California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Where's the Off Ramp for the War in Ukraine?

by John Lawrence

I repeat: where's the off ramp for peace in Ukraine. Each side seems more interested in winning than in finding a resolution to the conflict that both sides can live with. Meanwhile, Ukraine is having billions of dollars in real estate destroyed not to mention having thousands of its citizens killed. Russia is having no real estate destroyed and won't unless the war is escalated. What would a negotiated settlement look like? It would have to be acceptable to both sides obviously. Otherwise, Russia could attack again at will. Unless they made Ukraine a member of NATO in which case any Russian attack on NATO would result in World War III. However, there may be another way. That would involve recognizing that Russia has a legitimate interest in a negotiated settlement. Right now the West seems more interested in demonizing Russia than in finding a negotiated settlement. They even pooh pooh the very reasonable negotiated settlement proposal which China has put forward. This does not bode well for peace in Ukraine. A war of attrition in which one side, namely Ukraine, is the side attrited while the homeland of the other side, namely, Russia, remains relatively unscathed is a disaster for the people of Ukraine. When all is said and done, these two countries will still be neighbors. The only thing that remains is whether they will be hostile neighbors in perpetuity or can a solution be found for which they could possibly be friendly ones.

Let's go back to the root of the problem: the dissolution of the Warsaw pact in 1991. As one of the victorious countries in WW II, Russia had certain rights insofar as the divided Germany was concerned. If Germany was to be reunited and become a member of NATO, then President Gorbachev was given assurances that NATO would not try to incorporate other previous Warsaw pact countries into NATO. But Gorbachev should have taken Reagan's advice: "Trust but verify." There was no formal agreement about NATO expansion - only a trusted verbal agreement. I reported in a previous post:

"NATO expanded during the 1990s largely due to the imprecations of President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even though President Gorbachev had been promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" as part of a deal to reunify Germany after the Cold War.

Politifact reported:

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries. 

So basically Gorbachev was sold a bill of goods that, if he consented to the reunification of Germany and with Germany as a NATO member, that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, "given assurances" is not the same as "legal and binding". Therefore, in July 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (where Albright was born) were formally invited to join NATO."

Interestingly enough, Biden did not give any credence to Putin's concerns before the invasion of Ukraine regarding future membership of Ukraine in NATO. If he had, it might have been possible to work out a security arrangement prior to the war that would have addressed both Russia's and Ukraine's concerns. Instead the Biden administration has continued to heap imprecations on Putin. As I said in the previous post, "All along the road of NATO expansion Russia's security concerns were ignored or belittled or disrespected." Now instead of a settlement acceptable to both sides before the war, essentially the same thing must happen to end the war after much destruction of Ukraine and loss of lives on both sides. If Russia and Ukraine cannot find an agreement that is acceptable to both sides, there is really no way that Russia can be persuaded not to attack again some time in the future. In order to have reconciliation and peace both sides have to be satisfied with the solution and both sides, of course, have to compromise. However, Biden, NATO and the west have to face up to their mistake in not acknowledging that Russia has legitimate security concerns in the Black Sea region just as the US has legitimate security concerns in the Americas.

Sanders-Warren Plan Would Tax the Rich to Increase Social Security by $2,400 a Year

"Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Our bill puts an end to that absurdity."

Kenny Stancil

Feb 13, 2023, from Common Dreams

 

As congressional Republicans threaten to cut Social Security and other key federal programs, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Monday in unveiling legislation that would increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month and prolong the program's solvency for decades by finally requiring wealthy Americans to pay their fair share.

 

The Social Security Expansion Act, introduced by Sanders (I-Vt.) and Warren (D-Mass.) in the Senate and by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) in the House, would put an additional $2,400 in beneficiaries' pockets each year and ensure the program is fully funded through 2096.

The bill would accomplish this by lifting the cap on the maximum amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax—a change that would not raise taxes on the 93% of U.S. households that make $250,000 or less per year, according to an analysis conducted by the Social Security Administration at the request of Sanders.

Currently, annual earnings above $160,200 are not subject to the Social Security payroll tax, which means that millionaires will stop contributing to the program later this month. The legislation proposes lifting this cap and subjecting all income above $250,000 per year to the Social Security payroll tax. If enacted, the bill would have raised more than $3.4 billion from the nation's top 11 highest-paid CEOs alone in 2021, including $2.9 billion from Tesla and Twitter executive Elon Musk.

"The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years."

"At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and almost 50% of our nation's seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $25,000 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security," Sanders said in a statement.

“Our job is to expand Social Security so that every senior in America can retire with the dignity that they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need," the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions continued. "The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years by making sure that the wealthiest people in our society pay their fair share into the system."

"Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year," the Vermont Independent added. "Our bill puts an end to that absurdity which will allow us to protect Social Security for generations to come while lifting millions of seniors out of poverty."

As Sanders' office noted:

Before 1935, when it was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about 50% of the nation's seniors were living in poverty, as well as countless Americans living with disabilities and surviving dependents of deceased workers. Nearly 90 years later, the senior poverty rate is down to 10.3% and in 2021 alone, during the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, Social Security lifted 26.3 million Americans out of poverty, including more than 18 million seniors.

Despite this long legacy of combatting poverty, more must be done to strengthen the program, not cut it. While the average Social Security benefit is only $1,688 a month, nearly 40% of seniors rely on Social Security for a majority of their income; one in seven rely on it for more than 90% of their income; and nearly half of Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all.

Schakowsky warned that "instead of working to protect Social Security, my Republican colleagues are plotting to cut benefits and raise the retirement age."

Contrary to the claims of GOP lawmakers who are clamoring to slash benefits and postpone eligibility, the latest annual Social Security trustees report showed that the program has a $2.85 trillion surplus in its trust fund, enabling it to pay 100% of promised benefits through 2035, 90% for the next 25 years, and 80% for the next 75 years.

"While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans' hard-earned benefits and expand coverage," said Hoyle. "With the rising cost of living, it's time to modernize and expand the program."

"While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans' hard-earned benefits and expand coverage."

In addition to lifting the tax cap to boost benefits by $200 each month for all recipients, the Social Security Expansion Act would increase Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments by adopting a more accurate measure of inflation, improve the Special Minimum Benefit to help keep low-income workers out of poverty, and restore student benefits up to age 22 for children of disabled or deceased workers.

Endorsed by 56 labor unions and progressive advocacy groups, the legislation is overwhelmingly popular among voters, who have consistently expressed opposition to cutting or privatizing Social Security.

According to polling results published Monday by Data for Progress, 78% of likely voters support the Social Security Expansion Act, including 85% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans. The survey, commissioned by Social Security Works, was conducted online from January 27 to January 30.

"Social Security Works is proud to endorse the Social Security Expansion Act," the group's executive director, Alex Lawson, said in a statement. "This bill is the answer to any politician or pundit who claims we 'can't afford' Social Security. It protects and expands benefits, and it is fully paid for by finally requiring the wealthy to contribute their fair share."

"During the State of the Union, nearly every member of Congress stood and clapped for protecting seniors," Lawson noted. "They should prove it by passing this bill into law."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

The New Cold War Could Be Worse

January 6, 2023

by Melvin Goodman

from Counterpunch

Facebook Twitter Reddit

Email

 

Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

More than one-third of the U.S. population was born after 1970, and thus has no personal memories of the Cold War, particularly the Berlin crises or the Cuban missile crisis.  Since we are in the early stages of a new Cold War, it’s a good time to review the tensions that we will confront.  Spoiler alert: Cold War 2.0 will be more costly and risky than its predecessor.

The soaring defense budget, which is woefully understated in the mainstream media, is the Congress’ pet rock and its only genuine bipartisan undertaking.  The media consistently refers to the record defense budget ($858 billion), but ignore an additional $300 billion that is devoted to the military.  The latter figure would include important elements of spending by the intelligence community, which primarily serves the military; the Department of Energy, which stores our nuclear inventory; the Veterans’ Administration; and important agencies of the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Coast Guard, the world’s seventh largest navy.  The roughly $1.2 trillion devoted to defense equals the sum that the rest of the global community allocates to the military!

The bloated defense budget, moreover, does not take into account the huge military expenditures of key nations in Europe and Asia that support the national security interests of the United States.  In addition to the 31 other nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that devote huge sums of money to contain Russia, there are the increased defense budgets of such Asian states as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan that target China.  The United States is also the world’s leading arms merchant, selling and providing more weapons overseas than the rest of the global community.  Saudi Arabia, the leading buyer of U.S. weaponry, allocates more money to defense than any non-nuclear state in the world with a budget that roughly equals the defense spending of Russia.

The greatest drivers of U.S. defense spending are the modernization of nuclear weapons, which have no utilitarian purpose, and the obscene U.S. military presence the world over.  The Pentagon will receive $2 trillion over the next decade to create a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers and submarines.  The global race for smaller nuclear bombs is also intensifying with no arms control treaties regulating so-called tactical or nonstrategic nuclear weapons.

We have hundreds of military facilities around the world, whereas China has only one facility on the Horn of Africa and the Russians have two facilities in Syria.  Neither Russia nor China devote vast sums to power projection; most of their defense spending is devoted to defending the homeland.  It is long past time for someone in Congress to investigate why the United States has to maintain military dominance in every corner of the globe.

The policy of dual containment of Russia and China carries far greater risk than U.S. policy in the first Cold War.  Current Russian and Chinese leaders either have no limits on their use of power (Vladimir Putin) or have greater international ambition than previous leaders (Xi Jinping).  Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev had to deal with a Politburo in crises involving Cuba and the Middle East, respectively, which were resolved peacefully. The United States is risking an arms race not only against Russia, but against China as well.  New weapons such as hypersonic missiles and cyber weapons that threaten command and control systems are unsettling.  Pentagon spokesmen have sent increasingly alarming warnings regarding China staging a “strategic breakout,” whatever that means.

Unlike the first Cold War, which was restrained due to respect for arms control and disarmament, the new Cold War is more threatening in view of the decline and fall of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (blame Bill Clinton); the abrogation of the ABM Treaty (George W. Bush); the suspension of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (Putin); and the abrogation of Intermediate-Nuclear Forces Treaty (Donald Trump).  Biden’s lackluster national security team doesn’t even have an arms control specialist, and the Department of Defense, led by a retired four-star general, has replaced the Department of State at the center of the national security process.  Civilians should be calling the shots and not general officers.

The first Cold War was marked by Soviet-American recognition of the necessity of avoiding direct conflict in the wake of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and to ensure direct military-to-military communication; there is far less direct communication between the two sides at this juncture.  Our allies in the first Cold War did their best to maintain communication with the Kremlin; currently our allies are expanding their defense budgets and cooperating in the fields of cybersecurity and defense technology.  The budgetary increases in Germany and Japan are particularly stunning with Japan becoming only the second country allowed to purchase U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles as part of its unprecedented military buildup.

Meanwhile, the United States has become a participant in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and President Joe Biden has kept his predecessors anti-China policies in place, including Trump’s tariff policies, closer relations with Taiwan, and a military buildup in the Pacific.  In Congress, the Democrats and Republicans provide bipartisan support for increased defense spending and relentlessly compete with each other in their anti-China rhetoric.  It is reminiscent of the 1950s when no one wanted to be accused of “being soft” on China.

The United States remains increasingly isolated from both Russia and China at the same time that Moscow and Beijing are building the closest bilateral relationship in hundreds of years of history.  The competition over Taiwan risks a conflict in the Taiwan Straits; the warfare in Ukraine risks conflict in the Black Sea.  The United States may believe that it is not a “participant” in the war in Ukraine, but the use of U.S.-supplied HIMARs on New Year’s Day to kill and injure several hundred Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine sends a different message.

The Middle East and Southwest Asia provide additional sources of tension.  Biden should have returned to the Iran nuclear accord at the outset of his administration; instead, the Biden administration talked about rewrites to the agreement and Iran predictably objected.  Israel has installed a dangerous right-wing government, but the Pentagon now refers to Israel as our “leading strategic partner.” Biden threatened to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah,” but instead he went hat-in-hand to Riyadh and negotiated $4 billion in arms sales. Syria and Lebanon are failed states, and invite foreign interference. The new regional stresses on stability and the  challenges for deterrence vis-a-vis Russia and China do not augur well for a more predictable or peaceful international arena.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent books are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the National Security State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

World Could Lose Half of Glaciers This Century Even If Warming Is Kept to 1.5°C

"The rapidly increasing glacier mass losses as global temperature increases beyond 1.5°C stresses the urgency of establishing more ambitious climate pledges," reads a new study.

Julia Conley

Jan 06, 2023

 

from Common Dreams

 

In a study that scientists say gathered "an unprecedented amount of data" to determine the fate of the world's ice sheets with more precision than ever before, researchers revealed Thursday that even if humans manage to limit planetary heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial temperatures, half of the planet's glaciers are expected to melt by 2100.

 

Under the current trajectory, the planet is expected to grow 2.7°C warmer this century, which the paper, published in Science and led by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and University of Alaska, warns will lead to the disappearance of 68% of glaciers.

In that scenario, the U.S., western Canada, and central Europe would lose almost all their glaciers by the end of the century.

"In Spain, the disappearance of the Sierra Nevada glaciers means an almost complete reduction in water availability there from that time onwards, and the same applies to the glaciers in the Pyrenees."

The scientists, led by David Rounce in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon, examined two decades of satellite data to include all of the world's roughly 200,000 glaciers in the study. Previous research has focused on specific ice sheets and then extrapolated the data to reach conclusions about all glaciers.

The extensive use of data showed that "the scale and impacts of glacial loss are greater than previously thought," according toThe Guardian.

The study authors emphasized that policymakers can take action to preserve as many glaciers as possible.

"The rapidly increasing glacier mass losses as global temperature increases beyond 1.5°C stresses the urgency of establishing more ambitious climate pledges to preserve the glaciers in these mountainous regions," reads the paper.

Even under the best-case scenario outlined by the researchers, average sea levels would increase by 3.5 inches from 2015 to 2100. If the planet warms by 2.7°C, 4.5 inches of sea-level rise is expected—23% more than previous models estimated, The Guardian reported.

"The study makes much of the earlier partial data more concrete," professor Antonio Ruiz de Elvira of the University of Alcalá in Spain, who was not involved in the research, told The Guardian.

The loss of two-thirds of the world's glaciers would worsen the risk of flooding in coastal areas across the globe and threaten water supplies for up to two billion people.

"In California, the water needed to sustain agriculture comes from glaciers directly from the end of July," said Ruiz de Elvira. "In Spain, the disappearance of the Sierra Nevada glaciers means an almost complete reduction in water availability there from that time onwards, and the same applies to the glaciers in the Pyrenees. In India and China, they depend crucially on the Himalayan glaciers."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

 

Julia Conley

Julia Conley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

Envisioning Wold Peace

    Now what?  The holidays are over, the decorations put away.  What will we use to distract ourselves? Valentine’s day? We get so caught up in the hype of special days that we may tend to ignore the deep problems humans have created, the effects of which we are now experiencing. What fascinates me is that the dire predictions from experts are challenged by innovative and creative people. We could solve the problems right now, they say. The real issue is, we do not have the will to use what is currently available to turn things around. The money flows elsewhere.

     This is a spiritual problem. It is based in lack thinking. “There is not enough to go around.” It is also somewhat superstitious; the notion that “God” will save us or that our destruction is “his” will. The truth is, we have access to the Infinite Field of all Potentialities. We are the how of the creative process.  Our right use of mind brings about the changes that benefit humanity.

     What now?  What can you and I do? It may seem hopeless, but a small group of us, visioning a world of balance, one in harmony with Nature; a world of plenty for everyone; a world of liberty and justice for all, a world celebrating diversity, a world of Love and Intelligence leading the way, would then be guided from within to do whatever is appropriate to make the vision come true. We begin in our own family, our street, our neighborhood, our groups, and with our votes.

Form your own Imagine the World circle. Get busy articulating the Vision.

 Affirm: “I do not look away. I look within. I know what mine is to do.”

Stay tuned in,

Carol Carnes www.carol-carnes.com

Off the Top of My Head

The Only Way to Create Affordable Housing Is For Government to Set the Price of Rent

by John Lawrence

As long as the market sets the price of rent, rents will become increasingly unaffordable especially in highly desirable areas like San Diego. Remember public housing? Some version of this is necessary or homeless will be relegated to shelters and/or time limited stays in subsidized housing for eternity. Why isn't public housing feasible? It's NIMBYism (not in my back yard) and NMTMFTism (not my tax money for this). What most people don't realize is that the Federal government can build public housing with no tax implications because unlike state governments, the Federal government has a sovereign fiat currency, the US dollar. The only non-artificial restraint on Federal expenditures is inflation so right now is probably not a good time to allocate dollars for public housing. Of course we expect that lessons have been learned so that public housing does not degenerate into the kind of situation like the notorious Cabrini-Green development.

Crime and neglect created hostile living conditions for many residents, and "Cabrini–Green" became a metonym for problems associated with public housing in the United States. In 1995, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) began tearing down dilapidated mid- and high-rise buildings, with the last demolished in 2011. Today, only the original two-story rowhouses remain. The area has seen major redevelopment due to its proximity to downtown, resulting in a combination of upscale high-rises and townhouses, with some units being CHA-owned, creating a mixed-income neighborhood. Dispersal of affordable units throughout an area is necessary in my opinion to prevent concentration of crime and gangs in certain areas. There is no need for public housing to be concentrated like the Cabrini-Green development. It can be dispersed so that an area is mixed income, and less likely to attract gang activity which seems to happen in pockets of poverty.

Of course the US Federal government, based on the two party system can hardly rationalize spending money on public housing as long as Republicans have any say about it or as long as they can filibuster it to death. Progressives have been lucky to get a modicum of progressive legislation passed during the Biden administration. Biden has had to tone down much of the progressive legislation he attempted to pass at first. Nevertheless he has accomplished much. Public housing is not even on the table as a solution to the homeless and housing affordability problem. Rents just continue to increase way beyond a family's ability to pay them. State and local governments are throwing millions of dollar at the homeless problem without even putting a dent in it. It will take some radical ideas to solve it of which disbursed public housing is one. It totally goes against prevailing notions of a capitalist based, profit oriented society, not the least of which is that an ample supply of public, affordable housing units would undermine landlord profits by keeping the cost of housing in the for profit market under control. It would put a base line under housing costs.

What Does the Fed’s Jerome Powell Have Up His Sleeve?

by Ellen Brown

Posted on December 10, 2022

The Real Goal of Fed Policy: Breaking Inflation, the Middle Class or the Bubble Economy?

“There is no sense that inflation is coming down,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell at a November 2 press conference, — this despite eight months of aggressive interest rate hikes and “quantitative tightening.” On November 30, the stock market rallied when he said smaller interest rate increases are likely ahead and could start in December. But rates will still be increased, not cut. “By any standard, inflation remains much too high,” Powell said. “We will stay the course until the job is done.”

The Fed is doubling down on what appears to be a failed policy, driving the economy to the brink of recession without bringing prices down appreciably. Inflation results from “too much money chasing too few goods,” and the Fed has control over only the money – the “demand” side of the equation. Energy and food are the key inflation drivers, and they are on the supply side. As noted by Bloomberg columnist Ramesh Ponnuru  in the Washington Post in March:

Fixing supply chains is of course beyond any central bank’s power. What the Fed can do is reduce spending levels, which would in turn exert downward pressure on prices. But this would be a mistaken response to shortages. It would answer a scarcity of goods by bringing about a scarcity of money. The effect would be to compound the hit to living standards that supply shocks already caused.

So why is the Fed forging ahead? Some pundits think Chairman Powell has something else up his sleeve.

The Problem with “Demand Destruction”

First, a closer look at the problem. Shrinking demand by reducing the money supply – the money available for people to spend – is considered the Fed’s only tool for fighting inflation. The theory behind raising interest rates is that it will reduce the willingness and ability of people and businesses to borrow. The result will be to shrink the money supply, most of which is created by banks when they make loans. The problem is that shrinking demand means shrinking the economy – laying off workers, cutting productivity, and creating new shortages – driving the economy into recession.

Demand has indeed been shrinking, as evidenced in a November 27 article on ZeroHedge titled: “The Consumer Economy Has Completely Collapsed – ‘It’s A Ghost Town’ for Holiday Shopping Everywhere.” But retailers have cut their prices about as far as they can go. While the rate of increase in producer costs is slowing, those costs are still rising; and retailers have to cover their costs to stay in business, whether or not they have customers at their doors. Rather than lowering their prices further, they will be laying off workers or closing up shop. Layoffs are on the rise, and data reported on December 1 showed that U.S. factory activity is contracting for the first time since the lockdowns of the Covid-​19 pandemic.

It is not just activity in shopping malls and factories that has taken a hit. The housing market has fallen sharply, with pending home sales dropping 32% year-over-year in October. The stock market is also sinking, and the cryptocurrency market has fallen off a cliff. Worse, interest on the federal debt is shooting up. For years, the government has been able to borrow nearly for free. By 2025 or 2026, according to Moody’s Analytics, interest payments could exceed the country’s entire defense budget, which hit $767 billion in fiscal 2022. That means major cuts will be needed to some federal programs.

Breaking the “Fed Put”

In the face of all this economic strife, why is the Fed not reversing its aggressive interest rate hikes, as investors have come to expect? Former British diplomat and EU foreign policy advisor Alastair Crooke suggests that the Fed’s goal is something else:

The Fed … may be attempting to implement a contrarian, controlled demolition of the U.S. bubble-economy through interest rate increases. The rate rises will not slay the inflation “dragon” (they would need to be much higher to do that). The purpose is to break a generalized “dependency habit” on free money.

Danielle DiMartino Booth, former advisor to Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher, agrees. She stated in an interview with financial journalist and podcaster Julia LaRoche:

Maybe Jay Powell is trying to kill the “Fed put.” Maybe he’s trying to break the back of speculation once and for all, so that it’s the Fed – truly an independent apolitical entity – that is making monetary policy, and not speculators making monetary policy for the Fed.

The “Fed put” is the general idea that the Federal Reserve is willing and able to adjust monetary policy in a way that is bullish for the stock market. As explained in a Fortune Magazine article titled “The Stock Market Is Freaking Out Because of the End of Free Money – It All Has to Do with Something Called ‘The Fed Put:’”

For decades, the way the Fed enacted policy was like a put option contract, stepping in to prevent disaster when markets experienced serious turbulence by cutting interest rates and “printing money” through QE [quantitative easing].

… Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Fed had supported markets with ultra-​accommodative monetary policy in the form of near-​zero interest rates and quantitative easing (QE). Stocks thrived under these loose monetary policies. As long as the central bank was injecting liquidity into the economy as an emergency lending measure, the safety net was laid out for investors chasing all kinds of risk assets.

… The idea that the Fed will come to stocks’ aid in a downturn began under Fed Chair Alan Greenspan. What is now the “Fed put” was once the “Greenspan put,” a term coined after the 1987 stock market crash, when Greenspan lowered interest rates to help companies recover, setting a precedent that the Fed would step in during uncertain times.

But the “free money” era seems to be over:

The regime change has left markets effectively on their own and led risk assets, including stocks and cryptocurrencies, to crater as investors grapple with the new norm. It’s also left many wondering whether the era of the so-​called Fed put is over.

Off the Top of My Head

American Lifestyle: Fall in Love. Get Married. Fall Out of Love. Get Divorced. Rinse. Repeat.

by John Lawrence

Celebrities set the tone of American lifestyles, and most of them adhere to the serial marriage model. Except for those who have millions of dollars and prefer to go on fighting after the marriage is resolved like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. It wasn't enough that Heard got a $7 million divorce settlement. She could have taken the money and gone home. I mean $7 million is a considerable chunk of change, but she chose to go on fighting even after the divorce. She wrote an article which defamed Johnny Depp. At least according to him it was defamatory. So naturally he sued her for defamation. Meanwhile, the media and the lawyers were getting rich. When there are so many more important issues that money and energy could be devoted to, much money and energy were poured into the issue of whether or not Amber Heard had defamed Johnny Depp or vice versa. So what. Who Cares. Even more entertaining than their movies. We are entertaining ourselves to death.

Then there's Taylor Swift with whom one can hardly keep up with all the songs she's written and records she's made off of her serial relationships. Not to mention all of her Swifty fans who cried crocodile tears over the fact that they couldn't get tickets to one of her concerts. Boo. Hoo. Children are starving in Africa, and people are feeling abused because they can't go to a Taylor Swift concert? What kind of values are these? People are all about emulating celebrities so when a Swifty actually gets into a relationship or a marriage, they must ask themselves, when the simplest problem comes up, "what would Taylor do". Why probably just drop the guy like a hot potato and then write a song about it. This trivializes human relationships. Of course money is not an issue regardless of what happens. Celebrities have more of that commodity than they know what to do with. At least what to do with it constructively like the man who took his fortune, went to Africa and repopulated a game reserve from scratch thereby creating jobs in tourism for the local population. He spent $100 million of his own money, but singlehandedly brought hope and prosperity to a great many people.

Mozambique's Gorongosa National Park was the envy of Africa. Wildlife drew tourists from around the world. But, beginning in the 1960's, a man made catastrophe (war) slaughtered the animals until, it was said, there was nothing left but mosquitos and landmines.Then Greg Carr decided it was his life's work to restore Gorongosa National Park to greatness and restore the local population to some semblance of a decent life. He educated the children, imported all kinds of animals that had previously made a home there, and by the miracle of sexual reproduction, the various herds of predators and prey animals returned themselves to their former glory. At least there are some millionaires and billionaires who want to do good deeds with their money. Then there are the self indulgent celebrities and all their followers who could care less about anything other than their own petty and expensive needs and habits.

Off the Top of My Head

How to Solve the Homeless Problem and Bring Rents Down at the Same Time

by John Lawrence

Open public campgrounds with amenities that anyone could access. The homeless should have to live there by local ordinance rather than public streets. Many others would choose to live there rather than pay exorbitant rents. Market forces would drive rents down. The homeless would be off the public streets. In Sweden they have Allemansrätten, the Swedish right to camp on public land.  It's guaranteed by their Constitution. Many, who are not homeless, would choose to camp on urban public land until rents came down. As apartments lay vacant, landlords would eventually be forced to reduce prices. Where is it written that everyone has to have a mortgage or pay rent? The homeless are camping now, but just in the wrong places - on public streets. They don't lack tents. They don't lack food. What they lack is sanitation. Public campgrounds on vacant land owned by cities, of which there is plenty, could provide that. Security could be provided for a lo less than public expenditures on police now occurring because many of their calls are homeless related. This solution would not solve all of society's problems, but it would be very cost effective and would clear the public streets so pedestrians could use them safely and sanitarily.

All the other solutions for which millions of dollars are being spent could still be provided. However, the millions of dollars now being spent are not getting the job done.Granted families with children need proper housing so housing solutions should focus on them not single individuals. The elderly need to be given special consideration. Parking areas for people with vehicles who wish to sleep in their vehicles on city owned vacant lots would cost the city nothing or next to nothing. Portable rest rooms and showers are already available at a meager cost.Why aren't cities using them? They could also provide factory made portable cabin sized housing modules at minimum cost. Why do they insist that everyone has to be properly housed in two by four construction which is very expensive. Shelters aren't for everyone for a number of reasons. Some people have pets that aren't allowed in shelters, and some just want their own individual space even if it's a tent on the sidewalk.

Is it that the rental industry doesn't want to see a low cost public solution to homelessness that anyone who wants to save money could avail themselves of? An Allemansrätten for America? Why does the public tolerate their sidewalks and public areas being clogged by homeless tents and paraphernalia? This is as much a solution for them, the general public, as it is for the presently homeless and the very poor because, let's face it, the very poor just can't afford current rents and there are very few single room occupancy (SRO) units available. Single tent occupancy on sanctioned public camp grounds would be something better than what exists now especially if a few inexpensive amenities were provided such as toilets and showers, and it would FREE UP PUBLIC STREETS. It would cost a pittance compared to the money that' is now being spent on homeless non-solutions.

Off the Top of My Head

Mass Murderers Get Much More Than Their 15 Minutes of Fame

by John Lawrence

The perpetrator of the recent mass murder in the Q night club wants to be addressed as "they" and "them" because he is "non-binary." How about if we address him as "you sonofabitch." Barely, have we gotten done with one mass murder in the news cycle than another one comes along to take precedence. The news these days consists mainly of covering one mass murder after another. Mass murderers are lining up. Next? Better make sure the news cycle is clear so that your atrocity takes over the headlines. Then we hear all about the perpetrator's messed up childhood, and, if there is a court trial, the news media dutifully covers it giving the murderer another 15 minutes of fame at least. Recently, families of the victims were upset when a mass murderer was given a sentence of free room and board for life with no possibility of ever having to make a living for himself rather than the death penalty. The news media and a coterie of lawyers, not to mention gun manufacturers and merchandisers are making a small fortune off of the mass murder business. Here's an idea; mass murderers caught in the act should immediately be taken out and shot thus avoiding the news cycle, numerous lawyers, pundits pontificating, authors hawking books and displays of grieving and mourning. It's all become a predictable big business. Yes, the GDP would decrease slightly, but who cares. We have become a mass culture of mass murder spectacles.

So the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What is well-regulated, much less militia-like about individuals going out and buying an AK-47 and committing mass murder over some real or perceived grievance? By the way, the news media informs us that "the police have not yet discovered a motive." They never do. What possible motive could there be for mass murder that would justify it? The motive is the fact that the mass murderer is fucked up. Saying that he - and it always is a "he" - is mentally ill, is a means of evoking sympathy for someone who deserves none. But if individual mass murderers are fucked up, so is the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the Heller case that the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own (and use) guns. What about the "well regulated militia" bullshit? The Supreme Court basically backed the rights of mass murderers. Now according to recent reports: Six million Americans carried guns daily in 2019, twice as many as in 2015. And this: "The trend is expected to continue, after the supreme court ruling earlier this year overturning strict limits on public gun-carrying." Whose side is the Supreme Court on? 

Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us." True. The enemy is not "out there." It is the very wonderful American people themselves and the very vaunted Supreme Court which is so concerned about preserving life in the womb and so unconcerned about preserving life once it's outside the womb. After spending a trillion dollars a year on our military and military-industrial complex, it seems we as a nation are powerless to stop Americans from self immolating. So Americans have to come to expect one mass killing after another in assembly line like fashion. Next? They are already getting in line. Fame and fortune and a free meal ticket for life awaits. Meanwhile, the rest of us are reminded of John Milton's poem: "we also serve who only stand and wait." The rest of us go to our boring jobs, take care of our traumatized families and hope for a better life for us and our children if the world doesn't burn up due to global warming. Please, President Biden, do something about assault rifles.

Off the Top of My Head

Cities Spend a Ton of Money on Homelessness Without Solving the Problem

by John Lawrence

Recently Governor Newsom held up state homeless funds because cities were not getting the job done. Here's a solution: provide campgrounds and safe parking areas in addition to shelters and affordable housing units. In other words to all of the above present so-called solutions add safe campgrounds and parking areas. The beauty of this plan is that it would add minimum cost to all the other solutions. So while they are pursuing the more costly solutions, it would at least get the homeless off the public streets where they are interfering with pedestrian thoroughfares and businesses in general, and would provide them with an an enhanced version of their present living accommodations which are mainly in tents. It would also be more safe and sanitary. They would still be mainly in tents until more robust and expensive solutions can be found but at least they could be provided with portable toilets, showers and dumpster facilities as well as security. In addition social services could be more readily provided than the present solution of finding them on the public streets to offer them. What is wrong with these politicians? They could solve the homeless "problem" tomorrow at little or no expense as far as getting the homeless off public streets which is at least half the problem. The city owns a lot of vacant lots suitable for rural campsites and safe parking areas for those with vehicles. Portable rest room facilities could make the lot of the homeless and ordinary citizens immeasurably better if they would only use them.

Here's what I wrote before:

In an article by Scott Lewis he finally sheds some light on what should have been obvious to most observers of the homeless situation. Fact: Homeless people would rather live in a tent on the street than in a shelter. It's not hard to figure out why. They want privacy, pets, their own space, consumption of beverages of their own choice. He writes, "It turns out, unhoused residents are a lot like people who have homes. They want privacy. They want, though, to be close to community. They like pets. They like being together with loved ones. And yes, some of them like to do drugs or drink. All of these things, however, can be restricted or difficult in a congregate setting." Make sense? I have long advocated that local governments set aside city owned land so that homeless people could set up their tents and have some basic social service like portable toilets, showers and storage. In addition social workers could provide them with their services like the city so often says they want to do. So why don't they do it especially if they are in one or more centralized location off the streets and somewhere that can be made into a more sanitary setting. Did I mention dumpsters? By the way the city actually did that temporarily during the hepatitis crisis in 2017.

I wrote previously:

So here is my solution, and then I'll tell you why it will never be implemented. Set aside land for free campgrounds just as a city sets aside land for parks. These should be open to all people not just the "homeless" at some snapshot in time. The financial savings from not building lumber and concrete housing would be immense. These campgrounds should have basic services like rest room facilities and showers. Also trash collection and security. The homeless can provide their own tents as they already have which are strewn all over public sidewalks. This solution accomplishes two very important goals: 1) it provides a marginally better lifestyle for the homeless with much better sanitary conditions and 2) it gets the homeless off the streets and sidewalks letting the general public feel safe in using them again. The money saved in police and hospital resources would probably more than pay for the minimal services provided. In addition social worker services in terms of mental health, drug counseling and job search might be provided as they say they want to provide today.

So this solution would make both the general public, who could reclaim the streets and sidewalks, and the homeless, who would have a marginally better and more sanitary life, better off and the whole scenario could be implemented on a very cost effective basis. Why would it never be implemented in America? Here's why. It heightens the fear among politicians and especially conservatives that the homeless population would continue to grow unabated as more and more people would choose to live in a campground than to pay exorbitant rent. Landlords would lobby politicians because they would fear losing their tenants. People on the lowest rungs of the financial ladder would lose their fear of becoming homeless as a free or almost free solution to housing in lumber and concrete becomes available. Most of the homeless already have rudimentary transportation ^i.e. bicycles. This gives them access to bus routes which can get them around the city. Most have some income which they use for food at fast food places which, while not nutritious, at least keeps them from starving. So my solution would not necessarily include food services or transportation services but it could.

Off the Top of My Head

The Mid Terms: Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire

by John Lawrence

Voters are going to vote Republican because they don't like the economy. Really? What have the Republicans proposed to do about that? Cut social security and Medicare. Yeah, that'll fix the economy all right. Give more tax breaks to billionaires? That'll fix the economy for sure. Take away Biden's forgiveness of student loan debt? That'll really fix it. "Kitchen table" voters don't like inflation? What are Republicans proposing to do about that? The only tool in the arsenal for inflation cutting is the Fed's raising interest rates and the Fed is independent of both parties. Besides the only tool the Fed has is probably not the right tool for fixing this inflation. But it will eventually destroy what seems to be a pretty good economy despite inflation. The biggest way to fight inflation is to end the war in Ukraine which will bring gas prices down. Additionally, all the weaponry that is being "given" to Ukraine is really being bought from US weapons manufacturers and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin. This is pouring more money into the American economy at a time when money needs to be extracted from the American economy to fight inflation. The Fed's raising of interest rates is an attempt to increase unemployment which is the traditional way that the Fed fights inflation. The so-called Philips curve says that inflation is directly caused by too much employment, and, if you increase unemployment, it will bring inflation down. There is a direct correlation between unemployment and inflation. So the Fed, although no politician will say it, is trying desperately to increase unemployment. This hurts poor people the most, and, whether it will decrease inflation under the present circumstances, is debatable.

However, the war in Ukraine amounts to a protracted stalemate. As long as the west supplies Ukraine with weapons and North Korea, Iran and China supply Russia with weapons, the war will continue. No one on either side wants to talk peace. Each side wants to win at all costs. So the war will drag the world economy down into inflation and recession. Russia holds the winning cards in terms of its ability to literally destroy Ukraine from the air regardless of what is happening on the battlefield. This is not World War II where success on the battlefield was the key to winning the war. It's more like World War I where trench warfare and stalemate predominated. Territorial Russia remains virtually untouched since the rules are that the war will be entirely fought on Ukraine's territory, and the west to its credit doesn't want an expansion of the war. In the final analysis this gives Russia the advantage. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war, and Russia is fighting an offensive war. It's likely that neither party will run out of resources. That means the longer the war goes on, the more of Ukraine will be destroyed. There needs to be a peace commission and a peace process in which both sides can air their grievances and aspirations. What makes the most sense? I'm sure there is a possible way out, but neither side seems to want to compromise in the interests of ameliorating the lives of the Ukrainian people and getting back to normalcy. For each side their national pride is more important than the lives of their citizens.

Joe Biden could propose a solution to the war which would also go a long way to ameliorating inflation. Unfortunately, Biden is only interested in demonizing Putin. This is not a productive way to create peace. Biden is only fueling the war, and Putin won't back down due to pride. The more Putin is demonized, the more his hackles are raised. The west should be trying to lower Putin's hackles, not raise them. Ukrainian lives hang in the balance. Russian soldiers' lives are also in the balance although Russian civilians so far have escaped most of the suffering. Ukraine taking back real estate will not in the final analysis win the war because Russia can lob missiles into Ukraine ad infinitum. Only a peace process, compromise, consideration for civilian lives and reintegration of Russia into the world community will make it possible for people in that region of the world to again lead normal lives. Winning the war for either side is not a realistic option.

Off the Top of My Head

Problem of American Democracy: Will It Devolve to Tribalism?

by John Lawrence

The US was settled by western Europeans - white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. All the Founding Fathers and writers of the Constitution consisted of these folks. When the Europeans came here there were 100 million Native Americans. A few years later, due to war and disease, there were only 10 million. 90% of Native Americans were wiped out. African Americans were brought here as slaves and completely subjugated, first due to slavery and secondly due to Jim Crow laws up to 1965. So western Europeans predominated in the US right up to late in the 20th century. From the 1880s to the 1920s many of the immigrants were Eastern and Southern Europeans fleeing poverty. They were preceded by the Irish in the 1850s due to the potato famine. This was the era when the motto, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" really held true. Then in 1920 or thereabouts the door to immigration was slammed shut. The western Europeans who ran America were afraid that these new immigrants would outnumber them and take over. Tribalism had reared its ugly head. About the same time eugenics was elevated to the point that the Supreme Court allowed the states to sterilize people that they considered undesirable. In Virginia Carrie Beck was sterilized.

Now that African Americans have escaped the bounds of Jim Crow and other Persons of Color have come to predominate in many positions of power, the remnants of the western Europeans who controlled the US up until the last 30 years or so are feeling like they're losing their grip on power. Democracy, as it was set up by the WASP Founding Fathers, only worked when the citizenry were also predominantly WASPs.Although its ideals were lofty, it was never meant to include African Americans, Native Americans, Latin Americans or other Persons of Color from around the world. The point could be made that democracy only works when it is enacted completely within one tribe, and, when other tribes are incorporated into the community, it doesn't work so well. What is happening today is that the WASP tribe is losing its grip on power, and so is attempting to put democracy aside and just revert to a society in which WASPs hold the reins on power. That is what the Republican party and especially the election deniers are all about.

Election deniers and conspiracy theorists are simply using a dog whistle because they just can't come out and say that what thy are really about is reverting to a tribal state in which they maintain the power that WASPs have always been accustomed to. Donald Trump is just the symbol of this.Election denying is just a euphemism for white western European power. The harsh reality is that the remnant WASPS would rather have an autocracy that they control rather than a true democracy consisting of African Americans and other Persons of Color. They don't want the true history of the US which includes other harsh realities taught in class rooms. The history they want taught is circumscribed to include only Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln and other WASPs but certainly not the realities of African and Native Americans and what happened to them at the hands of the WASPs.

So now what is at stake is the creation either of a true democracy which includes as full citizens and people allowed to enter positions of power those of African descent and other Persons of Color. What is at stake is a true Rainbow Coalition. The alternative is what the election deniers are trying to bring about which is an antidemocratic autocracy in which the descendants of WASPs prevail. That is basically what the Republican party represents - the descendants of WASPs. This is predominantly what the US has always been controlled by up till recently, and they want to continue in that mold. That's why the culture wars are heating up and what is taught in school is so important. If history is taught in such a way that it includes the realities of all Americans and not simply WASP Americans, it is taught in such a way that it does not reflect so favorably on WASP Americans. If non WASPS are given full citizenship or even if they are compensated for some of the inequities they have experienced in the past, this is threatening to the WASPs who would like to maintain the facade that they are good people and have always been good people. What is at stake is which version of reality will predominate in American society and who will be allowed into the Sanctum Sanctorum of American political power. Either the US becomes a true democracy or it reverts to a tribe controlled by the descendants of WASPs only.

Off the Top of My Head

Problems With American Constitution/Democracy: It Spells Out Rights But Not Responsibilities

by John Lawrence

Americans like to emphasize their rights, but don't talk much about their responsibilities. As far as the Constitution is concerned, there are none. As far as corporations are concerned, their only responsibility is to maximize profits by any means necessary. So the environment is not even a concern. Global warming is not even a concern. The only concern as far as business is concerned is business. "The business of America is business," so said President Calvin Coolidge in a 1925 speech. Corporations are supposed to maximize profits presumably as their responsibility to their shareholders which excludes about 50% of Americans who don't own any shares. We've already talked about a right and responsibility to work as a balance to Article 25 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Rights should be balanced by responsibilities. Unfortunately, in the American Constitution and even in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, they're not. In the very last article of the UN charter we find the only mention of "duties":

"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

So no responsibilities are spelled out except the obvious one of not infringing on anyone else's rights. There are no explicit duties in return for all the considerable rights and freedoms spelled out in the UN Charter. There is no obligation to work or pay, if possible, to contribute to the " food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services" that one has a right to expect. It just doesn't add up.

So where does this leave the homeless in America. Unlike the UN charter, the American Constitution does not guarantee the right to housing or anything else. Either you pay for it or work to create it or else. The City of San Diego has proposed a "data analytics program" to solve the homeless problem. Now they are going to spend perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars not on anything that would directly help the homeless such as actually giving them the money for rent, but to some firm for some technology. They've been doing the same thing for years. I remember 20 years ago they paid someone $100,000 for a plan to end homelessness. What happened to that? KPBS reported: "In a statement after the vote, Fletcher said the county will continue to tackle the crisis that exists on the streets, "but we must invest in preventative actions like this one that stops people from becoming unhoused. This new technology will do it." New technology indeed.

If the city designated certain areas where the homeless could legally set up their tents, this in and of itself would get them off the public streets. Instead, the city criminalizes the homeless for living on the streets. But where else can they go? Legal campgrounds with basic amenities like toilets and showers would immensely improve the homeless' lot at rock bottom, minimal expense. The City owns lots of land parcels where this would be possible. Buildings are expensive. Vacant land that the City already owns is not. Most homeless people don't want to be "sheltered" except in case of very bad weather. They like the individual freedom of having their own space even if that is a tent. Some have animals which are forbidden in shelters. Some like to consume substances which are forbidden in shelters. Some don't like to be snooped on which is what happens in shelters. Why doesn't the City get this?

What the City is deathly afraid of is that, if they really made the homeless comfortable like in a campground,say, the City of San Diego would become a homeless magnet attracting homeless people and other people, who just wanted to save money and not pay exorbitant rent, from all over the country. Many people, not only the down and out, would prefer minimum amenities at a campground to paying $2000 a month in rent which is about the minimum rent in San Diego. The powers that be don't want to make camping out a permanently acceptable lifestyle. But why not? Not everyone needs a structure to live in to have a reasonably normal and happy life. With a gym or YMCA membership you have access to shower and rest room facilities. Using public transportation supplemented with a bicycle you can get to a job. A cell phone expedites communications and even banking. It's just that the City fathers and mothers find it abhorrent that people could actually prosper in an unhoused environment with minimal amenities at least for a period of time. They don't want San Diego to become the homeless capital of the US.

Off the Top of My Head

Is There an Off Ramp to Peace in Ukraine?

by John Lawrence

In a hypothetical handshake between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, the agreement was that the war would be fought entirely within Ukraine's borders, and that the US and the west would provide no boots on the ground in Ukraine. Until recently that unacknowledged agreement has been honored by both sides. The US has sought to contain the war also by not providing Ukraine with any long range missiles with which it could attack Russian territory. The idea was that the two sides would slug it out on the conventional military battlefield although Russia clearly has the means by which it could attack anywhere in Ukraine with missiles. The recent attack on the Kerch bridge followed by missile strikes on Kyiv represents an escalation of the war. In the "conventional" war Russia has evidently been losing. From Russia's perspective they have other modes of attack than just a conventional battlefield war. In the words of one Russian general, Russia should bomb Ukraine back to the 18th century. At this point Ukraine has little or no air defense capabilities, and Russia could do just that. So will Russia violate the unwritten agreement that the war will be won or lost on the battlefield? Probably "yes" if they are losing on the battlefield. Russia has long range missiles; Ukraine doesn't. Russia has an air force; Ukraine doesn't. Ukraine has no air defense system. The US and the west will not use their air force resources within Ukraine. This, as Joe Biden rightly observes, would start World War 3.

So why is the West deluding itself by thinking Ukraine could win this war and things could peacefully continue from there? Why is Russia trying to win a conventional war that it clearly is losing. Why are there no negotiations to try and settle this conflict in order to prevent further human suffering and devastation of Ukraine? Why is there no peace process underway? The US air force is not going to come to the aid of Ukraine. The US is not going to give Ukraine long range missiles so that it could attack inside Russia's borders. As atrocious as the Russian side has been made to seem by western media, Russia has exercised at least some restraint by not wiping Kiev off the map with missile strikes. Now that dynamic seems to have changed. Russia can inflict much damage on Kyiv and western Ukraine that it has recently refrained from doing. But now the gloves may be off. So my prognosis is that the war will get even more destructive because Kyiv and western Ukraine are essentially sitting ducks for Russian missile strikes. So why should Russia continue to fight a war on the ground that it is losing? The US and the west is concerned that Russia could use a battlefield nuclear weapon. Russia does not need to do that in order to devastate Kyiv and western Ukraine.

Unless there is some attempt at a peace process or a negotiated settlement, the destruction of Ukraine and the suffering of its people will only get worse. Modern wars are not constrained to military troops on the battlefield as they were in Napoleanic times. Increasingly in modern warfare, more civilian than military lives have been lost. Demonizing Putin will not win the day for Ukraine. Ukraine has belonged to Russia more often than not for hundreds of years. It was essentially peacefully "given" to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954. Nina Khrushcheva, the political scientist and great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, the then First Secretary of the Communist Party, said of Khrushchev's motivation "it was somewhat symbolic, somewhat trying to reshuffle the centralized system and also, full disclosure, Nikita Khrushchev was very fond of Ukraine, so I think to some degree it was also a personal gesture toward his favorite republic. He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine." Russia clearly has a historical interest in Ukraine, not to mention the fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet is based in Sevastopol which is in Crimea.

The US and the west continues to ignore Russian history at it's and Ukraine's peril. Russia will obviously not let the country that harbors its Russian military fleet become a part of NATO. That would almost be a contradiction in terms. The negotiated solution to this war, an off ramp to peace, seems unthinkable at this point, but decent human beings on both sides better start thinking about it. Unless they do, there will be even more destruction of Ukrainian civilians and of the Ukrainian civilization.

Off the Top of My Head

The Government Should Buy Out Parts of Florida Rather Than providing Money to Rebuild

by John Lawrence

Owners of real estate on Florida's barrier islands should be bought out. Climate change will continue to provide hurricanes that will wipe out homes and businesses in these vulnerable areas. It doesn't make sense to rebuild there. Rebuilding there represents throwing good money after bad. If owners' investments in real estate can be made whole, then they can rebuild or buy in some other area which isn't prone to climate change induced disasters. 7 News reported:

"SANIBEL ISLAND, Fla. (AP) — When Hurricane Ian struck Florida’s Gulf Coast, it washed out the bottom level of David Muench’s home on the barrier island of Sanibel along with several cars, a Harley-Davidson and a boat.

His parents’ house was among those destroyed by the storm that killed at least two people there, and the lone bridge to the crescent-shaped island collapsed, cutting off access by car to the mainland for its 6,300 residents.

Hurricane Ian underscores the vulnerability of the nation’s barrier islands and the increasing costs of people living on the thin strips of land that parallel the coast. As hurricanes become more destructive, experts question whether such exposed communities can keep rebuilding in the face of climate change.

“This is a Hurricane Katrina-scale event, where you’re having to rebuild everything, including the infrastructure,” said Jesse M. Keenan, a real estate professor at Tulane University’s School of Architecture. “We can’t build back everything to what it was — we can’t afford that.”"

Actually, it would be cheaper to buy out this real estate rather than to rebuild it along with all the associated infrastructure. Buying or rebuilding in safer areas where the infrastructure is already present eliminates the costs of debris removal and infrastructure rebuilding. Insurance companies will either go bankrupt or be devastated along with the other natural devastation. FEMA's budget will be used up trying to compensate for all the billion dollar weather disasters that are surely coming. These are no "500 year storms." That is pure fiction. These are once or more a year storms.Much of Florida will be underwater eventually as oceans continue to rise. The only thing that makes sense is to move away from the coasts in the most expeditious and least costly manner. Government can expedite this process so that home and business owners aren't forced back onto vulnerable properties and will have somewhere else to go to without losing their real estate investments.

Off the Top of My Head

Republicans Hate Socialism ... Except When They Need Help Themselves

by John Lawrence

When Superstorm Sandy hit, then Congressman DeSantis voted against giving help to New York state. Now after the Hurricane Ian disaster, Governor DeSantis is asking the Federal government for every dollar he can possibly get. This is typical Republican behavior. After all socialism is about helping people. Republicans want every ounce of help they can get for themselves while denying it to others. All of a sudden DeSantis is Joe Biden's best friend. Joe wants to help people, but he should think twice about helping DeSantis. First of all a hard look should be given to rebuilding on hurricane prone barrier islands. DeSantis, of course, wants the increased economic activity that rebuilding will entail for construction companies especially if the Federal government pays for it. Building Back Better in hurricane prone areas is not good economic sense. And it will cost a fortune in an inflationary era while only adding to inflation as the Federal government injects more money into the economy.

Robert Reich wrote in a recent email:

"No Republican governor has been more vocal in his opposition to what he describes as “socialism” than Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis. “I stand against socialism,” DeSantis thundered in Florida’s 2018 gubernatorial election. “Socialist policies have failed time and time again.” In June, DeSantis signed an education bill directing Florida’s Department of Education to develop a curriculum educating students on the evils of socialism (as well as communism)."

But now, when his state needs the money, DeSantis is either a full on socialist or a full on opportunist who, once he gets his, will be against anyone else getting theirs. In 2013 DeSantis said: "I sympathize with the victims of Hurricane Sandy and believe that those who purchased flood insurance should have their claims paid. At the same time, allowing the program to increase its debt by another $9.7 billion with no plan to offset the spending with cuts elsewhere is not fiscally responsible." So now after Hurricane Ian, which will run into the tens of billions, is giving the state of Florida the money DeSantis is requesting from the Federal government "fiscally responsible"? Reich poses the question: "So, would DeSantis call any form of government assistance to those in need “socialism?” Obviously, not when it's his ox that's being gored. DeSantis' hypocrisy is immense here, but it will probably work for him. He will take credit for "getting Florida and Floridians back to normal" as he enters the 2024 Presidential contest. Before Biden gives DeSantis all the money he wants, DeSantis should do a mea culpa, stating that he was wrong to vote against disaster relief for New York state after Superstorm Sandy.

DeSantis website headlines: "Governor Ron DeSantis Requests President Biden Approve Major Disaster Declaration and 100 Percent Federal Cost Share for 60 Days for Hurricane Ian" This isn't the first time that DeSantis has used Federal cash to tout his own agenda. Just prior to the fatal hurricane, DeSantis held a press conference in Jacksonville where he gave $1,000 checks to individual firefighters and law-enforcement officers that were being made available through this year’s state budget. Of course he didn't mention that this was cash the state of Florida got from the American Rescue Plan, Federal money which provided more than $8.8 billion to the state of Florida.DeSantis will likely continue to bash President Joe Biden and the Democrats for pushing policies that he says have caused inflation — which includes the massive spending included in the American Rescue Plan. I've got news for Gov. DeSantis: if he cared about inflation, he would take the money to recover from Hurricane Ian out of state taxes instead of letting the American taxpayer foot the bill while all the time giving Joe Biden no credit. He will take all that for himself.

 

Off the Top of My Head

A 500 Year Event, Gov. DeSantis, or a Once a Year Occurrence?

by John Lawrence

Gov. DeSantis has said repeatedly, "This is a 500 year event" as if once we get the damage cleaned up from Hurricane Ian, we can relax because this kind of devastation won't happen again for another 500 years. I've got news for you, Gov. Desantis. An event like Ian will probably happen again within 5 years, and it will be even worse as the Caribbean warms more making hurricanes even more ferocious. Floridians experienced the deadly, devastating consequences of back-to-back major hurricanes—Irma in 2017 and Michael in 2018—along with near-misses by Matthew in 2016 and Dorian in 2019. They don't sound like 500 year events to me. Let's be honest with each other, Gov. DeSantis. The wreckage from Ian won't even be fully cleaned up before the next major hurricane hits Florida. Thank God, DeSantis is not a climate change denier. However, he is not given high marks for taking action to mitigate the effects of climate change. “I am not in the pews of the church of the global warming leftists,” DeSantis told reporters at one 2018 campaign stop. “I am not a global warming person. I don’t want that label on me.” Forget about labels, Gov. DeSantis, you have a major problem on your hands. You better get down on your knees and start worshiping at the church of climate change.

Inside Climate News reports:

"Florida’s climate challenges are among the biggest in the country. Beyond those related to hurricanes intensified by climate change, they include sea level rise, extreme heat, drought and increasing health threats from mosquito-borne diseases. Florida is the most hurricane-prone state, and hurricanes are not only getting more powerful, they are bringing much more rainfall. 

Sunny day flooding is a regular occurrence in some communities because of sea level rise. Some face several feet of sea level rise by the end of the century. 

By its own numbers, the DeSantis administration predicts that with sea level rise, $26 billion in residential property statewide will be at risk of chronic flooding by 2045."

OK, Ian will probably result in more than $26 billion to clean up, and that's not "by 2045". That's this year - 2022. As insurance companies refuse to insure Florida residential property, Florida residents better hope that the Federal government takes up the slack. By the way that's the Federal government that this Republican state tells to stay out of its business. It's always about states' rights until there's some disaster. Then they come running to the Federal government for help. Private flood insurance will soon be a thing of the past. Nearly 80,000 Florida homeowners will have to find new insurance, after Southern Fidelity declared bankruptcy. The Tallahassee based company is the fourth insurer to declare insolvency recently.

The hardest hit by Ian, of course, were retirees and poor people living in mobile homes. Mobile homes should be outlawed in most parts of Florida. They cannot withstand the powerful hurricanes that are only going to get more powerful as climate change accelerates. Even structurally sound homes will still suffer from water damage and the loss of services like power, water, cell phone towers and more. There will be more water damage from storm surges and fresh water flooding as major storms drop 24 inches or more of water on neighborhoods. All utilities need to be undergrounded, or they will be on the ground more than they will be functional. It will be a full time job just getting water, power, sewer and communications back online, not to mention getting roads cleared of debris and rebuilding bridges and washed out roads. Massive climate disasters are only going to get worse, and we're still putting about 34 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. There's no way that we can survive without a full on effort by all countries of the world to get off fossil fuels ASAP. Yet countries of the world continue to fight, bicker and compete with each other instead of COOPERATING.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 6 - Strengthening the Border

by John Lawrence

As much as the provision of safe zones and other aspects that have been mentioned in this series, strengthening the US southern border is equally important. The problem is that there are those who would rather take their chances illegally entering the US rather than going to a safe zone or a port of entry and asking for asylum there. Right now only about 20% of asylum seekers actually get it. What we want to encourage is legal, orderly immigration, not helter skelter, chaotic and random immigration by people illegally crossing the border and vanishing into the interior of the US. Democrats don't emphasize enough their preference for legal and not illegal immigration enough. One gets the impression that they are for immigration whether it is legal or illegal.  So Republicans are the ones who are left with the issue of strengthening the border to minimize illegal immigration. Democrats should be just as concerned about non citizens breaching the southern border illegally as Republicans are.

Since those going to the proposed safe zones may never be cleared or given asylum, desperate people will still take their chances by trying to enter the US illegally. As the law stands now, if they set foot in the US and ask for asylum, they must be given a court date (right now the waiting time to appear in court is 4 1/2 years) and allowed to stay in the US while they are waiting. They cannot access government benefits and given a green card, however, until asylum is granted. Part of disincentivizing illegal immigration is to change this law so that those entering illegally can be deported. The other part is to strengthen the southern border both physically and electronically. Satellite observation should be used. More human resources should also be put into border protection. Potential immigrants can always apply for asylum at a port of entry, but, if safe zones in Guatemala or other central American countries are realized, people would not have to make the long trek to the US to apply at a port of entry. Therefore, as much as I hate to say it, Trump was right to want to build a border wall. That in and of itself is not enough to discourage illegal immigration. Suffice it to say that more resources should be put into protecting the southern border while incentivizing potential immigrants to apply for asylum in safe zones closer to their home countries as Representative Gonzalez has proposed..

Legal and orderly immigration should be encouraged and the numbers let in should increase. There is a labor shortage in the US for the kinds of jobs that immigrants usually are qualified for. This means agricultural and construction workers among other kinds of laborers. Increasing the number of legal immigrants let into the country will not only ameliorate the labor shortage but will reduce inflation as supply chains will become more efficient. I am for humane treatment of immigrants, but incentivizing them to trek to the southern border and enter illegally is not humane. Asylum seekers, refugees and those wishing to immigrate for a better life should all be treated humanely and incentivized to apply in a legal and orderly manner.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 4 - Congressman Vicente Gonzalez' Safe Zone Proposal

by John Lawrence

Similar to suggestions in this series, Congressman Gonzalez has proposed a safe zone in Guatemala from which asylum seekers could apply to enter the United States and take the pressure off the southern border. At the same time the law that allows admission to the US for anyone setting foot on the US would change. People doing this would be transported back to the safe zone. They could apply for asylum there. Congressman Vicente's proposal is the following:

“America is a haven for those looking to escape poverty, violence, and religious or political persecution,” stated Congressman Gonzalez. “It is time we address our flawed immigration process and ensure the safety of migrants and the security of our country. I am proud to introduce this legislation that allows individuals to apply for asylum in their home country—breaking the cycle of dependence on human traffickers and the deadly risk of trekking thousands of miles over harsh terrain. 

“The Safe Zones Act provides much needed relief to our border communities and gives a humane path to asylum seekers, removing their reliance on cartels for passage to our southern border. The Safe Zones Act allows people to apply for asylum legally and securely in a process that alleviates pressure on our Border Patrol personnel, border communities, and our immigration courts. The scenes we have witnessed from migrants dying in tractor-trailers to drowning in the Rio Grande are nothing short of horrific and heartbreaking. It is time we adequately address immigration reform with common-sense, bipartisan measures that provide actual results.  

“I urge my colleagues to join me and send this bill to President Biden’s desk. Seeking a better life in the United States should not be a death sentence for families. It is time we change the system for the better.” 

It goes on:

• Safe Zones are designated by the Secretary of State under section 207(g) to accept and process applications for refugee admissions to the United States.

• Safe Zones may include embassies, consulates, other diplomatic facilities, or other facilities as determined to be appropriate by the Secretary of State.

The only thing I would add is, considering conservative concerns, the border itself should be strengthened to discourage illegal immigration. If those attempting to cross the US border know that they will be caught and transported back to the safe zone, they will be disincentivized from doing so.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 3 - The Difference Among Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Illegals

by John Lawrence

A refugee is someone who wants to emigrate to another country, but applies typically from a refugee camp in a neighboring country. If granted refugee status, they can not determine exactly which country they will be granted admission to.  An asylum seeker is like a refugee in the fact that they want to leave their home country, but unlike a refugee they attempt to set foot in the country they want to go to. Some of them do this legally by approaching a port of entry and requesting asylum. They are then processed and given a court date at which time a judge will decide whether or not to give them asylum status. It all depends on whether or not they can convince the judge that they are fleeing violence in their home country. Fleeing poverty is not a good enough reason. Approximately 80% are denied asylum status and ordered to leave the US. Others enter the US illegally ^i.e. by crossing the border but not at a port of entry. If they are picked up by border patrol, they can then also request asylum. Others enter illegally and manage to evade the authorities altogether. They are the true illegals.

The problem from the asylum seeker's point of view is 1) their court date may be way off in the future and they are given no government assistance until after they are granted asylum and 2) their chances of getting asylum are very meager. So this situation incentivizes people to enter illegally and try not to get caught especially if they have family in the US who can shelter them. There are a number of ways to change the dynamics of this situation - some favored by conservatives and some favored by liberals. To really solve this problem what is needed are elements from both sides. The policy of letting anyone who sets foot in the US claim asylum should be changed. People should be incentivized to request asylum at a port of entry or better yet ask for refugee status in their home country or a neighboring one. The border wall should be strengthened to make it very unlikely that anyone can get in illegally. The fact that someone can wade across the Rio Grande, set foot in the US and request asylum is ridiculous. This is where I side with conservatives. On the other hand the process of requesting asylum at a port of entry needs to be expedited. These cases should be decided in a matter of days not months. If you have to hire more judges and build more court rooms, so be it. Furthermore, the policy for granting asylum should be liberalized to the extent that reasons other than "fleeing violence" are acceptable. Fleeing the results of climate change should be factored in as, more and more, that will be one of the main reasons for migration. So the goal should be discouragement of illegal entry by means of a strong border wall whether physical, electronic or both and encouragement of asylum seekers to do so at a port of entry.

Another component of immigration policy is that quotas should be greatly increased for refugees and immigrants in general. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, slightly more than 707,000 immigrants became lawful permanent residents (LPRs, also known as green-card holders), the lowest number since 2003 and the first time the figure dropped below 1 million since 2013, when 991,000 people obtained green cards. This number needs to be greatly increased. If more immigrants are let in legally, they will disincentivized from coming illegally. Also the US is greatly in need of workers for those jobs that immigrants typically do. The bracero program used to let Mexican farm laborers come to the US on short term labor contracts to do farm work. These kinds of workers are in short supply today and liberalizing immigration laws should help to bring much needed workers to the US legally.

Amnesty International estimates that there are 70 million refugees worldwide. Some of the largest refugee camps are in Africa. Refugees are hoping to be resettled in a country where they can experience basic human rights. Some are willing to leave these camps and risk life and limb to get to the European Union or the US. Many have drowned in the Mediterranean trying to get to Italy or Greece. Similarly, many have lost their lives trying to get to the southern border of the US. Southern border states as well as Italy and Greece are upset that they have to bear the brunt of illegal immigrant crossings.

The third thing the US could do is to ameliorate conditions in Central and South America as well as Haiti and some other Caribbean countries that are contributing to the high volume of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. This could be done by using the US military to root out the gangs which are threatening peoples' lives and doing the human trafficking as well as drug smuggling. Financial and economic help could reduce the impact and burden of poverty in those countries. The Peace Corps could help people to build their lives from the ground up rather than just giving their governments money which could be siphoned off by corrupt bureaucrats. Ameliorating poverty and the negative effects of climate change by improving infrastructure and creating a safe environment will reduce the number of those seeking admission to the US. Processing asylum seekers and refugees in countries outside the US so that immigrants don't have to trek thousand of miles or pay a coyote to traffic them would cut the pressure on the southern border.

Off the Top of My Head

Chump Towers: Why the Worst is Yet to Come

by John Lawrence

Yesterday the Attorney General of New York sued Trump for bank fraud. But that is only the half of it. The other half is tax fraud. The referral to the IRS will take care of that. Trump's dilemma is that he overestimated his assets to get cheap bank loans and then turned around and underestimated his income to reduce his taxes. Most banks refused to deal with Trump. Even Deutsche bank, which is a sprawling behemoth in which the right division doesn't know what the left division is doing, refused to deal with Trump except for one enabler - Rosemary Vrablic.She oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to President Trump’s company. She resigned in 2021. According to the New York Times:

"Ms. Vrablic ... joined Deutsche Bank in 2006 from Bank of America.  Ms. Vrablic quickly made a name for herself as one of her division’s leading rainmakers. In 2011, she landed a prominent new client: Mr. Trump, who for decades had been mostly off limits to the mainstream banking world because of his tendency to default on loans. With her bosses’ approval, Ms. Vrablic agreed to a series of loans, totaling well over $300 million, for his newly acquired Doral golf resort in Florida, for his troubled Chicago skyscraper and for the transformation of the Old Post Office building in Washington into a luxury hotel."

Rosemary was a V.I.P. guest at Trump's inauguration. She was Trump's personal banker at Deutshe at a time when no other bank and most divisions of Deutsche would not even do business with him. Trump had a history of defaulting on loans and stiffing contractors. The article continues:

"Mr. Trump’s key contacts at his biggest financial backer are leaving at a perilous time for the departing president. He owes Deutsche Bank about $330 million, and the loans come due in 2023 and 2024. Mr. Trump provided a personal guarantee to get the loans, meaning that if he fails to pay them back, the bank can pursue his personal assets."

Attorney General, Letitia James, is suing Trump for $250 million for bank fraud in addition to essentially shutting down all his operations in the state of New York. But this might be a small amount when the IRS comes forth with its own accounting and accusations. A few hundred million here, a few hundred million there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. With Rosemary Vrablic gone, Trump has lost probably the last banker even willing to do business with him.

Deutsche bank is cooperating with the investigation. Stay tuned.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 2

by John Lawrence

By international and American law, any foreign national has the right to present themselves at a port of entry and apply for asylum. To be given asylum one must prove that they have a fear of persecution in their home country. One also has a right to request asylum if they enter the US illegally ^i.e. swim across the Rio Grande or getting into the US by means of a weak link in the border fence. Title 42, implemented under the Trump administration allowed persons who entered illegally to be deported because of COVID restrictions. Also in a deal worked out with the Mexican government asylum seekers were required to remain in Mexico while applying for asylum. Title 8 which preceded Title 42 allowed asylum seekers to remain in the US until their court date at which time they were either granted asylum or deported. The Trump administration with Title 42 had a makeshift, half way solution to the border crisis: they discouraged people from coming to the southern border. However, they did nothing to address the root causes and conditions that incentivized this problem. It's true that the southern states shouldn't have to bear the brunt of immigrants legal or illegal coming across the border any more than Italy or Greece should have to bear the brunt of immigrants seeking entry to Europe from Africa and the Middle East. The current UNHCR law regarding refugees was implemented after WW II and is need of revision since the current situation is far different than the one prevailing then.

Applying for asylum status at a port of entry or entering illegally requires a lengthy and dangerous journey from a home country and possibly paying a coyote thousands of dollars. However, the US southern border is a magnet for asylum seekers because of the current law. That law should change in order to encourage migrants to apply for asylum in their home country. Unfortunately, their home country is the one they're fleeing from presumably because of a threat to their lives. One solution is for the US, hopefully with the cooperation of central American and south American countries which are providing most of the asylum seekers, to go into those countries and do whatever is necessary to root out the gangs which are threatening the violence from which the asylum seekers are escaping. The US could provide safe zones in those or neighboring countries to which asylum seekers could flee and apply for asylum or refugee status there. The US should give cash and/or other incentives to keep asylum seekers in or relatively close to their home country until their cases can be heard in court. Courts should also be located in these safe zones so they would not have to travel to the US.

At the same time that asylum seekers are incentivized to apply in or near their home countries, they should be disincentivized from coming to the US southern border. This could be done by denying a court hearing for asylum status to those presenting themselves at a port of entry or entering illegally. This relieves the pressure on the southern border. This would be in violation of the international law regarding asylum seekers, but would not foreclose the possibility of seeking asylum. To the extent that the US improved the conditions which created the need for asylum in the first place, the number of asylum seekers would diminish. In the present era many seeking to immigrate to the US or Europe are doing so to escape economic conditions in their home countries. Economic immigrants are already ineligible for asylum under international law. However, if developed and advanced countries like the US and European Union would devote major resources to improving economic conditions in poorer countries, this would decrease the need for immigration. At the present time and going forward immigration will also be driven by climate change as people lose the means to support themselves due to floods, fires and drought. The US, as the major cause of greenhouse gas emissions, has a responsibility to ameliorate conditions in countries which are suffering most from global warming.

UNHCR most recently estimated that, by mid-2021, for the first time in recorded history, the number of forcibly displaced persons is now 89.3 million with over 27.1 million refugees. The advanced countries - that means Europe and the US -  need to coordinate their policies and increase their quotas for the admission of refugees. The number worldwide will only increase due to climate change. Refugees are not the same as asylum seekers. They are mostly in refugee camps around the world while asylum seekers present themselves at the borders of a country they wish to immigrate to. Those seeking asylum in the US are not entitled to government benefits such as TANF or Medicare until they have actually been granted asylum. It is only then that they can get a green card and other benefits. However, the court system is so backlogged that this might take years. The system as it exists now needs to be thrown out and revised, and that should start by changing the law at the UN so that both a humane and a realistic system can be implemented based on current and projected conditions.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle

by John Lawrence

The number of people seeking admission to the US and Europe is only going to increase due to a number of factors - climate change will be the main one as time goes on. The international laws on asylum seeking need to be revised. Right now anyone who presents themselves at the border of the US or a European country and requests asylum can legally enter that country and have their asylum request considered although it may or may not be granted. The problem is that the law as written expects that applicants are individuals with a specific request. The situation now, however, is that huge throngs of people are migrating due to war, crime, economic conditions and increasingly climate change. The reality is that it's not an individual phenomenon any more. Although any country is required to accept asylum seekers regardless if they had anything to do with creating the conditions that led to the people requesting asylum, the immensity of the problem makes the current law inadequate and insufficient.

The solution to this seemingly intractable problem is multifaceted. 1) The law that says that anyone setting foot on American soil is entitled to asylum and a hearing needs to be invalidated. 2) Defenses at the border need to be increased so that illegal asylum seekers (those who don't apply for asylum at a port of entry) can't cross the border illegally. 3) The US needs to intervene in countries where the conditions contribute to migration and to the extent possible ameliorate those conditions so that people can stay in their own country and not be in danger of being killed or intimidated by criminals or gangs. In other words so that they can have security in their own countries. In addition the US should assist to the extent possible in creating the economic conditions such that people would want to stay in their own countries since more and more refugees and asylum seekers are economic refugees. 4) The US needs to encourage people to apply for asylum in their own countries by making it impossible to gain entry to the US legally or  illegally by coming to the border and making it propitious to apply for asylum or refugee status in their home countries. This could mean even offering cash to those who apply at home rather than coming to the border. In other words both a carrot and a stick approach. We should give them incentives to stay where they are.

The general approach would be to make it futile for migrants to approach the US border and to encourage them to apply for asylum in their home countries even using incentives for that and disincentives for coming to the border. Right now migrants have every incentive to come to the US border because once they have planted even one foot on US soil, it is required by law to give them an asylum hearing, and, meanwhile, they are in the US at least temporarily and need to be given humane treatment which costs money. To boot they may never even show up for their asylum hearing! This is a ridiculous situation. The US has exploited Central and South American countries economically for centuries. It needs to make up for it now by decreasing poverty in those countries and incentivizing people financially to stay in their own countries. To the extent people feel unsafe due to criminal and gang activities, these gangs need to be rooted out with or without the cooperation of the authorities in those countries.

Off the Top of My Head

Problem of American Democracy: Constitution Guarantees Freedoms Without Demanding Responsibilities

by John Lawrence

There is nothing asked of an American citizen by the Constitution. It just gives citizens all kinds of freedoms - freedom of speech, assembly etc - without saying what the responsibilities or obligations of citizens are. It is just a free lunch for citizens. They have no responsibility either to the state or to their fellow citizens. This has led to the situation where every free agent is totally in it for theirself without regard to the interests or plight of anyone else. For instance the rich have no responsibility to alleviate the suffering of the poor. The poor must independently pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. This is the philosophy of liberal individualism. There is no responsibility for any American to the community as a whole. The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights enumerated the many rights which enlightened governments should guarantee to their citizens. The US guarantees the political and civil rights, but stops short of guaranteeing Article 25: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Article 25 is a step too far for the American way of life which guarantees political and civil liberties, but not economic liberties because that would encumber some better off individuals to be responsible for some less better off individuals, and the philosophy of liberal individualism promotes individual initiative without any sense of responsibility for anyone else. What's mine is mine, and no one else including the government has a right to take any of my stuff away from me and give it to anyone else even if they are starving, homeless and sick.

In 1997 the InterAction Council decided to come up with "A Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities" to counterbalance the UN Declaration of Human Rights. They stated in the introduction: "Globalization of the world economy is matched by global problems, and global problems demand global solutions on the basis of ideas, values and norms respected by all cultures and societies. Recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all the people requires a foundation of freedom, justice and peace – but this also demands that rights and responsibilities be given equal importance to establish an ethical base so that all men and women can live peacefully together and fulfill their potential. A better social order both nationally and internationally cannot be achieved by laws, prescriptions and conventions alone, but needs a global ethic. Human aspirations for progress can only be realized by agreed values and standards applying to all people and institutions at all times."

In other words we are all in this together so it's not enough to "get government off our back." In return for the wonderful freedoms government guarantees to us, government should ask for something in return both to the society as a whole and to our fellow citizens. It's not enough to be free and equal although the meaning of equal is up for debate. The motto of the French revolution was Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. At least there was a mention of "brotherhood", Fraternite, in the French motto even if the French have argued whether or not it means that they have any responsibility to their fellow French men and women. There is a growing realization that freedom must be balanced with responsibility. Otherwise, American democracy is just a big free lunch. You get all this stuff guaranteed by the Constitution including the rule of law with an elaborate court system which protects you from bodily harm, thievery and much else, but there are no explicit responsibilities on your part. It's as if your Dad gave you the keys to the car and said, "Here take it. It's yours" without asking for anything in return.

Article 7 of the Declaration of Human Responsibilities says: "All people have a responsibility to protect the air, water and soil of the earth for the sake of present inhabitants and future generations." There is a lack of responsibility on the part of some Americans who want to maximize quarterly profits without any consideration of the environment or global warming.The US Constitution allows them to do so. It makes no demands on them in this regard or in any other regard. The American way is to seek one's self-interest without regard to fellow Americans or the environment and self-interest in most cases means to maximize profits even when the maximizer is a billionaire with more money than they could ever hope to spend. Some Constitutions not only specify rights but duties as well. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States in Bogota, Columbia specifies among other things that one has both a right and a duty to work if able-bodied.

Americans are only tuned into their rights, but not their responsibilities because the Constitution makes no demands on them in this regard. This leads to and is partly responsible for the break down of the American democratic system. Too many disaffected people feel lost in a society which basically tells them, "You're on your own Buddy. Don't ask me for help." Too many people don't want their tax money going to help the homeless, the mentally ill or those who are barely scraping by. Societal stability is not as important as protecting someone's right to own a gun. Too much freedom without responsibility can lead to the breakdown of democracy, but the US is not really a democracy. As Ben Franklin said, "It's a republic, if you can keep it."

How to Green Our Parched Farmlands and Finance Critical Infrastructure

Posted on September 2, 2022 by Ellen Brown

from Web of Debt

There are work-arounds the U.S. can use to fund affordable housing, drought responses, and other urgently-needed infrastructure that was left out of the two recent spending bills.

Congress has passed two major infrastructure bills in the last year, but imminent needs remain. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law chiefly focused on conventional highway programs, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) mainly centered on energy security and combating climate change. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), over $2 trillion in much-needed infrastructure is still unfunded, including projects to address drought, affordable housing, high-speed rail, and power transmission lines. By 2039, per the ASCE, continued underinvestment at current rates will cost $10 trillion in cumulative lost GDP, more than 3 million jobs in that year, and $2.24 trillion in exports over the next 20 years.

Particularly urgent today is infrastructure to counteract the record-breaking drought in the U.S. Southwest, where 50% of the nation’s food supply is grown. Subsidies for such things as the purchase of electric vehicles, featured in the IRA, will pad the coffers of the industries lobbying for them but will not get water to our parched farmlands any time soon. More direct action is needed. But as noted by Todd Tucker in a Roosevelt Institute article, “Today, a gridlocked and austerity-minded Congress balks at appropriating sufficient money to ensure emergency readiness. … [T]he US system of government’s numerous veto points make emergency response harder than under parliamentary or authoritarian systems.”

There are, however, other ways to finance these essential projects. “A work-around,” says Tucker, “is so-called off-balance sheet money creation.” That was the approach taken in the 1930s, when commercial banks were bankrupt and the country faced its worst-ever economic depression; yet the government succeeded in building infrastructure as never before.

Off-budget Funding: The Model of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation

For funding its national infrastructure campaign in the Great Depression, Congress called on the publicly-owned Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). It was not actually a bank; it got its liquidity by issuing bonds. Notes Tucker, “The RFC was allowed to borrow money from the Treasury and the capital markets, and then invest in relief and mobilization efforts that would eventually generate a return for taxpayers, all while skating past austerity hawks determined to cut or freeze government spending.”

According to James Butkiewicz, professor of economics at the University of Delaware:

The RFC was an executive agency with the ability to obtain funding through the Treasury outside of the normal legislative process. Thus, the RFC could be used to finance a variety of favored projects and programs without obtaining legislative approval. RFC lending did not count toward budgetary expenditures, so the expansion of the role and influence of the government through the RFC was not reflected in the federal budget.

The RFC lent to federal government agencies including the Commodity Credit Corporation (which lent to farmers), the Electric Home and Farm Authority, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Public Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). It also made direct loans to local governments and businesses and funded eight RFC wartime subsidiaries in the 1940s that were essential to the war effort.  

The infrastructure projects of one agency alone, the Works Progress Administration, included 1,000 miles of new and rebuilt airport runways, 651,000 miles of highway, 124,000 bridges, 8,000 parks, and 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields; and some 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 69,000 highway light standards, and 125,000 public buildings (built, rebuilt, or expanded), including 41,300 schools. For local governments that had hit their borrowing limits on their taxpayer-funded general obligation bonds, a workaround was devised: they could borrow by issuing “revenue bonds,” which were backed not by taxes but by the revenue that would be generated by the infrastructure funded by the loans. 

A bill currently before Congress, HR 3339, proposes to duplicate the feats of the RFC without increasing the federal budget deficit or taxes, by forming a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB). 

China’s State “Policy Banks”

China is dealing with the global economic downturn by embarking on a stimulus program involving large national infrastructure projects, including massive water infrastructure. For funding, the government is drawing on three state-owned “policy banks” structured like the RFC. 

The Chinese government is one of those systems referred to by Todd Tucker as not being hampered by “a gridlocked and austerity-minded Congress.” It can just issue a five-year plan and hit the ground running. In May 2022, it began construction on 3,876 large projects with a total investment of nearly 2.4 trillion yuan (about $350 billion).   

Funding is coming chiefly from China’s “policy banks” set up in 1994 to provide targeted loans in areas where profit-driven banks might be reluctant to lend. They are the China Development Bank, the Export-​Import Bank of China and the Agricultural Development Bank of China. As noted in a June 30 article in the Washington Post, China could also draw on its “Big Four” banks – Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Construction Bank Corp., Agricultural Bank of China Ltd., and Bank of China Ltd. – but “they are essentially profit-driven commercial banks that can be quite picky when it comes to selecting borrowers and projects. The policy lenders, however, operate on a non-profit basis and are often recruited to pour cheap funds into projects that are less attractive financially but matter to the longer-term development of the economy.”

Like the RFC, the policy banks mainly get their funds by issuing bonds. They can also get “Pledged Supplementary Lending” directly from the Chinese central bank, which presumably creates the money on its books, as all central banks are empowered to do.

Off the Top of My Head

How Liz Cheney Can Defeat Trump in the 2024 Election

by John Lawrence

Run for President as a third party candidate. She will siphon off enough Republican votes to insure Trump's loss. She has the name recognition and chutzpah to run for President. She's already raising money with her super PAC - The Great Task. There are enough disaffected Republicans that will vote for her, and, even though she would probably come in third in a Presidential race, she could guarantee that Trump or a Trump-like candidate would lose. Therefore, a Democrat will win. Cheney obviously has no affection at this point for the Republican Party, a party that oversaw her defeat in a landslide for her incumbent Congressional seat in Wyoming. She is more interested in a win for America and the principles of the Constitution, and, as an American patriot, she is committed to Trump's losing the 2024 Presidential election.

The US has a history of third party candidates handing wins to the party that they are least aligned with. In 1992, Ross Perot ran unsuccessfully as an independent candidate for President of the United States. Perot was a Texas industrialist who had never served as a public official, but he had experience as the head of several successful corporations and had been involved in public affairs for the previous three decades. Although Perot received no votes in the Electoral College, he won several counties, placed second in two states, and ended up far ahead of any other non major party candidate finishing in third place overall, receiving close to 18.97 percent of the popular vote, the most won by a third-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. His presence in the race may have been enough to deny George H W Bush a second term.

Even more salient was the 2000 Presidential election. The 2000 presidential campaign of Ralph Nader, political activist, author, lecturer and attorney, began on February 21, 2000. He cited "a crisis of democracy" as motivation to run. He ran in the 2000 United States presidential election as the nominee of the Green Party. Nader siphoned off enough votes from Al Gore, who was the Democratic candidate, that George W Bush won the election despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote and despite the fact that, at Bush's request, the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida which would have nailed the state of Florida for Gore and the Presidential election itself.

Third party candidates can wreak havoc for the party that they're most closely aligned with. In 2000 Nader was more aligned with Democrats than Republicans. Yet he helped cinch the race for the Republican since he siphoned off Democratic votes. The same goes for Perot in the 1992 Presidential election in which he helped defeat the candidate of the party he was most closely aligned with - in this case the Republican party. Liz Cheney knows all this. She's no dummy. She knows she can guarantee a Trump defeat in 2024 if he should run by running for President herself as a third party candidate. No doubt Adam Kinzinger and other influential Republicans will join her in an effort to overthrow the Republican party which has become the party of Trump. Liz is well known enough that she does not suffer from any name recognition deficit. Polling shows that in the neighborhood of 30% of registered Republicans are disenchanted with Trump and Trumpism. They are appalled at the January 6 insurrection by devotees and sycophants of Trump. Liz Cheney can guarantee that the United States of America will be able to turn over a new leaf and start a new day with a new party dedicated to the principles of the rule of law and the American Constitution - sort of what the old Republican party used to be like. She is in a position to relegate Trump to the dustbin of history if he should somehow escape the grip of all the lawsuits he's now entangled with.

Off the Top of My Head

What Have You Done For Me Lately, Mr. Biden?

by John Lawrence

So you put thousands of dollars in my bank account with the American Recovery Act, but that was so like last year. You've brought down the price of gas by releasing millions of gallons from the Strategic Oil Reserve, but gas is still too high. You ended a 20 year fruitless war in Afghanistan saving us hundreds of billions of dollars, but you micromanaged the withdrawal so sloppily. You got a bipartisan infrastructure bill passed, but I haven't seen any bridges getting repaired in my neighborhood. You got a chips bill passed, but so what? How does that affect me? You killed Al-zawahiri. Al Who? That's so 20 years ago. You got the Burn Act passed. Burn pits? Finally you passed a bill allowing Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical corporations over drug prices and limited out of pocket costs to $2000 a year, but that only affects old people. Well, you also got about $370 billion for climate change, but I haven't seen any rebates at my dealer yet. Taxing billionaires? How does this affect me?

See the American people can't see the value or the worth of anything that doesn't directly affect them immediately. They want instantaneous gratification in the same way babies do. Anything that Biden or the Democrats do that doesn't put dollars in my pocket immediately is worthless as far as I'm concerned. That's why I like the Republican agenda. Tax cuts for every one now. What do I care if the rich get a bigger tax cut than I do as long as I get my tax cut. See Biden raised taxes on the rich, but he didn't use that money to cut taxes on me. Therefore, it was a worthless maneuver. Democrats are always doing good stuff "for the good of the country" and now with climate change "for the good of the world." but I like my 52 Corvette classic car gas guzzler. As an American citizen I'm entitled to drive any car I want including gas guzzlers. So I repeat, Mr. Biden why haven't you brought down the price of gas to last year's level or for that matter to what it was in the 1950s. Inflation has eaten up all my wage gains and profits, and you still haven't gotten it under control, and It's been months.

Sinema Received Over $500K From Private Equity Before Shielding Industry From Tax Hikes

A mobile billboard criticizing Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) is seen in Washington, D.C. on August 7, 2022. (Photo: Patriotic Millionaires)

 

"Remember the days when taking half a million bucks from an industry, and then passing legislation that only benefits that industry, while passing the costs onto everyone else, would be called corruption?" asked one critic. "Today it's just lobbying as usual."

Kenny Stancil, Common Dreams

August 8, 2022

Senate Democrats passed a pared-backed reconciliation package on Sunday, but only after a pair of widely supported provisions that would have made it harder for Wall Street tycoons to reduce their tax bills were removed at the behest of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema—the right-wing Arizona Democrat who has taken more than $500,000 in campaign contributions from private equity executives during the current election cycle.

"Remember the days when taking half a million bucks from an industry, and then passing legislation that only benefits that industry, while passing the costs onto everyone else, would be called corruption?" Brown University political economist Mark Blyth asked on social media. "Today it's just lobbying as usual."

Last week, Sinema agreed to back the Inflation Reduction Act as long as the so-called "carried interest loophole," which benefits hedge fund managers and private equity moguls by allowing their investment income to be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of around 20% rather than the ordinary top income rate of 37%, was preserved.

Democrats, who needed Sinema's support to pass the filibuster-proof bill through the evenly split Senate, obliged, forgoing a modest reform that would have raised an estimated $14 billion in federal revenue over a decade by increasing the holding period for investments to qualify for preferential tax treatment from three to five years.

As the Financial Times noted Monday, the Arizona Democrat "is a beneficiary of significant contributions from the private equity industry—whose lobbying machine and political influence have grown increasingly powerful over the past two decades."

Citing Federal Election Commission filings, the newspaper reported:

Sinema has received more than half a million dollars in campaign donations from private equity group executives in this election cycle alone, representing about 10% of her fundraising from individual donors. This includes individual donations totalling $54,900 from executives at KKR, $35,000 from Carlyle, $27,300 from Apollo, $24,500 from Crow Holdings Capital and $23,300 from Riverside Partners.

The securities and investment sector as a whole has donated more than $2.2 million to Sinema since she was elected in 2017, according to OpenSecrets. Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich quipped last week, amid reports of Sinema's plans to undermine her party's efforts to hike taxes on corporations and the wealthy, that Wall Street is "getting a huge return on their investment."

In addition to stripping the carried interest provision from the Inflation Reduction Act, Sinema protected private equity-owned corporations from a new 15% minimum tax on billion-dollar firms.

As The Washington Post reported Sunday:

As originally written, the provision would have required private equity firms to tally profits from their various holdings and pay the tax if the total exceeded the $1 billion threshold.

Sinema, who for over a year has blocked Democratic ambitions to raise taxes, raised objections on Saturday, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private talks. The senator argued that, without changes to the bill, small and medium-sized businesses that happen to be owned by private equity firms would be exposed to the tax, violating a Democratic pledge to hike taxes only on the largest firms. A Sinema spokeswoman said several Arizona small businesses, including a plant nursery, had raised concerns.

Steve Wamhoff, an analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank, told the Post, "The idea that billion-dollar private equity funds must be protected to save small businesses is absolutely absurd."

Nevertheless, the newspaper noted, "the last-minute changes mark a significant victory for the private equity industry and an estimated savings of $35 billion over the next decade."

Following the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act on Sunday, the progressive tax reform group Patriotic Millionaires ran a mobile billboard around the Capitol to thank Senate Democrats, with the exception of Sinema, who was denounced for being bought by private equity billionaires. The truck made stops at the offices of the American Investment Council and the Carlyle Group in Washington, D.C.

"Bravo to 49 of the 50 senators who voted today to end an era of rampant criminal tax abuse at the highest levels of American society and American business," Erica Payne, founder and president of Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement. "In a journey of 1,000 miles, this is an impressive first step."

"Shame on Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming across the finish line, carrying water for her private equity overloads to the bitter end," Payne continued. "Thanks in large part to Sinema's obstruction, there's more work to be done, but the Inflation Reduction Act is a monumental step in the right direction."

---

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

What the Hell Did They Learn at Harvard and Yale?

by Robert Reich

August 8, 2022

ZILCH

The original justification for elite higher education in the United States was to train the future leaders of American democracy. As Charles W. Eliot, who became president of Harvard in 1869, noted, Harvard existed to inculcate the ideals of “service and stewardship.”

Since then, Harvard has produced eight US presidents; Yale, five. (Stanford can boast Herbert Hoover, if it feels compelled to do so.)

Elite universities have also produced a disproportionate number of senators and representatives from both parties. In fact, Republicans elected to the Senate over the last decade are more likely than their Democratic counterparts to have attended Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford.

So how to explain Elise Stefanik, Harvard class of 2006, now the third-ranking House Republican, who recently called the January 6 hearings a “partisan witch hunt,” voted to invalidate the 2020 election, and has repeated Trump’s Big Lie of election fraud?

Or Josh Hawley, Stanford class of 2002 and Yale Law class of 2006, now senator from Missouri, who in December 2020 became the first US senator to announce plans to object to the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, then led Senate efforts to overturn the Electoral College vote count, and fist-bumped the rioters on January 6?

Or Ted Cruz, Princeton class of 1992 and Harvard Law class of 1995, now senator from Texas, who in late 2020 joined in John Eastman’s and Trump’s plot to object to the election results in six swing states and delay accepting the Electoral College results on January 6, potentially enabling Republican state legislatures to overturn them?

And how to explain a new crop of Republican senate candidates?

JD Vance, Yale Law class of 2013, now Republican candidate for the Senate from Ohio, has claimed that there “were certainly people voting illegally on a large-scale basis” in the 2020 election. When asked earlier this year if the 2020 election was “stolen,” he said, “Yeah, I do.”

Blake Masters, Stanford class of 2008 and Stanford Law class of 2012, now the Republican candidate for the Senate from Arizona, has declared in campaign ads that “Trump won.” He promotes rightwing “replacement theory” – that Democrats favor illegal immigration “so that someday they can ‘amnesty’ these people and make them voters who they expect to vote Democrat.”

These alumni of America’s finest institutions of higher education haven’t adhered to their alma maters’ ideals of service and stewardship of American democracy. In fact, they’re actively wrecking American democracy.

Nor can these elite graduates claim they don’t know any better. Most third-graders can distinguish a lie from the truth.

No, these scions of the most prestigious halls of American academe are knowingly and intentionally abetting the most dangerous attack on American democracy since the Civil War.

Whatever did they learn from their rarified education? Obviously, zilch.

The core of a good liberal arts education is ethics. The central question is the meaning of a good society. This has been the case since the eighteenth century, when most of America’s prestigious institutions of higher education were founded.

Adam Smith, the progenitor of modern economics, didn’t call his field economics. He called it “moral philosophy,” and thought his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments more important than his The Wealth of Nations.

Edmund Burke – Irish statesman and philosopher, and godfather of modern conservatism – didn’t advise that people in public life seek power above all else. He argued that they owe the public their “judgment and conscience.”

There is no single answer to the meaning of a good society, of course. It is the pursuit of it that draws on one’s judgment and conscience. This is why higher education has advanced the role of reason in human affairs and stood for the Enlightenment values of democracy and the rule of law.

But this new crop of Republican pretenders hasn’t learned anything of the kind. They are practitioners of a much earlier and more cynical set of ideas: that might makes right, that the purpose of human endeavor is to gain power, and that ambition and treachery trump (excuse the verb) all other values.

I can’t help wondering: What do they see when they look into the mirror each morning? And what do they tell themselves after a day of deceit?

Any of them who tries to justify the despicable means they are employing by telling themselves they can do more good by gaining or keeping power is under a dangerous illusion. As the great civil rights leader Bayard Rustin once said, “If we desire a society that is democratic, then democracy must become a means as well as an end.”

These products of the best education America has to offer are betraying the core values of America.

They deserve only shame.

Off the Top of My Head

The Way to Cure Inflation: More Immigrant Workers

by John Lawrence

There is a supply shortage which means that there is not enough supply to meet consumer demand. At the same time there is a worker shortage. The worker shortage causes the supply shortage as companies have to cut back on their supply of product because they don't have enough workers to make more. They have to pay workers more because they are in a competition for workers. So there is a gap between supply and demand because there is a gap between available jobs and the supply of workers. The solution: increase the supply of immigrants to fill the demand for workers. Then companies could ramp up supply to meet demand, and wage price spirals would diminish. Instead, the government has restricted immigration. This limits the supply of workers especially those who are in demand for the lower skilled jobs. Republicans are all concerned about immigration when the solution to the inflation problem is to let more immigrants into the country to fulfill the need for essential workers. This would fill the void in the job market and increase supply of goods and services. This in turn would lower prices and go a long way to taming inflation. The Fed cannot solve the problem of inadequate supply of workers by raising interest rates. This will only tend to rein in asset prices which in and of itself is a good thing since housing and rents are too expensive. But it will not increase the supply of commodities for which there is more demand than supply.

After noting that reversing the Trump tariffs on Chinese products would lower inflation, Fareed Zakaria also noted the following:

The second one, he noted, would be immigration reform. This is the time to reverse more of Trump’s restrictions on immigration, many done by executive action and hundreds of which are still in effect, which have caused severe worker shortages in industries such as farming, construction and health care.

The problem, however, is not one relating to facts or logic. No one seriously disputes the validity of these claims. During the campaign, Biden lambasted Trump’s tariffs on China and much of his immigration policy. Yet after entering office, the Biden White House has behaved on these issues like a deer caught in the headlights — paralyzed by fear that any major shifts might get attacked by Republicans.

I also might add that cranking up the Cold War rhetoric regarding China is not the way to lower the price of consumer products most of which are manufactured in China. China is learning the lesson that Russia learned during their ongoing war with Ukraine. If you have a product or commodity that the west wants or needs, you can cause a lot of damage by withholding that product or in other ways making it more expensive. As Russia has made the price of gas more expensive, they have directly caused inflation in the US and Europe. One could also point out that sanctions on Russian oil by western governments have contributed to rising inflation so in that sense the Biden administration has shot itself in the foot. China could take a page out of Russia's book, and increase costs to western consumers. In fact it already has as container ships (wholly owned by Chinese companies) have raised their prices to transport goods from China to the US. The US needs to cooperate with China if it wants the trade relationships so vital to consumer spending, which is 70% of the US economy, to remain on a salutary basis.

It is to be noted that China turned the tables on the US by sanctioning Nancy Pelosi and her family after her trip to Taiwan. It's as if they're saying, "See, you guys aren't the only ones that can do sanctions." China could get into a sanctions war with the US if tensions between the two countries continue to escalate. China could take steps to increase the cost of Chinese produced consumer goods which are essential to the functioning of the US economy. Or it could even withhold some essential manufactured goods altogether. As Russia has us over a barrel with regard to gas prices, China could put us over a barrel with respect to any number of consumer goods that we are dependent on them for. On the other hand, if we cooperated rather than competed with China, that might go a long way to solve the climate change problem. Ditto for Russia. Those 2 countries have a lot to do with whether or not planet earth gets a handle on climate change. Can we afford not to cooperate. In the long run the fate of Taiwan or Ukraine is less important than the fate of the whole planet.

Off the Top of My Head

Never Has a President Accomplished So Much While Getting So Little Appreciation

by John Lawrence

President Joe Biden will go down in history as having accomplished more than any President except perhaps Franklin D Roosevelt. For starters, the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill, guiding the country through the worst pandemic since 1918. Secondly, ending a 20 year war in Afghanistan. Thirdly, killing Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Al-Qaeda, without killing a single other civilian. Fourthly, a bipartisan $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. Fifthly, unemployment at 3.5%, the lowest in history. Sixly, the bipartisan gun safety bill, the first gun safety bill in decades. Seventhly, keeping the US out of World War III while providing military assistance to Ukraine. Eighthly, the Inflation Reduction Act which will not only provide money to mitigate climate change but will, for the first time in history, let Medicare negotiate with Big Pharma to reduce drug prices. It will also tax large corporations who previously have paid nothing in taxes and also lowers ACA health care premiums for millions of Americans. Also worth mentioning - bringing down the price of gas although it was not his responsibility that gas prices soared in the first place. Ninthly, appointed a black woman to the Supreme Court. tenthly chose a black and Indian mixed race woman as his running mate. Tenthly, the CHIPS and Science Act. The bipartisan bill contains $52 billion in subsidies and tax credits for any global chip manufacturer that chooses to set up new or expand existing operations in the United States, along with more than $200 billion toward scientific research in areas like artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum computing. Biden has fulfilled his pledge to pass more bipartisan legislation, the first President to accomplish this feat in a long time.

Still just a few days ago Biden's approval rating was hovering around 30%. Recently it has bounced back to 44%. So what are people thinking? Biden has been totally result oriented in pursuing good stuff for the American people rather than pursuing what is politically expedient. Yet less than half way though his first term he has accomplished more than any other President with the exception of FDR. And he still has a long way to go even if he only serves for one term. He still is in a position to cancel student loan debt at the time of his own choosing. By the way he already has suspended payments for many months. So why is not the vast majority of Americans giving President Biden a massive thumbs up? The American public by and large wants everything and they want it now. They demand that their President give it to them. If he doesn't they will vote for the next guy that promises them everything. They will believe conspiracy theories and snake oil salesmen who posture and prattle about everything that is irrelevant but which they take with the utmost seriousness. They want their rights and freedoms without any sense of obligation to American society that would restrict those rights and freedoms. They want everything while giving nothing. Such is the character of far too many Americans. They'll take everything that Biden will do for them without giving him any credit for it. They want what they want for themselves but they don't want anything for anybody else. Some Americans, Liz Cheney comes to mind, are making a colossal effort, even at their own expense, to turn this country around and make it stand again for a shining beacon to the rest of the world.

Off the Top of My Head

We Need a Department of Peace to Balance and Offset our War Department

by John Lawrence

Let's face it. the Department of Defense is a euphemism. It was called the Department of War until 1949. So let's call it what it really is. Don't get me wrong. There are times when war is necessary as occurred in WW II. However, we spend about $1 trillion on our War Department while spending little or nothing on peace. Is there really a Peace Corps? Yes, and its budget is about $400 million. That's about 4 ten thousandths of the War Department budget. My point is that we should be making at least the same effort towards peace as we're making towards war, and we should be putting our money where our mouth is. This doesn't mean we totally disarm ourselves. It means that we are making an effort towards creating peace in the world if at all possible and are willing to devote an equal amount of resources towards it. In our present state it's all about threatening war in order to to create a state of peace. It's Pax Americana similar to the Pax Romana which meant that you didn't mess with Rome or else you were threatened with violence. Instead of creating peace by means of a threat of war, we should be actively pursuing a peaceful world instead.

What would a Department of Peace actually do? Well, diplomacy would be under this department instead of the State Department for starters. Second, the American equivalent of China's Belt and Road initiative. Building infrastructure around the world just as China is doing. But what's most important at the present time is converting the world to green infrastructure. The middle class in India is growing. They want to live just like Americans. As more Indians enter the middle class they are consuming more fossil fuels to provide the energy to do so. This is contributing to the looming climate disaster. Just what we don't need is more carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere as a result of more people gentrifying into the middle class. Therefore, a Department of Peace, which should include the Peace Corps, would step up the efforts not only to change the fossil fuel habit in the US, but to actively change it around the world. About a half a trillion dollar budget would be about right while decreasing the War (Defense) budget which is 10 times the combined budgets of the rest of the world to half a trillion.

President Biden wants a Civilian Climate Corps reminiscent of the Civilian Conservation Corps which President Roosevelt established to build parks and plant trees during the Great Depression. An excellent idea in view of the fact that planting a trillion trees would suck the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Unless we do that there is already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 410 ppm to melt both poles. Why not require participation in the Civilian Conservation Corps for people receiving welfare benefits who aren't otherwise employed or who are unemployable in the prevailing economy. I'm thinking about the homeless and others for whom this might be a first step to getting back on their feet in the so-called real world. I'm in favor of the government being the employer of last resort, and employment in a Civilian Climate Corps is the perfect solution both for them and for the environment.

Building the elements of peace around the world would entail looking out for the health care needs of people outside the US in our era of pandemics. This is also good sense in a selfish way since viruses can transmit world wide in a matter of days if not hours. They don't respect national boundaries. People to people cultural contacts with people of other nations brings about understanding and the realization that, no matter what the religious or ethnic differences seem to be, human beings are all essentially the same deep down and all have the same needs and aspirations. Helping others to realize their aspirations creates peace in the world. Cultural and educational exchanges are an important way to increase mutual understanding. There are many ways to create peace in the world. The US shouldn't be always taking the stance of trying to put down those peoples and countries who don't follow the US way of life. Others might have a different way of setting up their societies, but rather than taking this as a threat, we should engage diplomatically and peacefully if at all possible knowing that in the final analysis, if push came to shove, we also have the means to defend ourselves. A Department of Peace and a Department of War should go hand in hand. Today it is lopsided in favor of war.

Off the Top of My Head

Will Higher Interest Rates Bring Down Inflation?

by John Lawrence

As has been pointed out by others, they will not bring down the cost of things in limited supply like gas and items in short supply due to supply chain problems. What they will bring down is asset inflation in the real estate and the stock markets. Indirectly this will stabilize the rental market. Rent is one of the biggest costs to the family budget so stabilizing, if not decreasing, rents is a good thing. Similarly, the price of houses should actually decrease as the price of mortgages goes up. For those who can pay cash this is a good thing. Sellers will have to drop their asking prices or their real estate will sit on the market unsold as people will not be able to afford the current inflated house prices as well as a much more expensive mortgage. Increased interest rates will also make business loans more expensive and some businesses will go under. This will decrease stock prices as people lose confidence in the stock market. We are not in a real estate crisis as we were in 2008, the Great Recession, since rules about who can obtain a mortgage have been sufficiently tightened. The real estate industry leading up to the Great Recession was famous for "liar loans" in which anyone could just state their income without any verification.

Renters can take heart in the fact that their rents will probably not be going up at such a rapid rate since they are at least partly determined by the price of the underlying real estate. Credit card debtors should pay off their credit cards since credit card debt is definitely going to get more expensive. People living paycheck to paycheck should not be borrowing money. The price of basic goods should come down as supply chain problems are worked out although food prices might remain high as global warming takes its toll on crop production. The cost of gas definitely should come down as production is increased in the US and elsewhere if the supply of Russian gas stays off the market.

The remnants of Biden's Build Back Better bill now repackaged as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will help not only fight inflation but have a major impact on fighting climate change. Incentives to buy electric vehicles and heat pumps are very forward thinking and progressive pieces of legislation long overdue. However, as Yogi Berra said, "It's not over till it's over." Is Krysten Sinema aboard? Some very important aspects of this bill constitute taxing the rich, also provisions which are long overdue especially the "carried interest" loophole. Bringing the costs of health care down also helps those near the bottom rung of the economic ladder, and reins in one of the biggest causes of inflation - health care and pharmaceutical costs. Taxing the rich and the Fed's selling of Treasury bonds extracts money from the economy which has a salutary effect on inflation. The chip bill, which has already passed Congress, will increase domestic production of this valuable commodity and make the US more self sufficient while creating more jobs. Jobs are in great supply already so this part is not really needed at the present time. There is a shortage of workers.

Although some writers see raising interest rates as unproductive and even harmful, if they bring down the cost of real estate and reduce asset prices in the stock market, that might actually be a good thing. Businesses which have to pay higher interest rates for loans may not be buying back as much of their own stock, and this in and of itself might bring down asset inflation in the stock market.

Interest Rate Hikes Will Not Save Us from Inflation

Posted on July 28, 2022 by Ellen Brown on Web of Debt blog

Rather than making money harder to get, the U.S. government needs to focus on the other side of the demand vs. supply equation.

In prescribing cures for inflation, economists rely on the diagnosis of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman: inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon—too much money chasing too few goods. But that equation has three variables: too much money (“demand”) chasing (the “velocity” of spending) too few goods (“supply”). And “orthodox” economists, from Lawrence Summers to the Federal Reserve, seem to be focusing only on the “demand” variable. 

The Fed’s prescription is to suppress demand (borrowing and spending) by raising interest rates. Summers, a  former U.S. Treasury Secretary who presided over the massive post-2008 bank bailouts, is proposing to reduce demand by raising taxes or raising unemployment rates, reducing disposable income and thus people’s ability to spend. But those rather brutal solutions miss the real problem, just as Summers missed the crisis leading up to the 2008-09 crash. As explained in a November 2021 editorial titled “Too Few Goods – The Simple Explanation for October’s Elevated Inflation Rates,” we don’t actually have too much consumer money chasing available goods: 

M2 money supply surged [in 2020] as the Fed pumped out liquidity to replace businesses’ lost sales and households’ lost paychecks. But bank reserves account for nearly half of the cumulative increase since 2020 began, and the vast majority seem to be excess reserves sitting on deposit at Federal Reserve banks and not backing loans. Excluding bank reserves, M2 money supply is now growing more slowly than it did for most of 2015 – 2019, when inflation was mostly below the Fed’s 2% y/y target, much to policymakers’ chagrin. Weak lending also suggests money isn’t doing much “chasing,” a notion underscored by the historically low velocity of money. US personal consumption expenditures—the broadest measure of household spending—have already slowed from a reopening resurgence to rates more akin to the pre-pandemic norm and surveys show many households used stimulus money to repay debt or build savings they may not spend at all. It doesn’t look like there is a mountain of household liquidity waiting to do more chasing from here. [Emphasis added.]

In March 2022, the Federal Reserve tackled inflation with its traditional tools – raising interest rates and tightening the money supply by selling bonds, pulling dollars out of the economy. But not only have prices not gone down since then, they are going up. As observed in a July 15 article on Seeking Alpha titled “Fed-Induced Recession Looms As Rate Fears Roil All Markets”:

On Wednesday, the Consumer Price Index came in at a 9.1% annual rate. The higher-than-expected reading puts the CPI at a new 41-year high.

The biggest contributors to rising consumer prices are the basic necessities of food, fuel, and shelter. As households struggle to make ends meet, they are trimming discretionary spending, burning through savings, and running up credit card balances.

Businesses are also getting squeezed. On Thursday, the Producer Price Index showed wholesale costs rising at a massive 11.3% year-over-year.

When their own costs go up, producers must raise the prices of their products to cover those costs, regardless of demand. Less money competing for their products won’t bring producer costs down. It will just drive the companies out of business, as happened in the Great Depression. The Seeking Alpha article concludes:

… As both businesses and consumers are forced to tighten their belts, a slowdown looms.

And if the Federal Reserve makes another major policy misstep, then a severe recession and financial crisis may also be coming. 

Recession is already evident. The stock market has lost a cumulative $7 trillion in value this year, while the crypto market has lost $2 trillion since last November. Emerging markets are in even worse straits. According to a July 14 article by Larry McDonald on ZeroHedge, “Emerging and frontier market countries currently owe the IMF over $100 billion. US central banking policy plus a strong USD is vaporizing this capital as we speak.… A quarter-trillion dollars of distressed debt is threatening to drag the developing world into a historic cascade of defaults.” 

Every time the Fed raises rates, borrowing becomes more expensive. That means higher interest costs not only for governments but for borrowers with mortgages, home equity lines of credit, credit cards, student debt and car loans. For both large and small businesses, loans also get pricier.

To be clear, this is not the same sort of inflation that Paul Volcker was taming in 1980 when he raised the Fed funds rate to 20%. McDonald observes, “In 2021, global debt reached a record $303T, according to the Institute of International Finance .… Volcker was jacking rates into a planet with about $200T LESS debt.” [Emphasis added]

Volcker was also not dealing with the supply shortages we have today, generated by lockdowns that put more than 100,000 U.S. companies out of business; sanctions and war that cut off global supplies of fuel, food and resources; and farming crises such as that in the Netherlands, generated by overly stringent regulations. 

Higher interest rates don’t alleviate cost/push inflation caused by supply crises; they make it worse. Rather than making money harder to get, the government needs to focus on the supply side of the equation, stimulating local production to bring supply levels up. Rather than Volcker’s solution, what we need is that pioneered by Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who pulled us out of similar crises with public banking institutions designed to stimulate infrastructure and development. 

For foreign models, we can look to the infrastructure-funding central banks of Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the first half of the 20th century; and to China, which salvaged the global economy following the 2008 banking crisis with massive infrastructure and development funded through its state-owned development banks.

Off the Top of My Head

Why the Fed's Raising Interest Rates Won't Work

by John Lawrence

Inflation is a supply and demand problem. The Fed only sees it as a demand problem: there is too much demand. Therefore, it seeks to reduce the public's ability to demand by reducing wages and creating more unemployment. Problem is that businesses are short staffed. They are trying to hire more workers, not laying them off. There is no "industrial reserve army" of people competing for jobs. Businesses are competing for workers. The reason why prices are going up (hence inflation) is not that there is too much demand, but that there is too little supply. This is caused by supply chain problems which comes down to the fact that most things Americans consume are produced overseas, mainly in China. Also the sanctions on Russian gas and oil combined with Russia cutting off supplies even beyond the sanctions means that everything that is transported including consumer goods is even more expensive. The problem is that the US does not produce much of what it consumes. Again it's a supply problem. Container ships coming from China raise their rates because gas is more expensive. This makes the goods they transport more expensive. When the major things Americans consume come from China (consumer goods) and Russia (energy costs), America is at the behest of countries that it considers enemies. And so is Europe.

The traditional way of fighting inflation is for the Fed to raise interest rates and drive up unemployment. When unemployment increases, demand decreases because unemployed people don't have as much money to spend. In other words money is withdrawn from the economy. This is of course to the detriment of the unemployed people which are usually those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. But as we've seen during the pandemic, those at the bottom of the economic ladder are usually those who are indispensable workers - grocery workers, agricultural workers, truck drivers, nurses, caregivers. The economy cannot function for anyone without their services. So the only way the Fed can achieve its goal is to drive businesses into bankruptcy. Then all those workers will be in the ranks of the unemployed and be forced to underconsume. Actually, the more that Americans consume, the more greenhouse gasses are created. Underconsumption could have a very salutary effect on the atmosphere and the environment.

Another way to withdraw money from the economy in order to reduce demand is to raise taxes. Again taxes are usually raised on the poor and middle class further immiserizing them. Congress refuses to raise taxes on the rich which Joe Biden has proposed doing. This would help inflation to some extent, but the rich don't consume basic items to the extent that the middle class and poor do. So in order to reduce demand to the point where it is more or less equal to supply, money must be taken out of the pockets of the poor and middle class. The other alternative is to increase supply. But since the US is dependent on supply from foreign suppliers, this is not that easy to do. Long range, the solution is for the US to make more stuff, but corporations have settled on a model of getting stuff produced where labor is cheapest and that means overseas.

Off the Top of My Head

"A Yearlong Wild Goose Chase That Produced Nothing as the Earth Warms to Dangerous Levels"

by John Lawrence

That's how the New York Times characterized the Biden administration's courting of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. He and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema are the 2 Democrats standing in the way of the significant Biden plan to do something about global warming. Of course no Republican Senator will do anything to help even though it's their planet too. Now the Supreme Court has chimed in to the effect that the EPA is not able to do anything either. Meanwhile earth is burning up. I regretted in another post that all the climate disasters so far have been one offs, and nothing would be done about climate change until one event affects at least half the country. Not enough people care if a tornado wipes out a whole city or a whole town burns in a wild fire. But when a climate event affects half the country, people sit up and take notice. In other words enough people have to have their own personal ox gored before anything significant will get done. Now we have that event. This summer's heat has seen temperatures above 100 degrees F affect more than half the country simultaneously. Despite the misery this is causing, I am cheering because this is not a one off affecting a relative minority of people. People will sit up and take notice.

The NY Times reported:

Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, who took more campaign cash from the oil and gas industry than any other senator, and who became a millionaire from his family coal business, independently blew up the Democratic Party’s legislative plans to fight climate change. The swing Democratic vote in an evenly divided Senate, Mr. Manchin led his party through months of tortured negotiations that collapsed on Thursday night, a yearlong wild goose chase that produced nothing as the Earth warms to dangerous levels.

“It seems odd that Manchin would choose as his legacy to be the one man who single-handedly doomed humanity,” said John Podesta, a former senior counselor to President Barack Obama and founder of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank.

Privately, Senate Democratic staff members seethed and sobbed on Thursday night, after more than a year of working nights and weekends to scale back, water down, trim and tailor the climate legislation to Mr. Manchin’s exact specifications, only to have it rejected inches from the finish line.

But alas and alack, Mancin has seized on inflation as the perfect excuse to justify his torpedoing of Biden's climate plan. The war in Ukraine which resulted in raising gas prices hasn't helped either. Yet there are things that could be done which would not exacerbate inflation. To subdue inflation, money has to be extracted from the economy. One way to do this is to increase taxes on the rich, something that was part of Biden's plan. But rich man Manchin says No Sir to that aspect. He's not going to put the kibosh on the very industry that made him rich and that would be coal mining. So what would Biden's plan consist of? Giving tax incentives to get more electric vehicles on the road and transformations of key industries to rely more on renewable energy. Sounds pretty basic, doesn't it? The climate problem is like a ship taking on water. If you wait to start bailing long enough no amount of fast and furious bailing is going to save the ship from sinking.

The Washington Post reported that if we had stuck with Biden's plan and it had passed Congress, we might have just about reached our climate goal to slash U.S. emissions by 50 to 52 percent by the end of 2030 which would have maintained consistency with 2015’s Paris climate agreement, in which nations agreed to take significant measures to avoid the levels of global warming associated with severe climate impact. It would have kept total planetary warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This level of warming would still have produced unimaginable levels of global distress. Anything beyond that would create hell on earth.

In the documentary Polar Extremes, it is pointed out that at 410 ppm of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, there is already enough to melt ice completely at both poles. If this happens sea levels would rise over 200 feet wiping out about 80 miles of US shoreline on the east coast as well as the entire state of Florida. So it is not enough to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which of course we're still doing. A huge amount would have to be taken out to bring the atmospheric concentration down to about 300 ppm, the level at which polar ice can be maintained. Even at 350 ppm scientific data shows that in previous geological eras polar ice had entirely disappeared. Technological solutions to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere so far have entirely failed or been cost prohibitive. The only natural solution is to plant 1 to 3 trillion trees. This is entirely feasible if we would only collectively get off our asses and do it. But we dither and hesitate, and we're fiddling while earth burns.

One very intelligent observer of the climate scene is Fareed Zakaria. Fareed has some good ideas about what should be done to alleviate the worst consequences of climate disaster. He wrote in the Washington Post:

"“It was getting hotter.” So opens “The Ministry for the Future,” the disturbing novel by science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson. The opening chapter, set in India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, depicts a heat wave that kills millions across the subcontinent and galvanizes people to radical action.

"Such dire warnings may seem far-fetched today. But the heat waves we are now experiencing are going to get worse. That, of course, will have dire consequences. More likely than mass death is mass migration. As Bill Gates points out, the area around the equator could become too hot for people to work outdoors; that could mean a decline in farming, the most common occupation in low-income countries. Stressed by heat, lack of water and no jobs, millions of people could start moving from these areas to more temperate climates mostly in the north: Europe and the United States.

"Many climate activists are often focused on pledges to get to net zero emissions by some distant date or insist that every new energy source must be entirely green.

"But the reality is that we need to cut emissions now, not promise to do so by 2030. And the only way to do it now, and at scale, is to make some tough choices and trade-offs. We do not have green technology, like clean nuclear fusion and long-duration battery storage, that can fully replace fossil fuels today. We may get them — in 10 or 15 years, perhaps, if we are very lucky. ...

'Let me suggest a few practical ways to make progress in the next five years with technologies we already have.

"We could start by converting the most polluting coal-fired power plants to natural gas, which emits half as much carbon dioxide as coal when combusted. A study surveyed 29,000 power plants around the world and found that 5 percent generate 73 percent of all emissions in the electricity-generation sector. In other words, replacing around 1,500 coal-burning plants would make a huge dent in emissions, a giant cut on par with the boldest plans being discussed today.If the West wants to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, why not put together a coalition that would finance this effort across the planet?

"Then there is the problem of methane leakage from natural gas extraction, agriculture and landfills. This can be solved technically and just needs smart, tough regulations.

"We should extend the life of nuclear power plants and start building smaller and safer ones. Nuclear energy evokes grim images, but the facts speak for themselves. In the 21st century, just a handful of people have died from nuclear accidents around the world, while more than 1,500 people died in oil and gas extraction in the United States alone from 2008 to 2017. Far more people die each year from lung diseases caused by coal pollution, with some estimates running into the millions — and that’s without even factoring in the climate impacts. We should also keep working on developing new modular reactors that have much safer designs and are far less likely to have the same kind of meltdown problems that others have had in the past. And let me remind you, nuclear power plants produce nearly zero emissions.

"Plant 1 trillion trees. The science is simple: Trees absorb carbon dioxide. We are all impressed by Greta Thunberg, but what about Felix Finkbeiner? He’s a young German environmentalist who, at the age of 9, proposed that every country commit to planting 1 million trees and then, at 13, upped the ante and suggested at the United Nations that we target 1 trillion by 2050. Let’s start by curbing deforestation and planting as many trees as we can, as fast as we can."

It is something so simple and natural that it will probably be entirely ignored by the powers that be and the global citizenry. Plant 1 trillion trees or 2 trillion or 3 trillion. It would be a sad outcome for the human race if we neglected to do such a simple thing that would have saved the planet for future generations but instead sat around prognosticating about how to provide a high tech solution. Maybe Ted Kaczynski was right. "In his Manifesto he wrote: "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." "He writes that technology has had a destabilizing effect on society, has made life unfulfilling, and has caused widespread psychological suffering. Kaczynski argues that most people spend their time engaged in useless pursuits because of technological advances; he calls these "surrogate activities", wherein people strive toward artificial goals, including scientific work, consumption of entertainment, political activism and following sports teams." Yes, the Industrial Revolution has been a disaster for the human race, and Kaczynski did not even mention fossil fuels or global warming. Prescient!

The Pitchforks Aren't Coming

For the last two years, Joe Biden has been talking about raising taxes on large corporations and wealthy Americans. It's not happening.

Stephanie Kelton

 

Nearly a decade ago, tech entrepreneur Nick Hanauer warned his fellow billionaires that “the pitchforks are coming.” The economy was still reeling from the financial crisis, and for the vast majority of Americans the policy response had been a near total failure. There were too few jobs, too many foreclosures, and way too much inequality. Eventually, Hanauer wrote, the masses would rise up.

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

Instead of fixing the glaring inequities, Republicans used their majorities to deliver huge tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited people like Hanauer.

It was on the heels of the Trump tax cuts that billionaire hedge fund investor, Ray Dalio, started to worry that the pitchforks were coming. Capitalism, he argued, “was not working for the majority of Americans.” Unless policies were put in place to generate better economic outcomes—including a better distribution of wealth and income—a “revolution” was coming.

Around the same time, fellow billionaire Jamie Dimon wrote in his annual letter to shareholders that “far too many people were living on the edge.” He described a system in crisis and urged “a call to action.” Like Dalio, Dimon stressed the urgent need to build a more “inclusive economy.” Keeping the pitchforks at bay meant improving life—if only modestly—for those who might otherwise take to the streets.

Instead of taking to the streets, COVID kept many of us home. And while the pandemic caused immeasurable harm, the policy response was so much better that life did improve—at least financially—for millions of ordinary people.

The financial lifeline that started with the $2.2 trillion CARES Act in March 2020 culminated with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act in March 2021. The ARP was intended to put a punctuation mark on the economic recovery, not to permanently tackle the sort of inequities Hanauer described in his “memo to fellow zillionaires.”

To deal with the more structural problems, President Biden offered his Build Back Better agenda, explaining that “for too long, the economy has worked great for those at the top, while working families get squeezed.” No more tax breaks for billionaires. Instead, Biden wanted to tax them. In addition to a slew of other taxes, Biden proposed a “billionaire’s tax” on the top 0.0001, those with annual incomes over $100,000,000. The pitchforks were coming, and the rich were in the crosshairs.

It was time to rebuild the economy from “the bottom up and the middle out,” the president said in his State of Union address. To wring some of the inequality out of the system, he offered a plan that would have raised taxes on those at the top while investing trillions in child care, elder care, housing, education, climate, and more. For a while, Congress seemed poised to act on a $3.5 trillion package.

And then this happened.

Senator Manchin (D-WV) refused to vote for a package that wasn’t “fully paid for,” while Senator Sinema (D-AZ) refused to vote for the sweeping tax hikes that Biden insisted were necessary to “pay for” the spending. I wrote about the whole saga at length last year.

Anyway, the media teased us (again) last week, reporting that constructive negotiations with Senator Manchin were underway and democrats might yet pass portions of what was once part of the Build Back Better agenda. And then Lucy yanked the football once again.

As Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent reported on Friday:

This will surprise only people who haven’t paid even cursory attention to the last year of Democratic politics, but Sen. Joe Manchin III may have just killed any hopes for a resuscitated version of the Democratic agenda.

The West Virginia Democrat reportedly told party leaders late Thursday that he won’t support any new incentives to combat climate change or any new tax hikes on corporations or the wealthy.

So there you have it. The pitchforks aren’t coming. At least not the way some had expected. The top marginal tax rate isn’t going back up to 39.6 percent. We are not going to tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income. The corporate income tax rate isn’t going up. We’re not ending the step-up-in-basis or closing the carried-interest loophole. There will be no “billionaire’s tax.” None of it is happening.

President Obama once told a room full of bankers that his administration was “the only thing standing between [them] and the pitchforks.” Today, there’s a tendency to paint Senator Manchin as the lone obstacle. But for that single missing vote, action on climate, prescription drugs, and more would sail through Congress with higher taxes to “pay for” it all. I doubt it.

I think Jonathan Chait is probably right about this:

A key faction of Democrats in the House, along with Senator Kyrsten Sinema, blanched at the tax hikes. Moderates have been privately coordinating their opposition, and it seems very likely that Manchin’s sudden opposition to raising taxes on the rich comes not from him, but from them — he sometimes takes the heat for fellow Democratic moderates. In this case, he is likely channeling their concerns and passing them off as his own.

Whether it’s Manchin or Manchin & Co., it’s looking bad for millions of Americans, the future of the democratic party, our democracy, and life on earth.

There’s a lot we can’t predict in life. But one thing is for sure. Climate change is an accelerant on inequality. Within a few decades, billions of people will be forced to migrate due to extreme weather, rising sea levels, and damaged ecosystems. Fires will continue to ravage communities, rivers will swallow more homes, heat-related deaths will mount, and food shortages will lead to mass starvation. That is not a world in which the pitchforks can be kept at bay.

We need to act now!

Off the Top of My Head

The Problem With Climate and Gun Disasters: They're One Offs

by John Lawrence

Instead of attributing a climate disaster to global warming, victims will say, "I've never seen anything like this, and I've lived here all my life. Gun disaster victims will say, "I didn't think it could ever happen here." If they said instead, when interviewed, "I think guns should be gotten off the streets" or "Climate change destroyed my house and we're not doing enough to deal with it", then maybe there would be a general awareness growing among the population. There is not enough of a groundswell among the public to change anything because most of the public is not affected by any particular incident. If a particular climate or gun disaster raised the price of gas, then maybe something would be done of a preventative measure. The latest gun legislation is a total joke. It will do nothing to prevent mass shootings. One off climate disasters will do nothing to raise the national consciousness especially among conservatives who don't even believe in global warming. Instead they will call a flood a 500 year event, one that will only occur every 500 years. But then it occurs again tomorrow. Floods and fires are an almost daily occurrence somewhere in the world. If they happen outside the country, no attention at all is paid to the event although climate change is a problem for the whole world not just for any particular nation. It is not just restricted to national borders. Gun violence, on the other hand, is just restricted pretty much to the US. Every other country has sane gun laws.

Politicians, especially Republicans, are in it for the money and not necessarily to do any good for the general public which can't pay for lobbyists to bombard them with their point of view backed up with generous campaign contributions. The more a country is run by politicians profiting by virtue of their positions, the less democratic it is because they are representing their own interests which often means catering to the interests of lobbyists and not catering to the interests of the general public, not to mention the interests of nature or the environment. Many politicians, especially the Republican party as it's constituted today, are guided only by self interest in the same way as corporations are required by law to maximize profits for their shareholders singlemindedly without any other considerations like taking into account what is equitable ao far as society is concerned. The only way to defeat this pernicious aspect of democracy is to take the money out of politics and provide incentives in such a way that a politician finds it in his best interests to represent the interests of his or her constituents and not the interests of the entity which is lobbying him or her. Perhaps an advocate for the people should be paid for out of tax money.

Obviously, it's not in the interests of the victims of gum violence to have the proliferation of guns especially assault rifles on the streets. However, since those that have not been affected by gun violence don't see it as a problem, nothing major is being done. As far as they're concerned, it's a problem that only happens to other people. Unless they identify strongly with the victims of gun violence or start to think that it is something that very likely might happen to them, nothing will be done since it only affects a minority of people and democracies supposedly are run by the majority of the people. Since empathy is a relatively weak emotion compared to self-interest, especially in the US where people have been groomed to seek their self-interest regardless of the effect it has on others, seriously restricting the use and proliferation of guns goes out the window.

What is happening to the human race as a result of climate change is happening at such a slow pace that most people would rather maximize their profits now rather than setting aside some of them because they might benefit people in the future when they might not even be an inhabitant of the planet at that time. Again the manifestation of climate change so far has been one offs only affecting a small group in any one incidence of a natural disaster. When climate change gets to the point where sea level rise is affecting a large number of major cities in the world simultaneously, then something might be done only it will be too late. At that point the only thing will be to react defensively rather than having taken action in the past that would have forestalled the present event. People would rather eat their cake right now rather than saving it for the future when they might not even be around to eat it.

Is Biden too old?

by Robert Reich

At 79, Joe Biden is the oldest president in American history. Concerns about his age top the list for why Democratic voters want the party to find an alternative for 2024.

I don’t think this reflects an “ageist” prejudice against those who have reached such withering heights so much as an understanding that people in their late 70s and 80s wither.

I speak with some authority. I’m now a spritely 76 — lightyears younger than our president. I feel fit, I swing dance and salsa, and can do 20 pushups in a row. Yet I confess to a certain loss of, shall we say, fizz.

Joe Biden could easily make it until 86, when he’d conclude his second term. After all, it’s now thought a bit disappointing if a person dies before 85. My mother passed at 86, my father two weeks before his 102nd birthday (so I’m hoping for the best, genetically speaking). Three score and ten is the number of years of life set out in the Bible. Modern technology and Big Pharma should add at least a decade and a half. Beyond this is an extra helping. “After 80, it’s gravy,” my father used to say.

Joe will be on the cusp of the gravy train.

Where will it end? There’s only one possibility, and that reality occurs to me with increasing frequency. I find myself reading the obituary pages with ever greater interest, curious about how long they lasted and what brought them down. I remember a New Yorker cartoon in which an older reader of the obituaries sees headlines that read only “Older Than Me” or “Younger Than Me.”

Yet most of the time I forget my age. The other day, after lunch with some of my graduate students, I caught our reflection in a store window and for an instant wondered about the identity of the short old man in our midst.

It’s not death that’s the worrying thing about a second Biden term. It’s the dwindling capacities that go with aging. "Bodily decrepitude," said Yeats, "is wisdom." I have accumulated somewhat more of the former than the latter, but our president seems fairly spry (why do I feel I have to add “for someone his age?”). I still have my teeth, in contrast to my grandfather whom I vividly recall storing his choppers in a glass next to his bed, and have so far steered clear of heart attack or stroke (I pray I’m not tempting fate by my stating this fact). But I’ve lived through several kidney stones and a few unexplained fits of epilepsy in my late thirties. I’ve had both hips replaced. And my hearing is crap. Even with hearing aids, I have a hard time understanding someone talking to me in a noisy restaurant. You’d think that the sheer market power of 60 million boomers losing their hearing would be enough to generate at least one chain of quiet restaurants.

When I get together with old friends, our first ritual is an “organ recital” — how’s your back? knee? heart? hip? shoulder? eyesight? hearing? prostate? hemorrhoids? digestion? The recital can run (and ruin) an entire lunch.

The question my friends and I jokingly (and brutishly) asked one other in college—"getting much?"—now refers not to sex but to sleep. I don’t know anyone over 75 who sleeps through the night. When he was president, Bill Clinton prided himself on getting only about four hours. But he was in his forties then. (I also recall cabinet meetings where he dozed off.) How does Biden manage?

My memory for names is horrible. (I once asked Ted Kennedy how he recalled names and he advised that if a man is over 50, just ask “how’s the back?” and he'll think you know him.) I often can’t remember where I put my wallet and keys or why I’ve entered a room. And certain proper nouns have disappeared altogether. Even when rediscovered, they have a diabolical way of disappearing again. Biden’s secret service detail can worry about his wallet and he’s got a teleprompter for wayward nouns, but I’m sure he’s experiencing some diminution in the memory department.

I have lost much of my enthusiasm for travel and feel, as did Philip Larkin, that I would like to visit China, but only on the condition that I could return home that night. Air Force One makes this possible under most circumstances. If not, it has a first-class bedroom and personal bathroom, so I don’t expect Biden’s trips are overly taxing.

I’m told that after the age of 60, one loses half an inch of height every five years. This doesn’t appear to be a problem for Biden but it presents a challenge for me, considering that at my zenith I didn’t quite make it to five feet. If I live as long as my father did, I may vanish.

Another diminution I’ve noticed is tact. A few days ago, I gave the finger to a driver who passed me recklessly. These days, giving the finger to a stranger is itself a reckless act. I’m also noticing I have less patience, perhaps because of an unconscious “use by” timer that’s now clicking away. Increasingly I wonder why I’m wasting time with this or that buffoon. I’m less tolerant of long waiting lines, automated phone menus, and Republicans. Cicero claimed "older people who are reasonable, good-tempered, and gracious bear aging well. Those who are mean-spirited and irritable will be unhappy at every stage of their lives." Easy for Cicero to say. He was forced into exile and murdered at the age of 63, his decapitated head and right hand hung up in the Forum by order of the notoriously mean-spirited and irritable Marcus Antonius.

How the hell does Biden maintain tact or patience when he has to deal with Mitch McConnell? Or Joe Manchin, for crying out loud?

The style sections of the papers tell us that the 70s are the new 50s. Septuagenarians are supposed to be fit and alert, exercise like mad, have rip-roaring sex, and party until dawn. Rubbish. Inevitably, things begin falling apart. My aunt, who lived far into her nineties, told me “getting old isn’t for sissies.” Toward the end she repeated that phrase every two to three minutes.

Philosopher George Santayana claimed to prefer old age to all others. "Old age is, or may be as in my case, far happier than youth," he wrote. "I was never more entertained or less troubled than I am now." True for me too, in a way. Despite Trump, notwithstanding the seditiousness of the Republican Party, the ravages of climate change, near record inequality, a potential nuclear war, and a stubborn pandemic, I remain upbeat -- largely because I still spend most days with people in their twenties, whose fizz buoys my spirits. Maybe Biden does, too.

But I’m feeling more and more out of it. I’m doing videos on TikTok and Snapchat, but when my students talk about Ariana Grande or Selena Gomez or Jared Leto, I don’t have clue who they’re talking about (and frankly don’t care). And I find myself using words –- “hence,” “utmost,” “therefore,” “tony,” “brilliant” — that my younger colleagues find charmingly old-fashioned. If I refer to “Rose Marie Woods” or “Jackie Robinson” or “Ed Sullivan” or “Mary Jo Kopechne,” they’re bewildered. The culture has flipped in so many ways. When I was seventeen, I could go into a drugstore and confidently ask for a package of Luckies and nervously whisper a request for condoms. Now it’s precisely the reverse. (I stopped smoking long ago.)

Santayana said the reason that old people have nothing but foreboding about the future is that they cannot imagine a world that’s good without themselves in it. I don’t share that view. To the contrary, I think my generation — including Bill and Hillary, George W., Trump, Newt Gingrich, Clarence Thomas, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Biden – have fucked it up royally. The world will probably be better without us.

Joe, please don’t run.

The Food Shortage Solution in Your Own Backyard

Posted on June 9, 2022 by Ellen Brown from Web of Debt

While the global food systems we depend on come under increasing strain, there’s a solution to the growing crisis that most Americans can find in their own backyards–or front lawns.

A confluence of crises—lockdowns and business closures, mandates and worker shortages, supply chain disruptions and inflation, sanctions and war—have compounded to trigger food shortages; and we have been warned that they may last longer than the food stored in our pantries. What to do? 

Jim Gale, founder of Food Forest Abundance, pointed out in a recent interview with Del Bigtree that in the United States there are 40 million acres of lawn. Lawns are the most destructive monoculture on the planet, absorbing more resources and pesticides than any other crop, without providing any yield. If we were to turn 30% of that lawn into permaculture-based food gardens, says Gale, we could be food self-sufficient without relying on imports or chemicals. 

Permaculture is a gardening technique that “uses the inherent qualities of plants and animals combined with the natural characteristics of landscapes and structures to produce a life-supporting system for city and country, using the smallest practical area.”

Russian families have shown the possibilities, using permaculture methods on simple cottage gardens or allotments called dachas. As Dr. Leon Sharashkin, a Russian translator and editor with a PhD in forestry from the University of Missouri, explains:

Essentially, what Russian gardeners do is demonstrate that gardeners can feed the world – and you do not need any GMOs, industrial farms, or any other technological gimmicks to guarantee everybody’s got enough food to eat. Bear in mind that Russia only has 110 days of growing season per year – so in the US, for example, gardeners’ output could be substantially greater. Today, however, the area taken up by lawns in the US is two times greater than that of Russia’s gardens – and it produces nothing but a multi-billion-dollar lawn care industry.

The Dacha Model

Dachas are small wooden houses on a small plot of land, typically just 600 meters (656 yards) in size. In Soviet Russia, they were allocated free of charge on the theory that the land belonged to the people. They were given to many public servants; and families not given a dacha could get access to a plot of land in an allotment association, where they could grow vegetables, visit regularly to tend their kitchen gardens and gather crops. 

Dachas were originally used mainly as country vacation getaways. But in the 1990s, they evolved from a place of rest into a major means of survival. That was when the Russian economy suffered from what journalist Anne Williamson called in congressional testimony the “rape of Russia.” The economy was destroyed and then plundered by financial oligarchs, who swooped in to buy assets at fire sale prices. 

Stripped of other resources, Russian families turned to their dachas to grow food. Dr. Sharaskin observed that the share of food gardening in national agriculture increased from 32% in 1990 to over 50% by 2000. In 2004, food gardens accounted for 51% of the total agricultural output of the Russian Federation – greater than the contribution of the whole electric power generation industry; greater than all of the forestry, wood-processing and pulp and paper industries; and significantly greater than the coal, natural gas and oil refining industries taken together.  

Dachas are now a codified right of Russian citizens. In 2003, the government signed the Private Garden Plot Act into law, granting citizens free plots of land ranging from 1 to 3 hectares each. (A hectare is about 2.5 acres.) Dr. Sharaskin opined in 2009 that “with 35 million families (70% of Russia’s population) … producing more than 40% of Russia’s agricultural output, this is in all likelihood the most extensive microscale food production practice in any industrially developed nation.” 

In a 2014 article titled “Dacha Gardens—Russia’s Amazing Model for Urban Agriculture”, Sara Pool wrote that Russia obtains “over 50% agricultural products from family garden plots. The backyard gardening model uses around 3% arable land, and accounts for roughly 92% of all Russian potatoes, 87% of all fruit, 77% vegetables, and 59% all Russian meat according to the Russian Federal State Statistic Service.”

Our Beautiful but Toxic and Wasteful Green Lawns

Rather than dachas, we in the West have pristine green lawns, which not only produce no food but involve chemical and mechanical maintenance that is a major contributor to water and air pollution. Lawns are the single largest irrigated crop in the U.S., covering nearly 32 million acres. This is a problem particularly in the western U.S. states, which are currently suffering from reduced food production due to drought. Data compiled by Urban Plantations from the EPA, the Public Policy Institute of California, and the Alliance for Water Efficiency suggests that gardens use 66% less water than lawns. In the U.S., fruits and vegetables are grown  on only about 10 million acres. In theory, then, if the space occupied by American lawns were converted to food gardens, the country could produce four times as many fruits and vegetables as it does now. 

A study from NASA scientists in collaboration with researchers in the Mountain West estimated that American lawns cover an area that is about the size of Texas and is three times larger than that used for any other irrigated crop in the United States.  The study was not, however, about the growth of lawns but about their impact on the environment and water resources. It found that “maintaining a well-manicured lawn uses up to 900 liters of water per person per day and reduces [carbon] sequestration effectiveness by up to 35 percent by adding emissions from fertilization and the operation of mowing equipment.” To combat water and pollution problems, some cities have advocated abandoning the great green lawn in favor of vegetable gardens, local native plants, meadows or just letting the grass die. But well-manicured lawns are an established U.S. cultural tradition; and some municipalities have banned front-yard gardens as not meeting neighborhood standards of aesthetics.  Some homeowners, however, have fought back. Florida ended up passing a law in July 2019 that prohibits towns from banning edible gardens for aesthetic reasons; and in California, a bill was passed in 2014 that allows yard use for “personal agriculture” (defined as “use of land where an individual cultivates edible plant crops for personal use or donation”). As noted in a Los Angeles Times op-ed: 

“The Legislature recognized that lawn care is resource intensive, with lawns being the largest irrigated crop in the United States offering no nutritional gain. Finding that 30% to 60% of residential water is used for watering lawns, the Legislature believes these resources could be allocated to more productive activities, including growing food, thus increasing access to healthy options for low-income individuals.”

Despite how large they loom in the American imagination, immaculate green lawns maintained by pesticides, herbicides and electric lawnmowers are a relatively recent cultural phenomenon in the United States. In the 1930s, chemicals were not recommended. Weeds were controlled either by pulling them by hand or by keeping chickens. Chemical use became popular only after World War II, and it has grown significantly since. According to the EPA, close to 80 million U.S. households spray 90 million pounds of pesticides and herbicides on their lawns each year. A 1999 study by the United States Geological Survey found that 99% of urban water streams contain pesticides, which pollute our drinking water and create serious health risks for wildlife, pets, and humans. Among other disorders, these chemicals are correlated with an increased risk of cancers, nervous system disorders, and a seven-fold increased risk of childhood leukemia. 

That’s just the pollution in our water supply. Other problems with our lawn fetish are air and noise pollution generated by gas-powered lawn and garden equipment. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that this equipment is responsible for 5% of U.S. air pollution. Americans use about 800 million gallons of gas per year just mowing their lawns.

Off the Top of My Head

Guns: The Last Vestige of Male Dominance

by John Lawrence

When females run the world, hopefully soon, assault rifles will be off the streets in a New York minute. Toxic masculinity has been responsible for war and conflict resolution by violence since the world began. Gun manufacturers advertise, "Get your man card." Mamas don't want their babies to grow up to be mass murderers or the victims of mass murderers. They don't want their babies to go through life with PTSD from having participated in that primordial male occupation - war. Sure there are some masculinized females who have adopted a male consciousness and support war and dominance as a means of conflict resolution, but there are more who support diplomacy, understanding and empathy. Even Hillary Clinton had to prove she was "tough" by supporting the Iraq war because she wanted to run for President. There will be no peace and no love as long as men are in charge. Witness some of the nations on earth where females run things. New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark have female presidents or prime ministers. These ladies reside over relatively peaceful and enlightened nations. Nobody in their right mind would refer to the US as an "enlightened" nation although the enlightenment was supposedly over 200 years ago. At that time the US Constitution was written in such a way to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" for white male property owners only. The Constitution excluded African Americans and women who didn't get to vote till the 1920s. African Americans are still suffering generational effects from being excluded first by slavery, then by Jim Crow laws and later by red lining.

Jacinda Ardern, prime minister of New Zealand got assault rifles off the streets in short order after a mass murder in new zealand. Ardern describes herself as a social democrat and a progressive. The Sixth Labour Government has faced challenges from the New Zealand housing crisis, child poverty, and social inequality. In March 2019, in the aftermath of the Christchurch mosque shootings, Ardern reacted with empathy and rapidly introduced strict gun laws, winning her wide recognition. Throughout 2020 she led New Zealand's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, for which she won praise for New Zealand being one of the few Western nations to successfully contain the virus. Ardern led the Labour Party to victory in the 2020 general election, gaining an overall majority of 65 seats in Parliament, the first time this has happened since the introduction of proportional representation in 1996.

Less than one month after a gunman killed 50 people in an attack on two mosques in Christchurch, the New Zealand Parliament voted to ban most semi-automatic and military-style weapons. The law makes it illegal to possess the prohibited weapons in New Zealand. Current owners of the now-banned firearms had a short period of time to return their weapons for compensation under a buyback program. If they didn't return them, they would face up to five years in prison. Speaking before lawmakers, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she knew her country would approve a ban after the police commissioner described the deadly nature of the guns used in the attack, which had been obtained legally and easily modified to hold more than 60 bullets per magazine. "I could not fathom how weapons that could cause such destruction and large-scale death could have been obtained legally in this country," Ardern said. She described visits to hospitals where dozens of victims were still recovering. "I struggle to recall any single gunshot wounds," she said. "In every case they spoke of multiple injuries. Multiple debilitating injuries that deemed it impossible for them to recover in days, let alone weeks. They will carry disabilities for a lifetime, and that's before you consider the psychological impact."

So now the Supreme Court is in the process of reverting the US to the Constitution as originally written where only white male property owners were in charge, the "Age of Enlightenment." Male dominance means that the only means of conflict resolution is by war or the threat of war. There is no such thing as peace. Power and strength is what prevents your neighbor from conquering you so why bother to empathize with your neighbor? The end of the Cold War was the biggest opportunity for bringing about a peaceful world. Gorbachev and Reagan hit it off and actually reduced nuclear weapons with the INF treaty. But their initiatives were never extended and capitalized on. Instead the US and the world reverted to hostility with Russia by extending NATO to Russia's border. It was an opportunity to create peace between the western world and Russia, but no a stance of power based containment ensued so that the Reagan-Gorbachev peace initiative ended up being almost entirely worthless with power politics becoming the operative policy as it always has been, and war is the culmination and outworking of power politics.

Off the Top of My Head

What the Future Holds: Even More Mass Shootings

by John Lawrence

The US is the only nation that has embedded the seeds of its own destruction in its Constitution. What we can expect is an accelerating rate of mass shootings unless assault rifles are gotten off the streets which is something Republicans have refused to do. So now there are only 3 or 4 mass shootings a day. Pretty soon there will be so many that they will crowd out all other news on the news channels. They will need multiple split screens showing mass shootings in multiple areas. The mass shooting response industry will become big business. There will need to be more law enforcement, more investigators, more prosecutors, more pundits wondering about the motives of the shooter. This is what we should expect: increased numbers of mass shootings. Six months into 2022, there have been at least 309 mass shootings in the US, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Shooting incidents in 2022 are rivaling last year’s record-breaking numbers. Right now there are almost two mass shootings a day. By the end of the year we can expect three or four a day. The only effective thing that could change this trajectory would be to outlaw assault weapons and get them off the streets, but there is little likelihood that this will be done so we can expect more of the same.

So now that mass shooting has become almost an industry, we can expect to see mass shooters vying to set records, vying to be the one with the record of the most victims. So the planning in their minds will consist of trying to kill a number of victims at least in the double digits. Less than that number of deaths will be seen in their own minds as a failure. The Las Vegas killer took out 60 people and wounded over 400. These are the numbers that future mass killers will be shooting for. They not only want to join the club of mass murderers, they want to do so in a leadership position. Unfortunately, the gun industry and Republican politicians are enablers. The courts that have interpreted the Second Amendment to mean anything goes as far as gun purchases are concerned are the enablers of mass murder. Other countries have outlawed assault rifles as soon as one mass murder occurred. Less than one month after a gunman killed 50 people in an attack on two mosques in Christchurch, the New Zealand Parliament voted to ban most semi-automatic and military-style weapons. Ditto for Australia. The US, however, will go down fighting to preserve the rights of mass murderers.

It's unthinkable in the US that assault rifles could be outlawed. Witness the current toothless "gun safety" law that was just passed by Congress. It will do nothing to prevent mass murder to accelerate since it does nothing to get guns off the street. The confiscation of guns is the only thing that will put a stop to the continuation of these events, and they will only get more horrible as time goes on. This is what America has to look forward to. This is America's dystopian future. American culture supports and encourages mass murder. Video games consist almost entirely of people committing mass murders. American movies almost always feature guns and murder. The current shooter was listening to rap lyrics. The situation favors mass killers. They can choose the time and place. They can choose any gathering of people be it a religious congregation, a parade, a grocery store or a school. The police are helpless. Mass killers use the tactic of surprise to their advantage the same way the Japanese used the tactic of surprise to bomb Pearl Harbor. The advantage is always on the side of the mass killer who uses the military tactic of surprise. So while those in power twiddles their thumbs over gun violence and are paid off by the gun industry, America will continue to be terrorized by its own people. Geez, Usama bin Laden must be laughing in his watery grave.

Today I Am Grateful

Dear friends,

      Today I am grateful.  For everything. For it all. For being human, having a physical experience.  For the good, the bad and the ugly. For the beautiful, the graceful and the sublime. I have had it all. Haven’t you?  Why would we bemoan the downside when the upside is so wonderful?  It is all an adventure.

     Having said that, I prefer the Good.  No doubt about it. I love being happy and healthy and well-supplied. I do not enjoy fear and doubt and lack.  I want life to be good for everybody.  I desire peace and plenty for all.  I want justice and compassion to be the normal way of doing things. It occurs to me that I cannot be open to that if I am ungrateful for any of it. 

     The mind is a doorway.  It opens inwardly and outwardly. The splendor of what is found within cannot be transported into the outward except on the wings of gratitude, cheerful expectation and Love.  Love is the energy of renewal, of birth, of healing, of everything we could ever desire. Love is gratitude without object.

Affirm with me: “I love this life and everything in it. I am grateful for the whole shebang!”

Stay tuned in,

Carol Carnes www.carol-carnes.com 

These ideas and more will be our topics of discussion in my new class The Big Picture.

Social Security Independence Day

Stephanie Kelton

2 hr ago

 

Happy 4th of July to everyone with $291,000 in gross annual wage income! Today is the last day you will contribute to Social Security. For you, Independence Day begins tomorrow, when your take-home pay will jump by 6.2 percent. That’s because only about half of your wage income (50.5%) is subject to the payroll tax withholding for Social Security.

For those of you with gross annual wage income of $147,000 or less, your contributions will continue through December 31. That’s because 100 percent of your income is subject to the payroll tax withholding.

Many democrats would like to change that. Here’s Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT):

Today, absurdly and unfairly, there is a cap on income subject to Social Security taxes which is just $147,000 a year. That means that if you’re a multi-billionaire you pay the same amount into Social Security as someone making $147,000 a year. 

It means if you make $147,000 a year or less you pay 6.2% of your income in Social Security taxes. But if you make 10 times more – $1,470,000 – you pay just 0.62% of your income in Social Security taxes. That may make sense to someone. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Sanders has introduced legislation to change the way the payroll tax withholding is applied. It won’t pass, but if it did, it would apply the Social Security payroll tax to all forms of income, including capital gains and dividends, for those who make over $250,000 a year. It would have no impact on 93.6 percent of Americans, but it would raise taxes on the wealthiest 6.4 percent of households. 

As I’ve explained in recent columns, his motivation is simple:

[O]ur legislation would make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years, expand benefits for seniors and people with disabilities by $2,400 a year, and increase COLAs, which would lift millions of seniors out of poverty.

I won’t rehash the MMT line of argument here. Just click on one of my recent columns if you need a reminder. And if you want to play around with the numbers to see when Independence Day comes for people who occupy different rungs of the income ladder, just click here.

Have a safe and Happy 4th!

Subscribe to The Lens

By Stephanie Kelton  ·  Hundreds of paid subscribers

Economic analysis, research, and commentary using the lens of MMT

With SB54, “California is righting the ship,” leading U.S. out of ocean plastic pollution crisis

Ocean Conservancy scientists estimate that newly passed California law will eliminate 23 million tons of plastics in the next 10 years – equivalent to 26 times the weight of the Golden Gate Bridge.

by Dr. Anja Brandon, Nicholas Mallos, and Jeff Watters are available for interviews.

June 30, 2022 Español Français Deutsch Italiano Português русский বঙ্গীয় 中文 日本語

Green Turtle attempting to eat a discarded plastic bag. © Troy Mayne

Sacramento, CA – Today, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB54, or the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act, which passed the state Assembly with a 67-to-2 vote yesterday evening and the state Senate with a 29-to-0 vote this morning. Ocean Conservancy has been negotiating the language of this bill with fellow environmental advocates for months to make it the single strongest plastics legislation ever seen in the United States. 

“It’s hard to capture how momentous this feels,” said Dr. Anja Brandon, U.S. Plastics Policy Analyst at Ocean Conservancy and a principal contributor to the bill text. “The United States is the number-one generator of plastic waste in the world and a top contributor to the ocean plastics crisis. We can’t solve this problem without U.S. leadership, and by passing this law, California is righting the ship. This is a huge win for our ocean.” 

Scientists estimate that some 11 million metric tons of plastics enter the ocean every year. Data from 35 years of Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup show that the majority of the most common items littering our beaches and waterways are single-use plastic packaging and food ware.

Among other measures, the 76-page bill: 

• Requires a 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging and foodware by weight and item count by 2032;
• Mandates that nearly half of that reduction result from the direct elimination of plastic packaging or switching to reuse and refill systems rather than simply replacing it with alternative single-use materials (Ocean Conservancy scientists have estimated that this provision alone would directly eliminate 23 million tons of single-use plastic packaging and foodware over the next ten years – equivalent to nearly 26 times the weight of the Golden Gate Bridge);
• Requires that all single-use packaging and foodware, including non-plastic items, be recyclable or compostable within the state of California by 2032 and mandates a 65% recycling rate for plastics by that time; and
• Provides hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to support communities and restore ecosystems most impacted by plastic pollution.

“A few years ago legislation of this magnitude was unimaginable in the U.S.,” said Jeff Watters, Vice President of External Affairs at Ocean Conservancy. “We are here today because of an incredible amount of hard work, perseverance, and ambition from Senator Ben Allen, Assemblymember Luz Rivas, their tireless staff, and the team of experts at CalRecycle. This is what strong, forward-thinking political leadership looks like.”

The bill was signed just hours after petitioners withdrew a parallel plastic pollution ballot measure. Ocean Conservancy had supported both efforts but supported withdrawal of the ballot measure given that SB54 had passed both chambers of the state legislature.

“Our number one priority has always been fewer plastics on shelves and less plastic pollution in our ocean, and both SB54 and the ballot measure were viable pathways,” said Nicholas Mallos, Senior Director of Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas program. “We believe this is the surest outcome for impact, though. Historically, ballot initiatives face an uphill battle for implementation even when passed, meaning it could be years before any of its provisions would go into effect. Not only is SB54 as strong or stronger than the ballot in many ways; but we are looking at guaranteed action on this critical issue immediately.”

About Ocean Conservancy

Ocean Conservancy is working with you to protect the ocean from today’s greatest global challenges. Together, we create evidence-based solutions for a healthy ocean and the wildlife and communities that depend on it. For more information, visit oceanconservancy.org, or follow us on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.

Off the Top of My Head

Manchin and Sinema Should Be Kicked Out of the Democratic Party

by John Lawrence

They have blocked Biden's agenda every step of the way. Biden and his team have spent countless hours "negotiating" with them to no avail. They have treated them with kid gloves to no avail. Now they should call them out. They are effectively blocking the codification of Roe v Wade, voting rights legislation, Biden's Build Back Better initiative and every other thing every other Democrat stands for. They are Democrats in name only - DINOs. Instead of being treated with kid gloves, they should be treated like the pariahs they are. Democrats are too nicey nice. Biden got a little testy and said he was open to ending the filibuster in order to codify Roe. Who's standing in the way of ending the filibuster? Manchin and Sinema. Who's standing in the way of every other thing Biden and most Democrats want to get done? Manchin and Sinema. If it weren't for them, Democrats could get rid of the filibuster today and codify everything the Supreme Court is torpedoing plus do a lot more. As it is, Biden is hamstrung by two quasi Democrats who are really Republicans in sheep's clothing.

The filibuster is an anti democratic rule of the Senate that prevents decisions being made by majority rule. There's no good reason for it to exist. Democrats think that, if they get rid of it, Republicans will go wild with their legislation when they control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. But they are just wrong. When Republicans control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency but don't have 60 votes in the Senate (the number of votes necessary to overcome the filibuster), they can just vote to end or suspend the filibuster to get their legislation passed and signed into law. They don't care whether or not Democrats "observed" the traditions of the Senate by not voting to end the filibuster for their purposes. They will just do it themselves when it suits their interests. That's what the Democrats don't get. Democrats are afraid to end a "rule" when they theoretically have the power now to do so which is anti Democratic in order to get good things passed for the American people. And who are standing in the way of that? Not Republicans but 2 Democrats - Manchin and Sinema. If it weren't for them, abortion rights could be codified. A whole host of other things which the Supreme Court is casting to the wind, could be codified. In fact everything that was considered settled law is not because, if it hasn't been codified, it is under attack by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has pointed out that it's not enough to win a case before the Supreme Court. It must be codified by the Congress and signed into law by the President before it is "settled law." Therefore, the Supreme Court will throw out every so called "Constitutional protection" because nothing is constitutionally protected just because somebody has won a case before the Supreme Court. As sclerotic and underperforming as Congress is, the Supremes know that throwing things back to Congress effectively overturns every decision the Supreme Court has ever made! Forget about Roe v Wade. They are now attacking the EPA so that the US can do nothing about climate change except to sit back and let it happen. The US is fast becoming a backwater among nations and all because Trump had the power to appoint 3 conservative Justices to the Supreme Court. So what will be next on the Republicans' agenda? Getting rid of social security and Medicare? The Supreme Court will help them with that. Their only talent is using arcane language to do the Republicans' dirty work.

Off the Top of My Head

Sea Levels to Rise by 200 Feet if Poles Melt

by John Lawrence

Based on 410 ppm which is the concentration of carbon dioxide right now in the atmosphere, the ice on the poles will go completely away albeit at a glacial pace. Concentrations of carbon dioxide have varied between 100 ppm and 300 ppm for hundreds of millions of years, and earth has gone through hot periods in which there was no polar ice and at least one period where the entire earth was encased in ice. Reliable predictions by scientists show that 410 ppm will guarantee the disappearance of ice from the poles and a 200 foot sea level rise which will wipe out most of the east coast including a total disappearance of the state of Florida. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is continuing to increase. It will continue to increase way above the current 410 ppm. Humans are still pouring billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere year after year. There has been no diminution of this trend. In fact it is accelerating. The world emits about 43 billion tons of CO2 a year. So already there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to guarantee that the poles will melt, and the earth will become very hot. And we're still making it worse year after year.

As the oceans warm and the polar ice melts, we are seeing more extreme weather events due to increased water evaporation from the oceans. That increased amount of water in the atmosphere is released in the form of torrential downpours which cause flooding and weather events such as hurricanes. Higher temperatures are also causing droughts and forest fires. Although these events are tragedies for those directly affected, geological history has shown that life can adapt. One of the first major catastrophes the human race will be faced with is the loss of major cities situated close to oceans such as New York, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, Miami and New Orleans. However, humans can adapt to this by just moving further back from the shore lines as sea levels rise wiping out most low lying areas. Of course this will increase anti-immigrant sentiment due to the the number or refugees in the world as humans crowd onto remaining habitable areas. At this stage we will still be better off than Venus which has a runaway greenhouse gas effect and a surface air temperature of 800 degrees F. Its atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide.

The lesson here is that it is to the advantage of the human race to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as quickly as possible. This means major changes to our civilization which human beings are reluctant to make especially in democracies which are governed by the will of the people. While most will give lip service to preserving the planet for future generations, in fact they don't want to do anything that will change their lifestyles or inconvenience themselves in any way. Only when war and pestilence force humans to diminish their numbers on the planet will the human footprint get down to a certain size which, along with the adoption of renewable energy systems, will allow the planet to sustain enough habitable land mass for the furtherance of human life at least for some people. How fast we proceed with changing the human ecosystem in terms of greenhouse gas reduction will determine what kind of a planet future generations will be forced to live on. At the very least it will resemble a hot house earth, similar to conditions which existed millennia ago in which the polar regions were tropical swamps.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Could Solve the Gas Crisis Today by Taking Sanctions Off Russian Oil

by John Lawrence

Sanctions on Russian oil have been an abysmal failure. Russian oil profits are up 50% from last year! Just as American and British oil corporations have been scoring record profits, so has Russia. Oil prices are set on the world market and soaring prices result in record profits for Russia. If Putin had designed the sanctions himself, he couldn't have wreaked more havoc on the US and European economies. It's time for Biden to admit that his policy of sancti0ns against Russia has failed. They haven't deterred Russia from pursuing a war of attrition against Ukraine. They have demonstrated the abject failure of using US sanctions to control the actions of other countries. They are a total lost cause now and in the future. That's the lesson of the war in Ukraine for the west.

Bloomberg reported:

Russia’s oil revenues are up 50% this year even as trade restrictions following the invasion of Ukraine spurred many refiners to shun its supplies, the International Energy Agency said.

Moscow earned roughly $20 billion each month in 2022 from combined sales of crude and products amounting to about 8 million barrels a day, the Paris-based IEA said in its monthly market report. 

Russian shipments have continued to flow even as the European Union edges towards an import ban, and international oil majors such as Shell Plc and TotalEnergies SE pledge to cease purchases. Asia has remained a keen customer, with China and India picking up cargoes no longer wanted in Europe.

The IEA, which advises major economies, kept its outlook for world oil markets largely unchanged in the report. Global fuel markets are tight and may face further strain in the months ahead as Chinese demand rebounds following a spate of new Covid lockdowns, it said. 

Reduced flows of Russian refined products such as diesel, fuel oil and naphtha have aggravated tightness in global markets, the agency noted. Stockpiles have declined for seven consecutive quarters, with reserves of so-called middle distillates at their lowest since 2008.

But for all the disruption, Moscow has continued to enjoy a financial windfall compared with the first four months of 2021. Despite the EU’s public censure of the Kremlin’s aggression, total oil export revenues were up 50% this year. 

The bloc remained the largest market for Russian exports in April, taking 43% of the country’s exports, the IEA said.

So where is this "world market" that is setting the price of oil? Is it on Wall Street? I'd like to have a word with whoever is in charge of this "world market." Lord knows the US produces enough oil to supply all the US' gas needs so why not take US oil production off the world market and just sell it to the American people at a reasonable price? Oh, I guess that's not how capitalism works. Ironic, isn't it, that a formerly communist country like Russia is now profiting from capitalist markets! So even if the US, Canada and Europe are having record inflation with recessions predicted in the near future, Biden won't take the sanctions off of Russian oil, and basically this is all for spite, all because he hates Putin so much. Biden has staked American prestige on fighting a proxy war with Russia based on the almighty dollar and the power it supposedly possesses over every financial transaction going on in the world. Problem is that all the sanctions on Russia have only proven the weakness and futility of using sanctions to achieve policy goals. Russia has demonstrated that the sanctions just don't work. They haven't deterred Russia in the least. China and India have taken up the slack in Russian oil purchases.

Besides that, what Biden fails to understand is that like the US, Russia's currency, the ruble, is a fiat currency. That means that unlike China, it is not pegged to the US dollar. Russia's central bank can print as many rubles as it wants without asking US permission. The US can of course do the same thing - print as many dollars as it wants except the limiting factor is inflation. So the US can't print dollars right now, but Russia can still print rubles. That means that Russia controls Russian investment in Russia and Russian control of internal consumer markets. Imported products come mainly from China, and China is Russia's friend. Russia is demanding payment for its gas in rubles rather than dollars, and this supports the value of the ruble as a convertible currency just as Nixon's demand that the Saudis price their oil in dollars supported the value of the dollar and made the dollar the world's reserve currency.

All this boils down to the fact that Russia is in the driver's seat with respect to the war in Ukraine. It's hard to see how the unending supply of western weapons is sufficient to win the war for Ukraine now that the policy of sanctions has failed. Demonizing Putin is not a policy that is likely to have an effect on the war one way or other. Putin still has a lot of friends in the world and US inflation, while being primarily a function of sanctions on Russian oil, is also dependent on the supply chain of products coming from China, Russia's friend. Biden should be careful about whom he demonizes. After demonizing MBS, he's now about to get back in bed with him and the Saudis. Biden's Build Back Better policy could have helped the American people, and even now could fight inflation, but alas, after promising that it would be passed "in tandem" with the bipartisan infrastructure bill, it never was. What up with that?

Off the Top of My Head

Republicans Should Split into Two Parties

by John Lawrence

It's obvious there is a severe split in the Republican party between those loyal to Trump and those who are loyal to the Constitution. Honorable and principled Republicans like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, John Kasich and many others have nothing in common with the obsequious, conspiracy minded, demonizing, besmirching Trumpies. Trump and his followers should be relegated to the dustbin of history while real Republicans who believe in small government - that government governs best which governs least - low taxes, the free enterprise system and that the United States is a shining city on the hill should be the future of the Republican party. Splitting off and forming another party would show the country that Republican principles, such as those exemplified by Nelson Rockefeller, Dwight Eisenhauer and Ronald Reagan, are still relevant. My father, who was a Republican, would not recognize the Republican party of Donald Trump.

A split in the Republican party might not lead to huge electoral successes at first, but it would lead to the erosion of the Trump wing which is a good thing. Eventually as the new breed of Republicans gets their new Republican party organized and established, they would also start winning elections because they would be standing for something real and relevant not something wholly concocted and based on lies and untruths. They would not be tainted by the likes of some of the more nefarious members of the Republican party like Nixon, Trump and dare I say, George W Bush who used the conservative Supreme Court to get himself elected and then lied us into a war in Iraq. The new branch of the Republican party would hopefully not be a party of white nationalists espousing anti immigrant sentiments. The new branch of the Republican party hopefully would work with Democrats in the interests of the people of the United States instead of assuming a mission of making Democrats fail in order to get themselves elected. A new branch of the Republican party would put the interests of the people above their own sectarian interests.

There are many, both American citizens and people around the world, who look up to the United States that used to be, the United States that helped Europe win World War II, and then offered the Marshall plan even to the losers of that war which helped rebuild Europe. The United States that overcame the Great Depression by means of a compassionate government that worked in the interests of the people. The United States that passed the Civil Rights Act. But today with the advent of Trump and people like him, people that put their own interests first and the interest of American citizens other than themselves last, people around the world are experiencing a sense of exasperation, vexation and chagrin with the United States. It doesn't represent a shining city on a hill any more. Sure people still want to come here to get away from the hell holes that the countries they were born in represent. The United States still affords a high degree of average prosperity for most, but not all, of its citizens. In order for the Republican party to live up to its principles, honorable Republicans should split from those who endorse Trump and his Big Lie.