Ellis' Take

Stupendous - No Title Befitting

2011-08-23T01:53:10Z

Why is it so hard for people to voice that globalization has been/is a failure.

Ditto, we are ruled by Corpocracy/oligarchy.

]]> I'm just amazed by it. Some make excuses that since they can't do anything about it why bother, etc.

IMO, this government is failing and failure is desirable when you are racing toward the edge of a cliff.

Before we can discern solutions we must know the cause, the root cause of such failure.

Let's take a moment to understand the distinction between Democracy versus Republic.

IMO, we have too much Democracy. The Republic leans toward protecting the individual while Democracy, as a form of government, leans toward giving voice to the majority.

Couple the fact that we have too much Democracy with the fact that the elite, through their corporations, have used Democracy to usurp our form of Direct Democracy. They have been able to do this through Corporate Personhood law coupled with Money Is Free Speech law and of late, Citizens United vs FEC court rulings.

The result is a vocal (wealthy) Minority Group receiving most of the attention of elected representatives. That is why globalization and our government is failing.

Therefore, it seems logical that the solution to restore our Republic, national sovereignty, and the democratic principles we once lived by, is to abolish Corporate Personhood law and implement REAL campaign finance reform. CFR would mandate that all donations be managed through a private/public arrangement from the individual donor to a non-partisan government agency such as the IRS or FEC or a similar entity of the state.

Accomplishing those two reforms will relieve government of the money influence and renew the correct relationship between the people and their representatives.

But, and a big But, those reforms will never see the light of day through the Corpocracy. It will take a new 3^rd party designed for the 21^st century with a different political attitude to accomplish this.

Such laudable reform is the primary mission of the Republic Sentry Party, guardian of the REPUBLIC. Check it out, climb aboard.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Prepare To Pay More For Less

2011-06-05T21:37:02Z

Stephen Pearlstein has a good article in today’s Washington Post relating to monopoly in the phone industry. He relates the happenings since the Bell system was broken up by the federal government into long distance and regional ‘Baby Bells’.

]]> While there has been more competition, innovation and better pricing for the consumer we are back to a point where four companies , AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile, hold the lion's share of the telecommunications industry.

The biggest change since the break-up has been the decline in wire-line service and a huge increase in wireless broadband. And, like big oil, the phone companies are looking to consolidate/monopolize.AT&T is looking to buy T-Mobile for $39 billion. If approved, AT&T and Verizon would have 75% of the wireless market.

Wireless innovation and technology hinges on data speed and bandwidth. Until recently, no company controlled sufficient bandwidth to allow them to provide communications devices that could only be used with their companies communications systems. Big and small companies had to resort to providing communications devices with a 'roaming' capability or the ability to use other carriers communications systems for national coverage.

But, since 2001 the FCC lifted caps on the amount of spectrum any one company could control and eventually Verizon and AT&T accumulated spectrum to the point where they can now develop devices that only operate on their networks and do not require roaming capability. This, of course, put the smaller companies at a disadvantage as they must continue to provide equipment with a roaming capability and pay whatever fee the two larger companies might want to charge.

AT&T and Verizon now offer phones that will only work across their networks putting the smaller companies at a further disadvantage. Gone too, is the incentive for AT&T/Verizon customers to switch to the smaller companies after a service contract expires.

It seems likely that if AT&T is approved to buy T-Mobile then, Verizon will try to buy Sprint, giving the market to two competing companies. Since the FCC changed the rules in 2001 to allow this situation to develop it seems their intent would be to further expand the monopoly by approving the purchase.

IMO, the public would be better served if 15-20 companies were strongly competing in the telecommunications industry.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Which Lie Do You Want To Believe?

2011-05-11T15:29:02Z

Whether coming from a politician or some study group - think tank, the Corpocracy is pushing this globalisation thing to the max. Let's get started.

]]> Yesterday, the main man, the President, in pandering to the Latino vote, made statements like:

"We have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible". "Well, the fence is now basically complete".

Truth is the President and the Corpocracy have no intentions to 'secure the border'. Not only would that violate WTO and NAFTA regulations it would impede the Corpocracy's push for unmitigated globalisation. Workers of the world unite, one world and all that.    36k murdered and a shootout yesterday at Falcon Lake that killed 13. One sort of gets the feeling that the border won't be closed anytime soon.

Securing the border rates right up there with the Dem's plan to end tax breaks for the largest oil companies.

Alleging more abuse of the Constitution, the TEA Party is bringing suit to the fed for "Census knowingly counts include illegal aliens, counting them as residents in redrawing political boundaries dilutes the voting rights of citizens and is a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."   So many violations of the Constitution few bother to comment about it when they see it. The new 'normal'.

And, get this. Recovery is 'just around the corner' with a manufacturing boom like you've never seen. Just read the paper. Even as Home Depot, Best Buy and Barbie bail from China word from the latest 'talks', Strategic and Economic Dialogue, is that we now have a blueprint for 'comprehensive economic cooperation' between China and the US. The agreement included action on opening up China's financial sector to allow the US to sell auto insurance, sell mutual funds and other investments and underwrite corporate bonds.   China says they and the US can do better on human rights.

One article relates that the new reality is that China's economic advantage, cheap labor, is coming to an end. Says China's labor force is shrinking and wages are rising fast even as the dollar falls and US productivity grows. A 'study' by the Boston Consulting Group relates that within 4 short years production in the US will cost about the same as in Chain, even if Chinese labor productivity grows in the meantime. The article relates that while manufacturing will make a comeback jobs will not be created directly from increased manufacturing and automation and productivity no longer require an increased work force. Any job creation will come 'indirectly' for people who build, maintain and otherwise serve the factory and its labor force.

But wait, the Corpocracy is out there everyday hying that we are going to need more and better skilled workers in the future so we need amnesty for the millions of illegals right away.

And, there is another article in today's Washington Post relating that the Boston Group study was based on the Yangtze River Delta and Mississippi. Mississippi, ranking 49 - 50th in most every measure of living standard is now the 'new normal' for US competitiveness in the globalised economy.   Mississippi has "fewer work rules, less unionization and lower costs" than other advanced economies, says the author of the Boston study. The Post article relates that new hires in unionized auto plants are paid roughly half the $28/hourly wage that longtime employees make. And, from US Steel: "30 years ago, it took 10 hours per worker to produce one ton of steel; today it takes two" - saying that Chinese steelmakers no longer have a price advantage (though their government covers their losses).

The Post article relates that Germany still produces its high-end products at home, with labor costs that are some 50 percent high than those in the US. The South is where Germany goes when it wants to build its products on the cheap - a halfway house, as it were, between China and the high-value-added economy of Northern Europe. Concluding with a statement from the Boston study author; "we're on pace to become the low-cost manufacturing platform" for consumers in the developing world.

And, I see where the DC metro will buy new hybrid buses. The transit system has an $89.3M contract with New Flyer of American, based in Winnipeg, Canada, to buy 152 of the hybrid-electric buses for $571,737 each. Must be some 'indirect' jobs associated with that. Maybe bus drivers, bus washers, gas pumpers and the like. You gotta feel good about that.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

The Long Road Back

2011-04-24T22:15:08Z

Many are saying the debt is untenable, impossible to manage. Not hard to understand such reasoning when you review the debt scenario, and consider fifty-two years of consecutive deficit spending and our weakened economic outlook going forward.

]]> Whether you are pro, con, or indifferent to globalization the affect has put us in 'a world of hurt' and in a relatively short time span. All would agree that international commerce is desirable and, if managed properly, would be beneficial to all nations involved.

So many problems and coming on so fast. Just look at the inflation data on d.a.n's website. We must ask some questions. Did the people sign up for such inflationary policies, or put in place the CDO, unregulated hedgefunds, etc. Did the people sign on to dumping trillions into banking and commercial entities around the world, bailing out even those that didn't want the money? And, all the while 'talking' about jobs, borders still wide open, and the debt repayment is to come from cutting entitlements? We can't tax the rich as they are 'job creators'. Well, they must have taken a long vacation starting around 2007.

So, what is going on? We know the BRIC nations are jousting to remove the dollar as the standard currency. We know Soros has a plan to bust up capitalism. We know more deficit spending is on the way. Are we just arriving at the next phase of globalisation, 'one currency' and 'one world government'?

Numerous problems easily observed, but what is the root cause? Well, if one follows the threads back through the maze of our short history one bumps into the year of 1886 and the 'Santa Clara Blues'. That is the point in our history when Corporations were declared to be 'persons'. That is the point when the voice of the people began to be usurped by the money influence of big business.

Over the following 200 or so years corporations have continued to lobby congress and the courts. Today we are ruled more by Corpocracy than democracy. Our government is largely run for corporate interests. For example, during the ENRON era that corporation was President G. W. Bush's largest political contributor. This year President Obama hopes to receive near $1B to wage his political campaign.

I hope you will find a quiet place and read through the history of corporate personhood as presented by Reclaim Democracy. A good debate should follow.

Sunday Morning Breakdown

2011-03-27T20:15:43Z

Reading and watching events play out across the Middle East, we have a front row seat to a highly historical moment in history. This part of the world has been under some kind of dictatorship for something like 6k years and we are witness to possibly the last vestiges of 'iron fist rule' in this relatively very brief time span in the history of the world. Some countries will not get it right on the first try and some dictatorships will live on, but not for long. The die has been cast, with the first pouring of the democratic mold by the small country of Tunisia.

]]> It's just amazing to see how the world has advanced in the last 100 years or so. Germany had their holocaust and Japanese soldiers were tossing Chinese babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets. Man's inhumanity to man has known no bounds. But, hopefully, we will not go back. Hopefully, good has triumphed over evil and we can get on with it.

However, vigilance is the order of the day. Left unattended, evil doers can be the undoers of any democratic society, including ours. For example, we are upon the 100^th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire where 146 garment workers died, many because the doors and exits were locked by company managers. This incident is not too different than the Postville Raid of 2008 where immigrant laborer's were being abused, physically and financially. Some 400 undocumented immigrants were working under deplorable conditions, some subjected to sexual assault and child labor laws were being violated.

These examples make the point that, without proper oversight and regulation, evil can and will ramp up and trump any democratic society. To say that mans inhumanity to man has disappeared is to ignore daily events and history in general. Today, the strength of our democracy is measurable to a large degree by the level of tolerance given to perceived wrongdoing and mostly applicable to the financial sector. Wealth directly translates to power and power and evil, where combined makes democracy live hard. Proper regulation is a constant, never ending struggle fer shure.

Often, partisan politics come into play in deciding right from wrong on some issues. Right and wrong can take on different meaning for people of a different class or situation in life on some issues.

For example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was created in 1824 by the War Dept. Since, the Interior Dept. of the US gov't has pretty much controlled the lives of Indians and Eskimos. Perhaps, the BIA was a good thing at inception and/or for a number of years. But, looking at the status of Indian reservations today one has to wonder if the Indians should continue to be controlled by a government oversight agency. Surely needed, if one believes the sales pitch of the BIA chief re the 2012 budget. Coming up on 200 years of Indian 'management'. Should this program be continued or absolved?

John Stossel recently related that the first floor of his oceanfront home was destroyed by ocean activity and the federal gov't replaced it for free. Then the ocean took his whole house and the gov't replaced that one for free as well. He also received a tax credit for an electric golf car paid for with your tax dollars. Stossel often rants that these type programs are to the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer.

And, in today's Washington Post, I find an article, by an MBA student at GWU, relating why a pair of eyeglasses can cost up to $1000. He gave a cost breakdown for a pair of glasses costing $320. He notes that the frames cost approx $38 and the lenses $48 and that add-ons, such as nose pads $60, tax $16 and a host of other charges bring the total to around $270, or what the customer would pay for a set of $320 glasses. From another perspective, a gisted text from Barry C. Lynn's, 'Cornered'. Until the 1980's one could stroll into one of thousands of small stores run by individual and independent opticians and optometrists and purchase eyewear provided by dozens of suppliers who often fashioned the frames on site. Following the Regan era and 'greed is good', merging of corporations began to take off. The Italian firm, Luxottica, began buying up their competition. In 1995, Lenscrafters, In 1999, Ray-Ban from Bausch & Lomb., In 2001, Sunglass Hut's chain of 1900 stores. Three years later Luxottica took control of Cole National, which owned Pearl Vision as well as the optical departments at Sears, Target, and JCPenny. Luxottica also run the optical depts. at Macy's and other Federated stores. In 07 they picked up the US eyewear company Oakley for $2.1B, made affordable by the fact that Luxottica has, for years, used its control of retail outlets to choke Oakley slowing to death. That deal brought Luxottica three more retailers, including Bright Eyes and Sunglass Icon, the main competitor of Sunglass Hut. Now, if you don't buy your eyewear from LensCrafters or Pearle Vision or Target or Sears it's still likely you are going to deal with Luxottica as they control the distribution of much of the world's eyewear to what few independent stores remain. They not only sell products under their brand name and that of Ray-Ban, they make what is sold under Dolce & Gabbana, Donna Karan, Ralph Lauren and Tag Hener. Likewise, if you buy from Australia, Europe and even China, there's a good chance your buying from Luxottica. One has to wonder where all this merging and monopolizing might lead in another 30-50 years.

Another article in today's Wash. Post several members of Virginia's House of Delegates relates that Virginia ha failed to systematically analyze millions of dollars being spent each year on tax credits an preferential incentives provided to those groups savvy enough to negotiate the legislative process. They state that during this General Assembly alone they considered 25 bills either reauthorizing credits or creating new ones. "Name your favorite initiative or industry and we have a credit for it". Coal, motion pictures, barge and rail companies, ports, long-term care, aircraft, land preservation and r&d receive substantial tax dollars, something on the order of $200M, which will continue for many years without legislative action. When passed, those credits authorize the transfer of money from taxpayers to the beneficiaries each year with no additional oversight by the General Assy. Eliminating credits for the coal industry alone, over $100M, would allow the corporate tax rate to move from 6 to 5.25% and provide a tax refund of $15/yr for each Virginian.

Maybe we should just forget all this right/wrong decision making and head to the lake an drown a few worms. Whadda ya say?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Fair Is What You Can Get Away With

2011-03-22T23:17:21Z

A Washington Post article of 3/20/11 carries an article relating that the SEC is accusing IBM of foreign bribery. I can recall the era of the 50's-60's when IBM was thought to be the darling of the corporate world and incorruptible.

]]> Gisting the article, IBM is being accused of bribing South Korean gov't officials with cash and laptop computers. Cash was distributed via a shopping bag in a Japanese Restaurant and through a bank account of a 'hostess in a drink shop'. Bribes surfaced totaled some $207k. In exchange IBM received Korean contracts worth millions.

Likewise, IBM was charged with maintaining slush funds to provide gifts and overseas trips to Chinese gov't officials. Involved are two key managers and more than 100 IBM-China employees.

The company agreed to a settlement of $10M while neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing.

In recent years the SEC has brought foreign bribery charges against US companies such as Tyson Foods, Halliburton, ABB and Daimler. The article alludes that these cases, when combined, suggest bribery represents the status quo in corporate world.

The SEC alleged that IBM recorded improper payments as legitimate business expenses and, in at least 114 instances, IBM employees worked with a local travel service in creating fake invoices. Chinese gov't officials who took the trips received gifts and per diem payments.

IBM's actions are more understandable when cognizant of the globalized economy where bribery is acceptable, more or less, in about ¾'s of the globalised world. I refer to it as the ' wild west of free trade'. Merge them up like beefy wrestlers and let them fight it out.

China and S. Korea officials are surely aware of the SEC charges. NTR there. Somehow, I think China and perhaps S. Korea will be the ultimate winners in 'Free Trade'. .

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve

What Will It Take To Energize A Third Party?

2011-02-15T02:58:43Z

A Picture Is Worth A 1000 Words

One infrequently hears rumblings about a third party. A party that might make it or a party being started. But, few start-ups arouse the public to any appreciable degree. Seems Progressives and Socialists have had more success than others in running on 3rd party platforms. For example, the IRS and Social Security came about through efforts by those parties. Ironically, between 50-60% of the public is favorable towards a third party. So, where is the disconnect? What must a 3rd party do to answer the cause?

]]> The list of grievances is long; no representation by the duopoly, corruption, rule by corpocracy, no real reform forthcoming, ad infinitum. Even minor reform through the political system is hard to come by. Just implementing reform of health care seems a momentous task. Not so long ago the country took pride in being an innovator in the sciences and electronics. Going forward, new technology is likely to come from a 'globalised' effort, with input from industries around the world. A call for 'clean air' or the like sends companies bailing for the unregulated and cheap labor areas of the world.

Higher on the list we find that the enormous debt racked up over the last decade ranks high on the frustration meter. Then, there is the 10-20% jobless figure that directly affects millions of middle class workers. And, housing foreclosures. Foreclosures are expected to peak in 2011.

There are so many reasons to reject the two parties in favor of a 3rd party. One has to question why voters would sit on the fence knowing the ominous effect this $14T deficit will bring to each of us. Bring to our kids and our grandkids in the form of economic hardship and lesser quality of life, freedom, leisure, etc.

There are some 55 political parties in the US looking for your vote. Some are farcical on their face. But, many seem dead earnest in pursuing better governance or in forming a 'more perfect union'. Yet, none are flourishing, girding to take the reins of power and stir our country clear of the pending disaster ahead.

I had thought that the reasons 3rd parties don't do well is that they, more often, tend to seek reform around the fringe. That is, most parties push an agenda of change but, only in the context of the existing bureaucracy. For instance, they may want to reform health care by legislating reform within the boundaries of existing laws, corpocracy, corruption and existing organization. I was so sure that this was the issue with 3rd parties that I tried to start a real centrist/populist reform party, a party with a different political attitude. But, after about three years, there is little to show for the effort.

I believed that by looking back over the history of the Republic and identifying the wrong roads taken along the way I could design a 3rd party for the 21st century. The two majors I feel that need correcting are the abolishment of Corporate Personhood law and the implementation of real Campaign Finance Reform. By establishing these two reform issues as a priority in the party agenda I believe that corporate money and special interest could be annihilated or so severely restricted that the residual influence would be negligible. IMO, until those two issues are resolved there can be no real reform of government achieved giving the heavy influence of corporate money tied to campaign financing of incumbents/candidates. You simply can't expect to grow roses in a cesspool.

To give credence to a party void of special interest I put down 4 or 5 rules giving members authority to vote to reject, or not, an elected official of that party who commits some cardinal sin such as failing to support the party agenda or some ethics related reason. The final rule prevents any change to the rules without a two-thirds vote to do so by the national membership. These rules are a strong hand of cards to turn the elected officials' attention to the voting public. With the abolishment of Corporate Personhood and implementation of real Campaign Finance reform, where all donations are collected into one kettle of funds, the parties elected representatives would look to their constituents rather than major donors, as they should.

But, no takers there. The Republic Sentry Party has gone absolutely no where. Which leads me to believe that the people want an 'established' party' replete with a couple of million members with plenty of candidates on the ballots so they may pick and choose. I believe the better party would evolve through the work of one new member at a time as opposed to a few wealthy brokers who can afford to fund a new party with all the trimmings.

It may help to look at the Egyptian revolution as an analog. The people of that nation sat on their hands through 30 years of dictatorship and hardship, with the majority currently subsiding on $2/day or less. Then, when commodity prices doubled this winter the people, and more correctly, the young people, realized this was the straw that broke the camel's back and bravely, into the streets they went. Likewise, US voters have sat back and watched 30 years of globalisation eat away their wages, housing, jobs, etc, resulting in the US becoming the world's largest debtor nation in that short time span. Commodities are rising and the worst of the great recession is still a couple of years out there. Perhaps that will bring us an 'Egyptian' moment where the fear of the unknown becomes less than the fear of the known. Perhaps there is a 3rd party in our future. And, just as surely as the Egyptians must make sure their move to Democracy is well founded, so must any effort in bringing a 3rd party to the forefront.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

A 'New Deal' Coming

2011-01-16T20:53:40Z

Courtesy: David Shankbone, NYC

Glenn Beck discussed China/US relations recently and brought up an interesting corollary. The presentation revolved around the 1920-40's era as to how the US became top dog following WWI and II. He noted that as the US was just becoming an industrial force Europe was increasingly becoming more indebted to the US. As the wars ended the US, owning much of Europe's debt, was able to take the lead, call the shots, etc. Glenn then compared that era to our current relation with China. China is now coming on line as an industrial force and has labor, education, and our large debt working for them. Very much like the 20-40's era slingshotting the US into world prominence.

]]>

And, one has to think back to 'peacemaker', David Chamberlain, who, rather than risk any further war for Britain, signed meaningless pieces of paper with some of Europe's most despot leaders. The world is too complex for one to assume that they will just avoid war at all cost, IMO. Akin to an Ostrich with head in sand,. No doubt, the best way to avoid war is to be sufficiently strong to deny a nation the opportunity at war.

In that regard the US is 'living on borrowed time'. Much of our war fighting technology was developed from the 60's forward. Now that technology resides with other nations as well while our status as the center of technology has dropped. For example: as Russia and other nations with borders in the Arctic are mapping out their claims for resources in/around the shelf, the US is ill prepared to take advantage of the opportunity to explore and develop those resources. Being the world's largest debtor nation we are forced to cut spending rather than build ice breakers. A la Glenn's corollary.

China achieved a nuclear capability in Oct, 1964. Beginning in 2/72 Kissinger made a total of nine trips to China, agreeing to a Vietnam troop reduction and a 'one China' policy in moving China off the dime to open up economically. Apparently, the thinking within the Nixon/Kissinger administration was that China would be less of an adversary if they were joined in international trade. Some 40 years later one would have to discern who is more at risk from nuclear attack, the US or China? From a recent speech by the Sec. of State one gathers that the US is whizzing up a rainspout in herding China to conform to UN like expectations. Seems that as long as those pork bellies keep moving everything will work out.

It would seem a 'go slow' policy with China might have been a more rational approach to globalizing that area of the world. But, one can understand that the business community wanted to get in there and pollute with the best of them. The Corpocracy has made it real clear they intend to stick with their China/globalization policies. Perhaps more importantly, China has made it equally clear they will stick with their globalization policies as well.

One has to note that the overall strategy of the Corpocracy in bringing the working class face to face with China and globalization is, and has been, the threat of this or that crisis while quickly piling on debt to make the threat seem more real. The strategy has worked well in setting the stage for a depression era where the likes of a FDR will, at some point, come along with a 'new deal'. But first, the workers have to own their debt, the federal now standing at about $45k for each US person. And, state governors are beginning to take actions to make us feel other debts and obligations. For example, Governor Christi has put programs in place that will alleviate one-half of NJ's debt in about 30 years.

Ultimately, we will be able to weigh our diminished fortunes in light of any 'new deal', the potential for nuclear confrontations and the well being of the billions in China, India, Tibet and around the world.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

A Little More Tautology, Please!

2011-01-09T20:46:30Z

Political Outhouse

We have been witness to a 30 year effort to 'globalise' America. We mused as President Carter gave up the Panama Canal where today China is working to double the width and handling capacity of the canal. We watched as Regan implemented the era of 'greed is good', 'bigger is better' and put anti-trust law in the closet. Then came President's Clinton and Bush I, pressing for a World Trade Organization and NAFTA. And, we watched the political infighting to give China WTO membership and the creation of all the AFTA's.

]]> Result : manufacturing, dollars and jobs out, turning the wealthiest nation into the greatest debtor nation, culminating in the 'great recession' where today, Bernanke is saying that it will take several years to restore the US economy and achieve acceptable levels of unemployment.

The duopoly, in reacting to public sentiment, is said to be working hard to create jobs and lower the debt to some sustainable level. Nancy Pelosi, in turning over the House Speaker position, said she and her colleagues had worked hard to reduce the deficit. Now that the Republican's have taken over the House and have increased their number in the Senate, they are taking on the mantle of creating jobs and reducing the deficit. As I recall the Republican's bent their wick on trying to create jobs in 2007/8, resulting in their defeat to President Obama.

So, IMO, this is going to be an interesting period leading up to the 2012 elections. Both parties stiff armed the American people in giving us 'globalisation' and now are going to create millions upon millions of jobs to save us from, 'globalisation'. Just how they plan to do that we don't yet know. We hear a lot of talk about raising/lowering taxes, repealing Obamacare, getting credit markets moving, community help programs, etc, but nothing specific about job creation.

At the same time the duopoly/corpocracy was working on 'globalisation' they were pushing expansion and growth in the US. Population growth was expedited through illegal immigration and 'anchor babies'. Pressure was brought to bear on American workers through some 26 temporary worker visa programs. Education costs were high and classrooms were half filled with foreign students, many looking to hold a US job on graduation. Wages were stagnant or falling.

The amazing part of all this is that nothing has changed. The corpocracy is monitoring the great recession, taking steps to prevent a depression yet they have done nothing to change or alleviate the demise of the working middle class.
How would one know when the corpocracy is moving to improve the job market and lower the deficit? When you hear rumblings of 'strategic protectionism' to level the economic playing field, or when the corpocracy addresses the statists trade practices of China, or when anti-trust law is dusted off and brought to the forefront . . . that is how we will know the corpocracy is getting serious on correcting a very serious situation. With the implementation of a VAT trade tax and a flat income tax the US could correct our trade imbalance and begin to pay down the deficit in a serious way. But, we've heard none of that.

Thus, the corpocracy is not looking for solutions at this time. They are in a wait state, waiting for the working middle class to reach wage parity with developing world nations. And, where will the voters turn for salvation in 2012? Another kick in the teeth is unlikely to help. IMO, the corpocracy has failed as a governing entity and should be removed. Their removal can be hastened by movements like Vote Out Incumbents Democracy and by pressing for a long denied constitutional right, Article Five Convention. But, in parallel, we should support a new 3rd party effort like the Republic Sentry Party, representing a party designed for the 21st century, a party with a different political attitude.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve

The Corpocracy; Moving Them Pork Bellies!

2010-12-31T22:29:39Z

An article, by Carol Leonnig and T.W. Farnam, was published in the Washington Post on the 26^th of December relating to the ongoing conflict of interest concerning lobbying efforts aimed at influencing current legislative matters.

]]> The article relates that several times within the last year Congressional members have held fundraisers during periods that were coincidental with legislative actions, casting an ethical cloud over the relationship between lobbyists and politicians.

In June, members of a joint House and Senate committee were working on drafting final rules for the financial bill. During that same time period lobbyists for the financial industry were working to weaken the financial bill. Some 35 members of the committee collected $440,000 from that same industry with Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, receiving about $90,000 from financial entities.

In the same month there were 54 fundraisers to support the reelection campaigns of committee members. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) was mentioned as the VIP guest for a Florida lawmaker's fundraiser some 48 hours before the committee officially began work on the bill. DLA Piper, a lobbying firm representing Discover Financial Services, Experian and Charles Schwab, played host for the fundraiser.

In early December, Senator Max Baucas (D-MT) gave himself a birthday party fundraiser. This, on the same day the Senate held their first vote on an $858B tax package that would benefit the wealthy and corporate community. A Baucas spokesperson stated that the only factor determining the Senator's vote is whether his vote will be right for Montana and the country.

In September, the Senate voted on the Small Business Job Creation Act, a bill which became law creating a $30B loan fund for community banks. Hundreds of lobbyists were registered to lobby on this bill. For a 3 day period around the time of the vote Senators collected $469,000 from the financial industry with Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, receiving the most.

There are congressional ethics rules in place to deter fundraising during periods of legislative activity that would give the appearance of improper influence. But, some in Congress argue that fundraising and legislation goes on all the time and there is no way to know when the two issues occur simultaneously.

The voting public has longed for reform to prevent 'Corpocracy rule' and for-sale government. It's not likely to happen as the status quo is a win-win for corporations and politicians, with the losers, the outsiders, being our representative democracy and the voting public.

If we are to achieve such reform it will be borne on the back of a new 3^rd party. A party with a specific agenda to abolish corporate personhood law and implement real campaign finance reform. If you are interested in supporting such a party leave a comment or contact (email) the Republic Sentry Party.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Time For A Different Political Attitude

2010-12-29T21:50:48Z

Ask the individual what change is most needed to set this country on the right track and there is no end to 'solutions' for correcting our problems. One will hear, trash the Federal Reserve, the IRS, Fannie & Freddie, Congress, repeal the Health Care bill, properly fund Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, limit the size of government, the military, balance foreign trade, reduce the deficit, repeal some amendment, campaign finance reform, just plug in the ox you'd like to gore here - - -

]]> People bringing forth such recommendations can't be all right but, neither are they all wrong. It's clear the country is having serious problems but, for the most of us life goes on, basically unchanged. It's also clear that this country, in a short span of 25 years, went from being the wealthiest nation to the largest debtor nation. Something bigtime serious must be going on here.

Certainly, a country of this size, comprised of numerous ethno/social groups, with complex business models, relations with foreign countries, etc, is going to experience plenty of problems. No one should expect a perfectly smooth ride and change can have both good and bad affects. And, we are aware that the Federal Gov't was, in the beginning, organized to be somewhat inefficient across three branches.

What then, has happened to make people feel so uneasy about practically all aspects of our government? To what end can we attribute the legitimate responses in the first paragraph? At the highest level most all problems can be viewed in terms of morality, or how one interacts with their fellow man. Man comes with avarice and greed while full of love for his family and compassion for those known to him. Man makes a decision to balance his own interests and those known to him against those tribes afar. In that sense one of our first problems as a nation may date to the formation of political parties, enabling Congresspersons to divide along party lines as a means of influencing the political outcome of government.

President Andrew Jackson made a valiant but futile attempt to rid the country of a quasi-government banking system.

Along the way elected officials learned to 'help themselves' as well as others with their ever growing influence.In so doing, congresspersons really fell off the wagon when the Supreme Court, in 1896, gave corporations some human rights. With corporate personhood law in place congress began to 'follow the money', more in alliance with business interests than the populace at large. Add-on's, such as 'money is free speech' law and the more recent supreme court ruling permitting corporations to directly fund ads for/against a political candidate have exacerbated the ever growing alliance between business and government, culminating in what is often referred to as the 'corpocracy'. Rule by corpocracy infers that we are less a democracy and more of a corpocratic society. The voting public was not asked to vote for corpocracy rule but, neither were they asked to vote against it. The voting public has been silent to this point in time.

Rule by corpocracy seemed to work well enough through the 1980's. But, as pressure on world resources mounted corporations and governments believed that a globalized trade system where resources could be bought and sold in a 'free market' system was the better policy. Anti-trust law was shelved in favor of promoting corporate mergers, giving more 'buying' clout to the large monopoly or conglomerate. And, to maximize their bottom line global corporations have chosen to locate their product manufacturing in/near the cheapest labor markets. This has worked to disrupt labor forces around the world, the US in particular.

To expedite globalization governments established a 'world trading organization (WTO) and an international monetary fund (IMF) to regulate finance and trade agreements between the nations. In trying to work around US sovereignty issues 'trade agreements', rather than ratified treaties were adopted. Trade agreement authority was delegated by congress to the executive branch where the President manages the numerous trade agreements between regions/countries. Attempting to further maximize efficiency in global trade the 'corpocracy' has worked to establish trade regions such as the European Union. An attempt was made to create a 'North American Union' (NAU) comprising Mexico, Canada and the US but, largely due to sovereign issues, the voting public rebelled, putting the NAU on hold for the time being. However, much of the trade, administrative and security provisions have been implemented, including many of the rules related to a migrant workforce between the three nations.

The effort to globalize world economies has had a 30 year run. Unfortunately, at this point in time, those efforts, while having some success in involving China and other developing nations in the process, have failed on a colossal scale, culminating in a worldwide recession requiring drastic measures to prevent wholesale anarchy in some nations. The US in particular, has been hurt severely, going from the wealthiest nation to the largest debtor nation in a relatively short time span of 25 years. Unemployment stands at near 10 percent with no plan for recovery, nothing on the table. This, coupled with stagnant or falling wages and severe home foreclosure statistics has set the US back on many fronts.

The corporate sector has recovered from the recession with stocks hitting a two year high on the 21st of Dec 2010.And, the wealthy have increased their wealth exponentially over the last 30 years. The top 1% of the wealthy pay about 48% of tax revenue and about 43%, 43 million, taxpayers pays no tax.

Most would agree that this is an unhealthy situation for the nation. Our history has been that the voting public will move to correct undesirable situations when they arise in government. But, even with Independents making up 40% of the electorate, the corpocracy has managed to hold on to positions of power in government. One might be hopeful that the Tea Party movement will serve to bring some reform to the corpocracy form of government but, we are aware that several elected to office of that movement are engaged in lobbying activities as if it were business as usual. Pushing back on earmarks has more to do with long standing public sentiment than any reform policy of the Tea Partier's.

So, here is the pitch. Have we not tolerated this increasing rule by Corpocracy long enough? If yes, then what might be the best approach to restoring our Democratic-Republic style of government? I suggest/advocate for a new 3rd party but, not just another 3rd party. The voting public must find the ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their actions/inactions. A 3rd party with a different political attitude can provide accountability in government through oversight of party members elected to office, state or federal. If complaints toward an elected official of the party are significant then the official would stand for an up/down vote by the party membership. Failing to garner 65% of the favorable vote the official would be rejected from the party, left to serve out their remaining term in office but, with no further support from the party. The official could circumvent such an outcome by broaching a complaint with the membership and, through good communications channels provided by the party website, engage in a dialog with the membership which could serve to thwart or nullify the complaint.

Communications between elected officials and the voting public is highly desired. Through good communications and dialog we can achieve a good measure of accountability and get beyond this 'left and right' holding the conversation/debate while the independent majority remain silent or sidelined in the debate.

Are you ready to advocate for a new 3rd party with a different political attitude?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.