survive a failed national government or, a failed national economy, unless they are very wealthy and have their passports intact to move to another stable country when America fails.

The political parties that promote their candidate's election and reelection are beholding to some very wealthy special interest contributors who pay for the campaign expenses. The politicians themselves are also beholding to other wealthy special interests who underwrite their election or reelection campaign expenses. These politicians are not going to voluntarily bite the hands that pay their election campaign expenses. This means our politicians are going to continue to rob from our nation's future to repay the special interest contributors whose agenda is focused on what gains them in the short run, between elections. This is Ted Stevens style governance, though, to be sure, this modality of governing has been shared by all but a rare few politicians, for decades.

Not since the first Constitutional Convention, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Great Depression, has America been in this position which demands that its elected leaders put immediate and political concerns aside, in order to address the potential failure of the nation standing before them. Unlike these previous milestones in American history, our current political system prevents our elected leaders from doing what they need to do to overcome the threat facing us all.

The political parties and politicians are going to spend more than a billion dollars buying your and my vote with deceptions, distortions, and manipulations, along with touting how they have, or will, bring federal dollars home to their local voters (raising our national debt even more, feeding the cancer.). Both Parties and their candidates will attempt to convince us that their opponents will kill America's future. Both Parties will lie about this. The simple truth is, both Parties are responsible for making the defeat of their political opponents the higher priority to saving this nation from ruin. And as long as they are fighting each other for power, they won't be rescuing our nation. They can't. To save our nation's future, they must work together on common ground for solutions which they will all stand by and defend now, and into the future. Working together in this manner stands in total and complete contradiction to each party's first priority of defeating their political opponents and blaming the other party for the nation's decline.

If America is to be saved from crippling national debt as well as crippling losses of basic government services like education, police, fire and emergency medical services, libraries, safe roads, water, and sewage treatment, and public health protection, it is the voters who will save it. The politicians haven't the political motivation to work together to save our future. When, however, if it is not too late, enough voters reject the reelection of incumbents from both parties, in effect rejecting both parties themselves outright, then, and only then, will the political parties and their politicians have the motivation to put their differences and political fights aside, and earn those anti-incumbent voter's confidence back, by addressing and standing by the solutions they create to save our future. It is only when the voters reject the politicians and prevent their reelection, that the politicians that do get elected will again work to represent the common demand of the people to save this nation in the long term.

The time for politicians manipulating the voters is over. Ted Stevens is dead. The time for voters to manipulate the politicians into doing what they should have all along, has come. The more voters reject the sitting politicians on Election Day, the more the politicians will embrace this common demand of the voters to save this nation's future.

(This article was previously published at Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy)

Since that debate we’ve witnessed millions of jobs lost to countries where cheap labor is plentiful. We’ve lived through an era in which the greatest transfer of wealth in human history has taken place. So, the upcoming debates should be enlightening as the politicians and candidates relate their visions and plans to move us beyond the great recession.

Some of the questions that would stoke the debate might be; what is the plan for the globalized economy? What benefits should we expect of the NAFTA highway? How will we deal with open borders and the unimpeded flow of workers from around the world? What will be the impact of open borders on our internal security? Would controlling the borders put a stop to the killing of thousands of Mexicans along the border and diminish drug use in this country? What is the plan to put the millions of unemployed back to work? Is there a plan to help U.S. citizens find work in foreign countries? If not the UN or the WTO as the One World government then what is the plan? When One World government becomes available will there still be lesser governments? What part(s) of the Constitution will need modification to comply with One World? Would you need a One World visa to travel between Georgia and Tenn? Or, from Mexico to Costa Rica? Would we still retain Social Security and Medicare or be expected to buy in to One World provisions? Will products be labeled as to their source or perhaps region? Would we be subject to a New World tax? Would New World leaders be appointed or elected? What might the organization chart look like? One currency? What individual rights would we have under One World? What is the projected timeline to put the North American Union in place? To have useful debates should we invite WTO representatives? Well, most papers limit the words in an opinion so I will digress at this point.

I’m sure there are thousands of similar questions people are hoping the debates will address. Then, perhaps there has been no thought given to such questions but we’d like to know that too.

BUT, if there is no debate, no help in understanding the rush to a globalized economy, then there is no reason politicians should expect our vote. To have no debate on this major issue would imply that a GREAT CONSPIRACY is happening right before our eyes. The Emperor has no clothes and all of that - - -

Otherwise, we have the Socialistic-Corpocracy we deserve.

It is helpful to understand the desires and needs of the Corpocracy to some degree. Here is a plea from Soros :

“To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy. A global society does not mean a global state. To abolish the existence of states is neither feasible nor desirable; but insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. Interestingly, the greatest opposition to this idea is coming from the United States, which, as the sole remaining superpower, is unwilling to subordinate itself to any international authority. The United States faces a crisis of identity: Does it want to be a solitary superpower or the leader of the free world? The two roles could be blurred as long as the free world was confronting an "evil empire," but the choice now presents itself in much starker terms. Unfortunately we have not even started to consider it. The popular inclination in the United States is to go it alone, but that would deprive the world of the leadership it so badly needs. Isolationism could be justified only if the market fundamentalists were right and the global economy could sustain itself without a global society.”

And some information on the Tides Foundation:
Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the
Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds."

"Summary: The radical environmentalistsof the
Apollo Alliance have tremendous
clout with the Obama administration and Congress. The shadowy group is home to
self-described communists and left-wing terrorists from the 1960s yet it somehow
maintains a squeaky clean public image. In February lawmakers inserted into stimulus
legislation its “green jobs” program, a government make-work project based on
the fantasy that America could painlessly transition to an oil-free economy.
And some more right wing dogma:
“And two more left-wing heavyweights are joining the HCAN parade: the corruption-plagued SEIU (which has battled numerous embezzlement scandals among its chapters across the country while crusading for consumer and patients' rights), and Obama's old chums at fraud-riddled ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

ACORN and HCAN are linked by left-wing philanthropist Drummond Pike, who heads the nonprofit Tides Foundation/Tides Center. As the tax disclaimer for HCAN discloses, "HCAN is related to Health Care for America Education Fund, a project of The Tides Center, a section 501(c)(3) public charity." For decades, the Tides Center and its parent organization, the Tides Foundation, have seeded some of the country's most radical activist groups of the left, including the communist-friendly United for Peace and Justice, the jihadist-friendly National Lawyers Guild and the grievance-mongering Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Pike is the same philanthropist who assisted ACORN founder Wade Rathke after his brother, Dale, was caught embezzling nearly $1 million from the group. Wade Rathke sits on the Tides Foundation board of directors. In a conspiracy to cover up Dale Rathke's massive theft of funds, Pike volunteered to buy a promissory note worth $800,000 to cover the debt. These are the populist do-gooders supposedly looking out for you and your health."

So, the left and right will continue to argue as they travel down the road looking for their common destination, globalization. Globalization has been the mantra of every President since Carter. Now, if Beck and those tacky voters would just get out of the way. And, who the hell is Tommie Jefferson anyway?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Please read this article thoroughly, debate the issue here and with friends, post it on blogsites and help in the effort to make the public aware of the coming battle to abolish Corporate Personhood law. In that endeavor we believe there are two possible paths to overturning this law. It will require the congress acquiese to Article V Convention whereby ratification by the states of a proposal to abolish Corporate Personhood would amend the Constitution to do so. Another path is through a strong third-party movement that could gain influence in congress and press the Supreme Court to abolish Corporate Personhood.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve….

Environment: Another hurricane is impeding the cleanup of the BP oil disaster. The gusher has pumped some tens of millions of gallons of oil into Gulf waters. BP is having foreign relations problems as they are suspect in negotiating with one or more government’s on behalf of Libya to release the Lockerbie bomber. Following the bomber’s release BP was awarded a $900M oil contract with Libya. Meanwhile an oil spill in China has dumped 400,000 gallons of oil into the Yellow, now black, river. Volunteers are using their hands, chopsticks, small wood planks and plastic bags to clean up the northeastern coast.

Late reports hold that 3 out of 4 oil and gas lobbyists representing oil and gas companies previously worked for the federal government. I would of thought the figure was higher? Key lobbying hires include 18 former members of Congress and dozens of former presidential appointees, or CZARS. With 600 registered lobbyists, the energy industry is among the most powerful contingents in Washington, able to block gov’t regulations in a single bound. To the rescue, none other than Ken Salazar, Interior Secretary, overseer of the Minerals and Mining Safety, the regulators known for their cozy relationship with BP. Ken has pledged to close the revolving door. It’s 10pm, do you know where your gov’t is?

Meanwhile, China is building something like half a dozen coal fired plants monthly. And, they will need lots of oil, as will India, when they put a couple of billion new drivers on the road over the next few years. The US has plenty of natural gas for years to come but it seems the Corpocracy will stick with the oil business until that is depleted before turning on the gas. I just hope my bottled water is not coming from the Yellow river area, or anywhere outside my county.

Politics: Now, Tom Tancredo (Colorado), is pushing a move to impeach President Obama. He believes Obama is akin to Al Queda and, if left unattended, will destroy the Constitution. He cites Obama’s refusal to secure the Southern border as one piece of evidence.

Noteworthy that the Chamber of Commerce (CofC) is placing big bets against Obama. And, Progressive elements of the Democratic Party are taking voice against Obama as well. The pundits are suggesting that if the Dems do poorly in the mid-term elections, the Party will turn to Bill and Hill to carry the day for the liberal agenda.

Newt Gingrich seems to be testing the waters for a run in 2012. He is pushing the idea of a ‘fair tax’. IMO, a fair tax is similar to our current tax policy with some code changes. Still leaves the Corpocracy to manipulate the tax code to control your ‘wealth’ and retains their power to make winners and losers. Nope, a flat tax is what we need. Instructions on one side and the form on the other. ALL pay the same rate, no deductions, no nothing. Just a flat percent of your gross income. Now, that’s a ‘fair’ tax.

Meanwhile, in the small town of Bell, Calif, couch potatoes took to the street, demanding the outster of their City Mgr, $800k/yr, their police Chief, 450k/yr, and an asst mgr, 375k/yr. FINALLY, a piece of good news. People actually holding their elected officials accountable,

Asked how he would create more jobs if the Republican’s come to power, Boehner (R-Oh) stated that he would push through some free trade bills now sitting on Obama’s desk. IMO, it’s the free trade bills that ushered in the ‘greatest xfer of wealth in the history of mankind’. But, that’s our choice, we can ping-ping, or we can ping-pong, that’s about it. The Corpocracy really won’t mind which way we jump,

Foreign Relations: North Korea threatens to ‘get physical’ if the US and S. Kor. carry through with planned military maneuvers. We will probably need to check in with China on this one.

And, speaking of China, the heads of some US and European multinationals speak of a deteriorating business environment in China, citing problems on intellectual property rights, an ‘indigenous innovation’ policy which requires firms to transfer their latest technology to China. Financial and banking entities are also complaining of China’s policies.

Defense: Since 9/11 the intelligence business is up some 250%, creating or revamping some 263 organizations. The Wash Post noted there are 51 federal organizations and/or military organizations that track the flow of money to terrorist organizations. Some $75B annually spent on intelligence programs. Between 1998 and 2011 defense spending rose from $271B to $580B or 114% and the US share of global military spending rose from 1/3 to ½. I wonder how 9/11 can be equated to WWII as evidenced by all this defense spending? Could we afford to fight a real war at these prices? Come on, N. Kor, can’t we talk about it?

Money: Forty one cents of each dollar the government spends is borrowed money.

The unemployment bill was passed into law. A person can remain eligible for benefits for a peeriod of 99 weeks. I tell everybody I know that Eric Cantor will find them a job if they will just call him.

Glenn Beck: Swore today that he is now a ‘revolutionary’. He’s about 3 years behind me on that front. Republic Sentry Party with a different political attitude and all that - - -

That’s a wrap for this half-hour.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

I urge all to catch the Beck show this PM if at all possible. His showmanship is super, with the pipe and all that. I’m sure Glenn will make headlines for the next few days.

Most any citizen over six years of age can see the problems that could arise from such a broad statement in the law. And, knowning how the elites, the corpocracy, lobbyist and the like will take a mile if you give an inch we now have corporate ‘baby shops’. These are often ‘consultants’ who, for a small fee, will arrange for future moms to come to the U.S., have their baby, do a little shopping and return to their home country.

A recent Wash Post article relates that baby shops in China will arrange for a 3 month stay in a ‘baby care center for a basic fee of $1475. Provisions include a room with cable TV and wireless Internet, and three meals for $35 dollars a day. The doctors and staff all speak Chinese and there are shopping trips and sightseeing trips. The mothers must pay their air fare and for the 3 month visa.

A consultant spokesperson say that many families feel that ‘with U.S. citizenship their child can have a more fair, competitive environment’. Also, serves as a great way to get around China’s law of having only one child per family. Also, gives the child free public access to U.S. schools through high school and access to a cheaper college education.

The article relates that this year 10M students will vie for 6.6M openings at Chinese universities. It should be noted that many good U.S. students are unable to gain access to the ‘better’ universities and that foreign students make up 50% of the graduate school pool.

IMO, the anchor baby policy degrades the meaning of citizenship, treated more as an instrument of foreign policy. Now, we hear that the gov’t is going to send more ICE agents to the border as well as more national guard troops. Since the ICE will be taking on desk jobs and the national guard are not allowed to confront the illegals, this is correctly viewed as just another ploy by the Corpocracy on their way to an amnesty policy for illegals. Bush carried out the same maneuver for the same purpose.

We’re gathered together tonight to examine a phenomenon called “corporate personhood.” Most people who hear that phrase for the first time scratch their heads, look at you funny, and maybe wonder what you’ve been smoking. The absurdity of corporate personhood has that effect on people — it just doesn’t make sense! But corporate personhood is not only real under law, it has an enormous impact on all of us, so it behooves us to know what it is, how it got here, and why we need to get rid of it.

To understand what’s going on, we’re going to go back to the Constitution of the United States of America. This document was written by 55 gentlemen cleverly described by one historian as “the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed.”

As some of the wealthiest, most privileged people in the new country, they were highly aware that their power had everything to do with how much property they owned — land, crops, buildings, personal goods, and — for most of them — property in the form of human beings, their slaves.

As some of the best educated men in the world (by European standards, anyway), they also knew about democracy, and they understood what a threat the real thing represented to their personal power.
The kind of democracy they prized and wrote about so eloquently could only be practiced by people like them — certainly not by the rabble, or, as Alexander Hamilton so fondly referred to us, “the mob at the gate.”
So in the Constitution they created a republic and a system of government that is designed to protect property, not people. And not surprisingly, when folks in the new United States got their first look at the proposed Constitution, they howled!

At least half of the population was very much opposed to the Constitution. They had just fought a long, bloody revolutionary war groovin’ on words like “liberty” and “freedom,” not “president” or “congress” or “supreme
court.”

But the Federalists who proposed the Constitution had the finances and the unity to promote their ideas strongly, and after a lot of politicking they got the Constitution ratified — but only with the assurance that a Bill of Rights would be added to protect people from the excesses by the government that would be possible under the new system.

It’s worth noting that nowhere in the Constitution does the word “democracy” appear; nor the word “corporation,” nor “slave.” But we’ll come back to these in a minute.

First let’s look at the basic structure they created to protect property.

We start with the sacred words “We the People of the United States” who are sovereign and have individual rights.*
And then we have a government to serve those people that is accountable and has specific duties. The People delegate some of their power to the government in order to perform its specific duties. In a representative democracy, this system should work just fine.

There’s just one little problem. It’s that word “People.” At the time the Constitution was ratified, in order to be considered one of “We the People,” you had to be an adult male, you had to be white, and you had to have a certain amount of property.

At the time of the Constitution, this narrowed “People” down to about 10% of the population. Those who owned property, including human property, were very clear that this was rule by the minority — and that’s the way they wanted it.

Now I mentioned earlier that the word “corporation” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the reason is that the Founding Fathers had zero interest in using them to run their new government.

In colonial times, corporations had been chartered by the king for the purpose of exploiting the so-called “New World” and shoveling wealth back into Europe.

Corporations like the Hudson Bay Company and the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony had a lot of autonomy to do this work — they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they threw control of corporations to state legislatures where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were very explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges they sought, corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Well, as time passed and memories of royal oppression faded, the wealthy folks increasingly started eying corporations as a convenient way to shield their personal fortunes. They could sniff the winds of change and see that their minority rule through property was under serious threat of being diluted.

By 1848 uppity women had started publicly agitating for the right to vote. In 1865 the 13th Amendment was ratified, freeing the slaves. Three years later, the 14th Amendment was ratified, giving citizenship rights to all persons born or naturalized in the United States — the intended beneficiaries being the newly freed slaves. Change was afoot, and so the ruling class responded.

During and after the Civil War there was a rapid increase in the number and size of corporations, and this form of business was starting to become a more important way of holding and protecting property and power.
Increasingly through their corporations, the ruling class started

influencing legislators, bribing public officials, and employing lawyers to write new laws and file court cases challenging the existing laws that restricted corporate behavior.

Bit by bit state legislatures increased corporate charter length while they decreased corporate liability and citizen authority over corporate structure, governance, production, and labor. But they were only
going to be able to go just so far with this strategy.

Because corporations are a creation of the government — chartered by the state legislatures — they still fell on this side of the line with duties accountable to the people. If minority rule by property was going to be accomplished through corporations, they had to cross this line and become entitled to rights instead. And their tool to do this was the 14th Amendment, which was passed in 1868. From then it took the ruling class less than 20 years to shift corporations from the duty side to the rights side.

After a series of lower court cases, the watershed moment came in 1886 when the Supreme Court heard a case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Citing the 14th Amendment, and without hearing any arguments, the Supremes declared unanimously that corporations are persons deserving the law’s protection.
The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

There was no public debate about this and no law passed in Congress — corporations received the status of persons by simple judicial fiat. And they did this at a time when all women, all Native Americans, and even most African American men were still denied the right to vote.

Ten years later, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court established the “separate but equal” doctrine that legalized racial segregation through what became known as “Jim Crow” laws. In less than 30 years, African-Americans had effectively lost their legal personhood rights while corporations had acquired them.

And in case you’re still wondering whether the primary purpose of the Constitution and the body of law it spawned is about protecting property rather than people, listen to this. Of the 14th Amendment cases heard in the Supreme Court in the first 50 years after its adoption, less than one-half of one percent invoked it in protection of African- Americans, and more than 50% asked that its benefits be extended to corporations.

When you look at two-plus centuries of US legal history, the pattern is that people acquire rights by amendment to the Constitution — a long, drawn-out, difficult process — and corporations acquire them by Supreme Court decisions. Rights for corporations, because they’re about property, is about who is excluded; rights for human beings is about who is included.

Once corporations had jumped the line, they proceeded to pursue the Bill of Rights through more Supreme Court cases. In 1893 they were assured 5th Amendment protection of due process. In 1906 they got 4th Amendment search and seizure protection. In 1925 it was freedom of the press and speech. In 1976 the Supremes determined that money is equal to speech, and since corporate persons have First Amendment rights, they can basically contribute as much money as they want to political parties and candidates.

And so we find ourselves in a time when corporations have amassed enormous power and wealth, and control nearly every aspect of our lives, because they masquerade — under the law at least — as one of us. But most of us don’t know it.

A key reason for that is that the whole thing is pretty esoteric. A corporation is a legal fiction, an abstraction. You can’t see or hear or touch or smell a corporation — it’s just an idea that people agree to and put into writing.
But because they have legal personhood status, corporations are like superhumans with all the advantages and none of the disadvantages that we mere mortals have.

Corporations now have infinite lifespans so they can continue to accumulate wealth and power forever. You can cut off the figurative arm or leg or even head of a corporation and it can still continue to exist.

Furthermore, corporate lawyers invoke their personhood status or not at their convenience, allowing them to be whatever they want according to their needs. Along with this abstract existence, corporations have acquired a lot more abstract property. Ownership of land and buildings is still important, but now corporate property also includes concepts like mineral rights, drilling rights, air pollution credits, intellectual property, and even — under NAFTA — rights to future profits.

All this abstraction fits in to the ways property is used to maintain minority rule. When corporations were over on the duties side of the line, the primary technique for enforcing minority rule was to establish that only a tiny percentage could qualify as “We the People” — in other words, that most people were subhuman.

As different groups of people struggled to be included in those first three words of the Constitution and eventually succeeded, the corporation crossed over to the rights side and ultimately became superhuman, still maintaining an artificially elevated status for a small number of people.

Today the work of corporatist is to take this system global. Having acquired the ability to govern in the United States, the corporation is the ideal instrument to gain control of the rest of the world. The concepts, laws, and techniques perfected by the ruling minority here are now being forced down the throats of people everywhere.
First, a complicit ruling elite is co-opted, installed, or propped up by the US military and the government. Then, just as slavery and immigrant status once kept wages nonexistent or at poverty levels, now sweatshops, maquiladoras, and the prison-industrial complex provide ultra-cheap labor with little or no regulation.

Just as sharecropping and company store scrip once kept people trapped in permanently subservient production roles, now the International Monetary Fund and World Bank’s structural adjustment programs keep entire countries in permanent debt, the world’s poorest people forced to feed interest payments to the world’s richest while their own families go hungry.

Just as genocide was waged against native populations that lived sustainably on the land, now wars are instigated against peoples and regimes that resist the so-called “free trade” mantra because they have the audacity to hold their own ideas about governance and resource distribution.

Racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and divisive religious, ethnic, ideological, and cultural distrust were all intentionally instituted to prevent people from making common cause against the ruling minority, and those systems continue their destructive work today. These systems of oppression that I’ve been talking about weren’t established overnight; they were gradually and sometimes surreptitiously introduced and refined in ways that made them acceptable.

At the time of the Constitution, corporations were widely reviled, but a century later they were a commonplace business institution, and a century after that they’ve become our invisible government! They accomplished this over decades, changing a little piece of law here and incorporating a throw-away comment in a judicial decision there.
Resistance to these oppressions evolved in a similar way.

Those who wished to end slavery, for example, worked for many years collecting information, refining their analysis, and debating among themselves. They came to understand the issue as one of human rights and that the whole institution of slavery was fundamentally wrong. They didn’t come up with a Slavery Regulatory Agency or voluntary codes of conduct for slave owners. They called themselves Abolitionists — the whole thing had to go.
We look at corporate personhood the same way. We see that corporate personhood was wrongly given — not by We the People, but by nine Supreme Court judges. We further see that corporate personhood is a bad thing, because it was the pivotal achievement that allowed an artificial entity to obtain the rights of people, thus relegating us to subhuman status.

And finally, because of the way corporate personhood has enabled corporations to govern us, we see that it is so bad, we must eradicate it. Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. Like abolishing slavery, the work of eradicating corporate person-hood takes us to the deepest questions of what it means to be human. And if we are to live in a democracy, what does it mean to be sovereign?

The hardest part of eliminating corporate personhood is believing that We the People have the sovereign right to do this. It comes down to us being clear about who’s in charge.

What would change if corporations did not have personhood? Well, here are a few examples.

If corporate persons no longer had first amendment right of free speech, we could prohibit all corporate political activity — no more contributions to candidates or parties, no more lobbying. Just think of the ripple effect on our political process if no corporate money could contaminate it!

Corporate persons are now protected against search without a warrant under the 4th Amendment. This means that OSHA and the EPA have to schedule their inspections at a time convenient to corporate managers. If you think the air, land, or water in your community is being polluted, or the workers mistreated, neither you nor the government can go on corporate property to get information without legal permission. Just think of the consequences if corporate polluters were no longer shielded by the Constitution!

Without their protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments, corporations could be prevented from merging and owning stock in other corporations. We could leaflet in malls, we could pass laws against chain stores and cell phone towers, we could organize openly at work. If corporate personhood is eradicated, a floodgate of possibilities opens for citizen sovereignty to replace corporate governance.

We think the campaign to end corporate personhood is like applying a massive crowbar at the most pivotal point against a stuck door holding back democracy. No more trying the key in the rusted lock; no more poking with a coat hanger here and kicking at a corner there. By focusing on the crucial block — corporate personhood — and applying enough force to pry the door open, the whole concept of what’s politically and humanly possible shifts in profound and exciting ways.

We hope you’ll join us in this work and we look forward to creative collaboration as we reconnect with our sovereignty. Thank you!

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
1213 Race Street • Philadelphia, PA 19107 • 215.563.7110 • www.wilpf.org

The Pig Is Dead, said Alan Simpson, former Senator from Wyoming, referring to the long standing tradition of bringing home the bacon by Congressional representatives, and the fact that this practice is no longer possible without destroying the nation's economy upon which the States and districts depend. Simpson cited the number of resignations in Congress by appropriators who are now aware that there is no more money for budgeting pork projects for their home districts, which, eliminates much of their incumbent advantage in coming elections.

Erskine Bowles, formerly President Bill Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, reported that Medicare/Medicaid must be restructured to provide recipients with "Chevrolet's" instead of "Cadillacs". As controversial as that notion is, he said, failure to reform leaves no future for our economy. Mr. Simpson reported that Social Security will witness an overnight 20% cut in benefits around 2030 if the growth of benefits are not altered or premiums raised.

Politics is what stands in the way of America rescuing her future, Alan Simpson implied, citing 7 fellow Republicans, co-sponsors of a bill to establish a Congressional commission on fiscal responsibility and debt measures, who voted against their own bill because, Simpson said: "they wanted to stick it to the President." This failed legislative bill defeated in February by numbers of Democrats and Republicans resulted in Pres. Obama establishing the current bi-partisan Commission outside the auspices of the U.S. Congress.

Republican Sens. Sam Brownback (Kan.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), John Ensign (Nev.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), James Inhofe (Okla.) and John McCain (Ariz.) all voted against the bill, despite being co-sponsors. A seventh GOP senator, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, had co-sponsored the bill and planned to support it but was forced to miss the vote for family reasons.

The 23 Democrats who opposed the Congressional commission included Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Max Baucus (Mont.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Roland Burris (Ill.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Bob Casey Jr (Pa.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Paul Kirk (Mass.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) , Tom Udall (N.M.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.).

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) wasn't a co-sponsor but was a one-time supporter of the idea who changed his mind. On CNN's "State of the Union" following the vote in February, he said he did so because the commission wasn't focused enough on reducing spending. Rather odd since the Commission had not even been formed to formulate solutions, yet.

This Executive Commission on which Mr. Bowles and Simpson sit, does not have the clout to pass legislation that a Congressional debt and deficits resolution commission might have had.

Gov. Gregoire (D) of Washington, asked of Simpson and Bowles, what can the National Governor's Association do to help them succeed since the fate of the State's follows the fate of the nation. Alan Simpson responded, while his Committee can establish the facts and even produce legislative language for a solution, his committee has neither the staff nor budget to rally public support for remedial action. The Governor's he said, have the resources and loud speaker to take this message to the people, presumably to unite the people in demand that their representatives put the politics aside in order to save this nation's future for generations to come.

The overall message Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles had for the National Governor's Association, as I heard them, was simple. Every day we fail to install solutions, the situation only becomes more dire, difficult, and costly to address. There is a day, in the not so distant future, when public debt equals 90% of our Gross Domestic Product, when solutions will no longer be possible, and the unforgivably horrible consequences of a failed economy will have to be lived through by several generations, or more, of American families.

Reader's can view this closing session of the NGA on C-Span's web site. Photo courtesy C-Span.

(This article was previously published at Vote Out Incumbents Democracy. All rights reserved.)

The writer relates that political strategists and aspiring Presidential candidates see the heartland, or ‘rust belt’ as holding great sway in their political fortunes. Five states – Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania were seen as instrumental in the Democrats’ sweep of Congress in 2006 and Obama’s win in 2008. The results of the upcoming elections there are seen as having great influence over who holds power in Washington next year and who sits in the Oval Office in 2012.

Missouri’s budget includes some $900M in federal stimulus which may not be continued next year. Blunt makes it a point to stress his prowess in diverting federal dollars to the State. The article relates that “a sense of vulnerability runs deep acroos the regions, where states are starved for cash and face ever-deeper cuts into government service.”

While I believe the Midwesterner is more politically astute than the writer gives credit I would make those status quo seekers aware that 83k jobs were created last month and it takes 125k jobs monthly to break even. The recession ended perhaps a year ago but the private sector isn’t hiring. Existing home sales dropped 30% from April, more than twice that expected. Stocks just ended their worst quarter in more than a year. Consumer confidence in May fell 20% compared with April. When government money runs out, and it will at some point pdq, what do you think the future holds in stock for us? Then please read the following article and remember it when you vote in November.

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE. Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

By Charlie Reese: Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t. House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine..((missing text))
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it………. is up to you.” End quote.

On this Independence day, 2010, I urge you to lay down the partisanship. Look to the well-being of the nation as opposed to your locality or state. For 25 years we have stood by and watched as our country, our sovereignty, our national wealth, has diminished with each passing day. It’s time for REAL change which can be brought about by voting incumbents from office in large numbers.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Spending on infrastructure that will create new industries and services within the economy, or significantly lower the cost of living freeing up money from paycheck earnings to consume more, can have positive effects on government revenues in the longer term of 5 to 20 years or more. The Tennessee Valley Authority was a case in point, creating an enormous and diverse economic foundation for an entire region of the country, which has generated federal revenues for decades well beyond what was invested in the 1930's and 1940's. The same can be said of the interstate highway system and geometric boom to consumption and distribution it created over the decades.

Lowering taxes to increase revenues can only occur in the circumstance in which consumer demand is being frustrated by lack of supply due to a lack of capital by the private sector to expand production and services. We have not seen such a scenario since the oil embargo years of the 1970's and early 1980's. Which nullifies all Republican petitions to lower taxes now to increase revenues down the road. The consumer demand is more than being met, and cutting taxes on capital (loss of revenue to the government) will not increase government revenues one dime today.

Anyone who attempts to make an economic scenario into a one size fits all circumstances ideology is a fool, and ignorant of economics. What makes economics a Ph.D. subject is its nearly infinite number of variables in constant flux to greater or lesser degrees, and its all encompassing breadth of variables from all areas of human society playing a role in the makeup of the current economic situation. Economics is not just about money. It is about culture, psychology, and history as well, among other disciplines like math, statistical probability, and the ethos of human behavior.

Most folks in the world do not fathom this complexity of the study of economics which makes them prey to politicians proffering ideological platitudes, masquerading as economic principles. There is NOTHING exact about the field of economics, but, there are economists and economicians who are ideologically neutral, and those in government will succeed or fail to manage a positive economy on the basis of their ability to recognize these economists and seek their counsel as opposed to the ideological charlatans in the field.

Our current economy is in a crunch zone. Consumption is needed to drive job growth. Unfortunately, combined with the public's newfound discipline for saving more of what they earn, job and wage growth is needed to drive more consumption. This is a classic dilemma for most types of economic recessions. What the Democrats proposed was stimulus spending to keep the unemployed from filing bankruptcies and their subsistence consumption at reasonable levels, (opposed by Republicans with the defeat this week of the unemployment spending extension bill), stimulus spending on job creation with shovel ready projects, and stimulus spending on infrastructure to open the door to new industries down the road like a new and modern energy grid and diminishing our dependence upon oil and coal with newer types of renewable and sustainable energy generation.

In other words, the Democrat's approach has been to address in a small way, the immediate need for job growth and put a floor under a baseline of consumption activity, protract that spending out over 2 years to insure a more stable and consistent economic level activity during the recession's comeback, and spending on long term job growth in new energy industries, technologies, and exports. However, this approach has been so spread out over time and unfocused in its targeting of specific job retention and creation (save for the auto industry), that its impact has left much to be desired by Americans worrying over the job situation.

The Republican answer to all problems is to reduce taxes and cut spending on Americans in need. So, we can dismiss their view as an extreme minority view, completely out of touch with the fact that an economic system in modern societies is intended to provide stability and predictability to its citizen's livelihoods. The most massive government stimulus spending after an economic decline came with WW2, and its success was unarguable. The problem with FDR's deficit spending in the 1930's was simply that it wasn't enough nor broadly enough spread throughout the society, which gearing up for WW2 accomplished handily.

Only if Democrat's deficit stimulus spending is sufficient to bring the economy back to a 4.5 to 6% annual growth rate, will the economy make the kind of recovery that can justify and offset the deficit spending with increased government revenues derived from increased economic activity, in the shorter term. That however, is not in the cards, so far. Economic activity is running at or below 3% and there is no improvement in sight for the rest of this year. So, from an economics point of view, while Democrats and Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke in the Bush administration did prevent our economy and the world's from sinking into a deep depression, they have not managed to pull off a deficit offsetting economic recovery.

And that is most troubling. The Medicare and Medicaid deficit spending are going to force a path to national bankruptcy by the end of this decade, and no movement has taken place to ameliorate that challenge facing our nation. Democrats are want to blame Republican obstructionism, and Republicans are want to blame Democratic socialist ideology. The truth of the matter, however, is that both parties have had ample opportunities to put the American people and the nation's future ahead of their special interests, their Party ideology, and the wealthy corporate interests. They have failed to do so. Every legislation since the Great Recession began has been compromised by giveaways to corporate and wealthy Party special interests, resulting in too little, too late, to remedy this economic malaise our nation is in, just prior to our great descent into bankrupting debt and deficits.

The growing anti-incumbent throng will have their say in November and again in 2012. The only question that remains is will their numbers be sufficient to force our Congress and White House to adjust their priorities in time to rescue our nation's future. We shall see! There are a great many people working hard everyday to insure that becomes the case. You should support their efforts and join them if our future as a nation is of any concern to you at all.

(This article in more brief version was first published at PoliWatch).