Oct. 23, 2014  By Jack Jodell.

This is the third and final segment of excellent articles written by Larry Beinhart (author of Wag the Dog) which originally appeared in the Huffington Post nearly 4 years ago, vut still fits the bill today. I thank the Thom Hartmann Program on Free Speech TV for having turned me on to this excellent author. Below is “Class Warfare III – Losing Your Right to Fight Back” by Larry Beinhart which first appeared on 3/09/2011.  

“Everyone has heard of the woman who spilled coffee on herself and won $3 million from McDonald’s. Perhaps you recall an editorial similar to this one, which ran in theSan Diego Union Tribune: ‘A winning lottery ticket… absurd… a stunning illustration of what’s wrong with America’s civil justice system.’

I saw the injuries. One look was all it took. An 82-year-old woman with such severe burns on the insides of her upper thighs, inches from her vagina, that they required skin grafts. You can see it too, in the documentary Hot Coffee, when it’s released. Hot Coffee is the most exciting movie ever made about tort reform.

The jury found out that McDonald’s served their coffee at temperatures between 195 and 205 degrees, “high enough to peel skin off bone in seven seconds or less.” They found out from McDonald’s own files that there had been 700 previous burn incidents serious enough that people had made formal complaints. The woman in the case only wanted her medical bills paid for. The jury thought money might get McDonald’s to change its behavior, because burning at least 700 people hadn’t seemed to bother the company.

That’s what the courts and civil suits are for. To make whoever broke it pay for the damage that’s been done. The courts are also the only place where we — as ordinary, individual citizens — can force other individuals and corporations — tobacco, automobile, chemical, pharmaceutical, insurance, and banking — to open their books and divulge at least the recorded truth, often a history of previous offenses and cover-ups.

The courts are a way to make bad behavior — injurious, even murderous, acts — cost enough to make a corporation stop.

Without lawsuits we wouldn’t know that tobacco companies knew that cigarettes caused cancer even while they advertised them as healthy; that Firestone tires, combined with Ford SUVs, made them roll over; that the Catholic Church harbored and protected hundreds of pedophile priests; that Vioxx damaged people’s hearts and killed them.

Big business hates lawsuits. They hate being made accountable. They hate having to pay. So what can they do about it?

They hire PR companies to spread stories — frequently less than complete, often completely false — about frivolous lawsuits. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting those tales. At the same time, almost every settlement contains a non-disclosure agreement. The offenders are free to trumpet their tales far and wide. The victims must stay silent.
The poster child for the victims of frivolous lawsuits is the noble physician. No less a person than ex-president George Bush has told us that it’s the trial lawyers who are driving good OB/GYNs out of their practices and depriving communities of decent medical care. It’s malpractice insurance (due to the frivolous lawsuits) that is making health care unaffordable. Almost everyone believes this story.

Then there are the facts.

“Medical malpractice kills more people than automobile and workplace accidents combined.” (The Medical Malpractice Myth, Tom Baker, University of Chicago Press, 2005). You would think, therefore, that we spend more on malpractice insurance than on automobile insurance. In 2003, doctors, hospitals, and other providers spent $11 billion on malpractice premiums. US businesses — not individuals — spent $27 billion on auto liability premiums and $57 for workers compensation premiums. “Medical societies own research showed that the real problem was too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation,” Baker writes in The Medical Malpractice Myth.

Litigation seems to be a particularly American disease. Why? Most lawsuits are for medical bills (the McDonald’s case), and for lost wages and the inability to work. Other industrialized countries have universal health care, more significant unemployment insurance, social welfare, and pension benefits. We don’t believe in collective responsibility and collective solutions. The people who do the damage are supposed to pay for it. The only way to make them pay is to sue the bastards.

The second story in Hot Coffee is about a child who was born with brain damage caused by medical errors. The family sued for enough to care for their son, even after they were gone, which is what they worried about the most. The jury figured what it would cost and awarded that amount.

But the corporations were a jump ahead. They made campaign contributions to “pro-business” legislators. They hired lobbyists to sell them on “tort reform.” There was now a cap on how much could be awarded, significantly less than what the jury determined, transferring the burden from the insurance companies to the victims, the parents. After the parents die, their son will become, in all likelihood, a ward of the state. His care will be paid for by taxes, transferring the burden from the insurance companies to us.

Such laws have been passed in many states. They’ve been challenged. A series of state courts held they were unconstitutional under state constitutions, or federal law, because they take away the rights of individuals to get justice.

What do you about that?

Replace the judges. In most state judges are elected. Judicial campaigns are — or used to be — pretty small, low-key campaigns. Five, ten, maybe twenty-five thousand dollars would do it. But then, Karl Rove, in his early days in Texas, came up with a great idea. Find “pro-business” judicial candidates, go to big businesses — tobacco, insurance companies, big banks and the rest of the usual offenders — and ask for big contributions. Then funnel the money through an organization with a name like Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse to avoid revealing who was really footing the bill and spend fifty, a hundred, five hundred thousand dollars — whatever it took — to elect judges who would vote reliably vote for big business.

It worked so well in Texas that the practice was exported. I recommend John Grisham’s novel, The Appeal. It’s devastating. It’s worse now that I know it’s essentially a true story, first, of how hard it is to bring a real lawsuit, to win it, and how a corporation can beat its responsibility by destroying a good judge and putting their own boy in.

The final story in Hot Coffee is about a young woman who went to work for Halliburton in Iraq. She was housed, in spite of promises and her complaints to the home office, among men. She was drugged and gang raped. When she tried to bringcharges, she was put in a shipping container with armed guards to keep her in. The Bush administration had set up a system in Iraq that made it virtually impossible for military contractors, as individuals, or the companies they worked for, to be held criminally liable. For anything. Her employment contract had taken away her right to sue.

When you hear about frivolous lawsuits and tort reform what that really means is taking away your ability to make right some harm that’s been done to you. The goal is to create a place where big corporations cannot be held responsible, even if they leave your child disabled for life, kill your spouse, or set you up to be raped.

That’s class warfare. And we’re losing.”

We CAN fight back, readers! We have to elect PROGRESSIVE candidates to all possible political offices on Nov. 4! SHARE THESE 3 POSTS OF THIS SERIES WITH AS MANY OF YOUR FRIENDS AS YOU CAN, AND MAKE SURE THEY AND YOU ALL VOTE ON NOV. 4!



Posted in FREE SPEECH TV, Thom Hartmann, wealth disparity | Tagged | Leave a comment


Oct. 20, 2014  By Jack Jodell (in association with Fair and – see my Blogroll at lower right) 

Happy start of the week to you, readers! Today, we’ll begin this week with a new doubleheader from our podcaster extraordinaire, Mr. Burr Deming of the phenomenal blog Faur and Burr will treat us to podcasts entitled “Joni Ernst and Smoke of Mass Destruction” and “Three Candidates and a Scandal Make an Interesting Campaign”.

BURR DEMINGIn the first podcast, Burr gives us some background on Iowa’s wacky far-right Republican Senate hopeful, Joni Ernst.In my mind, this hopelessly deluded candidate has either been smoking too much from DICK Cheney’s neocon pipe of war, or has been watching way too much Fox “News.” Regardless, she is showing a startling lack of critical thinking. Consequently, Burr tells us, “As buildings smoldered and the dead were counted, policy makers knew who was behind it. The idea that a comic book villain in a cave on the other side of the world could have directed such destruction was hopelessly naive. Osama bin Laden could wait. They had to go after the one who sponsored him, who had to have sponsored him. Saddam Hussein had to pay.

What they possessed in confidence, they lacked in evidence. They knew what they knew, but they couldn’t prove it. America had yo attack Iraq’s dictatorship, but America had to be convinced. The convincing was done with manufactured evidence. They lied because they would not be able to convince us of what they knew was the truth.

It never crossed their minds that they were wrong. Now a candidate for the United Stats Senate has revealed evidence thjat the deception was not a deception at all.  

Joni Ernst (R-IA), has revealed new intelligence, unknown to ordinary citizens.

You have simply got to hear it.”  Podcast link:

burr demingIn this second podcast, Burr tells us of a Democrat who can’t win;  a reactionary, Tea Party-infested Republican who shouldn’t win; and a retired, scandalized moderate Republican who just might win a Senate race. He states, “Most general elections are zero-sum affairs. Winning does not depend on a candidate being liked. Winning depends on a candidate being liked more than the opponent. Sometimes that just means being disliked less.

Negative campaigns produce two negatives. Voters dislike the candidate running negative ads. Voters come pretty close to hating the opponent who is the target of negative ads, All things being equal, the candidate voters dislike wins over the candidate voters hate. A lot of voters hold their noses and vote for the nasty guy who ran the ad they didn’t like yo see.

That can be true of any campaign with two credible candidates. None of the above is not a real option. One of the candidates will win.

In South Dakota, a third choice might just kick over the chessboard.”  

Link to podcast:


Link to Original Article:



Posted in Tea Party-infested reactionary Republicans | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Oct. 18, 2014  By Jack Jodell.   

This is the second of three superb posts I am featuring here by Larry Beinhart (author of Wag the Dog) which first appeared nearly 4 years ago, yet still rings amazingly true today. I learned about this progressive author from watching the Thom Hartmann Program on Free Speech TV. Now, from a 2011  issue of the Huffington Post, here is Larry Beinhart’s excellent “Class Warfare – Part II”:                    

“Who are they? The richest one percent. And maybe the next nine percent. Who are we? All the rest. 

Which poses an interesting question: How has a tiny fraction of the population—which is diverse in many ways—arranged for their narrowest economic interests to dominate the economic interests of the vast majority? And, while they’re at it, endanger the economic well-being of our nation and bring the financial system of the whole world to the brink of collapse? 

They have money.

We have votes. Theoretically, that means we should have the government. Theoretically, government should be a countervailing force against the excesses of big money, take the long view for the good of the nation, and watch out for the majority, not to mention the poor and downtrodden.

What we actually have is one political party that is flat out the party of big money, and another party that sells out to big money.

Well, at least we have safety nets.

George Bush’s biggest regret is that he didn’t privatize Social Security. Why so eager? One reason is that it’s a big pile of money. Absolutely gigantic. It drives the bankers and brokers crazy that they can’t get their hands on it. The other is ideological hatred. Stephen Moore, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, contributing editor of theNational Review, and president of the Free Enterprise Fund, has written, ‘Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state. If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state.’

Where Bush failed, Obama has now taken the first step. His new tax deal includes cuts on employee contributions to Social Security. Which means defunding, weakening, and setting a new precedent—that Social Security contributions can be cut to ‘stimulate’ the economy.

The crash has put the states in trouble. Rather than raise taxes, or borrow, several have decided on cuts to Medicaid, the program that services several categories of low-income people: pregnant women, children under 19, the blind, the disabled, and those who need nursing home care. If you’re a poor kid who needs a liver transplant, you can beg, rob a convenience store, or die.

This shift to the right is a triumph of a long and very well-funded propaganda campaign. Every time I read an op-ed in the New York Times and it says it was written by a ‘senior scholar’ from the Hoover Institute or a ‘fellow’ from the Cato Institute, I want to scream, ‘Please replace that with ‘paid whore funded by a psychotic right-wing billionaire’!’ Which is significantly more accurate.

Conservatives, in turn, have a great influence on the mainstream media. ‘As conservatives decried the media’s left bias, they saw their institutions mentioned in various media almost 8,000 times in 1995, while liberal or progressive think tanks received only 1,152 citations’ (How Conservative Philanthropies and Think Tanks Transform US Policy, by Sally Covington, Covert Action Quarterly, Winter 1998).

Their influence on the national media affects the whole national dialogue. Now, of course, they’ve taken the think-tank concept to a whole new level: Fox News.

What about the media? Aren’t journalists—outside of Fox News—supposed to be objective?

In journalism there is no objective reality. There are only objectively collated quotes. Quotes can only come from ‘valid’ sources. A journalist cannot look at tax cuts and compare them to economic results—job growth, changes in the median wage, and the like—and report that tax cuts do not create jobs. They can only quote politicians, like Bush and Obama, who say that tax cuts are a stimulus, and then look for someone of equal authority—or at least significant authority—to say the opposite, then go Chinese menu, two quotes from column A, one from column B. But what if there are no heavyweights from column B ready to go on record?

Here’s where it gets stranger than strange. A whole field—economics—has lost its way. This became obvious when 99.7 percent economists (that’s a made-up, but probably accurate, figure), failed to predict the crash of ’08. Failed to diagnose the housing bubble, failed to understand the derivatives bubble, and failed to realize that world’s biggest banks were all bankrupt.  

After the crash, they failed to cry out against the tax cuts that brought it on. They failed to come up with a way to solve the problems. Which, based on history, seems fairly obvious: raise taxes and spend the money on useful things that private industry can’t or won’t do, like hiring people.

Paul Krugman’s theory, loosely paraphrased, is that economists suffer from physics envy, which is like penis envy, but dumber. Economics is a social science, which is soft. Social scientists look at physics, the hardest of the hard sciences. They see lots of math and formulas. They imagine that if they have lots of math, they will get hard too. In order to create mathematical models out of the messy complexity of human activity, they presume perfect markets. So long as the economy is stable, that frequently works.

Faith in the perfection of markets promotes deregulation and tax cuts. That destabilizes the economy. The economists, therefore, help create the disasters that don’t exist in their mathematical models.

Charles Ferguson, who directed the superb documentary Inside Job, is much more cynical. He believes that academic economists, like doctors who shill for pharmaceutical companies, are on the take from big-money interests. He does a marvelous job of demonstrating exactly that in the film.

Indeed, most of academia—except, perhaps, for English departments—have become part of the business, banking, military, and political nexus.

The ivory tower was supposed to be above the mucky world. That was one of our final defenses in the class war—a place devoted to knowledge for its own sake and truth just because it was true.

Now, universities pursue truths that someone will provide a grant for.

Tomorrow’s truth is what’s paid for today,”.

We MUST sweep Congress completely clean of all those government-hating, obstructionist, corrupt, Tea Party-infested reactionary Republicans who are aiding the wealthy but opposing the middle class and poor! The ONLY way to do this is to elect PROGRESSIVE candidates, and the ONLY way to do that is to VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE on Nov. 4!!!!! 

PART III WILL BE FEATURED IN MY THURSDAY, OCT. 23 POST – watch for it next week!


Posted in economics, Fox "News", FREE SPEECH TV, Tea Party-infested reactionary Republicans, Thom Hartmann, wealth disparity | Tagged , , | Leave a comment


Oct. 16, 2014  By Jack Jodell.  

In my last solo post on Oct. 9, I referenced to an article I heard of on the Thom Hartmann program by Larry Beinhart (author of Wag the Dog) which had appeared in the Huffington Post. This is another of Mr. Beinhart’s fine posts, and, though it is nearly 4 years old, it still rings totally true today and definitely deserves a second look! REMEMBER THIS AS YOU STEP INTO THE VOTING BOOTH ON NOV. 4, AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY, READERS! Here is “CLASS WARFARE”, by Larry Beinhart, which first appeared on  1/12/2011.      

“We’re in a class war.
It’s the corporations and the very wealthiest against all the rest of us.
We’re losing.

In 1962 the wealthiest 1% of American households had 125 times the wealth of the median household. Now it’s 190 times as much.
Is that a case of a rising tide lifting all boats, just a few of them a little bit higher?

From 1950 to 1965 median family income rose from $24,000 a year to $38,000 a year. That’s close to 4% a year, close to 60% over 15 years.
That’s a rising tide.
In 1964 there was a big tax cut. That’s when things started to slow down for average people. By the mid-seventies the rise of the middle class stalled.

From 1975 to 2010 median family income rose $42,936 to $49,777. That’s not quite 16% over 25 years, less than six-tenths of one percent per year.

Briefly, when taxes went up under Clinton, median income rose, peaked at $52,587 in 1999, and then, after Bush cut taxes, declined.

Keep in mind that this is median family income. In the fifties and sixties, family income was usually earned by a single person. Today, family income normally comes from at least two people.
At the same time, income for the richest soared.

In 1979 the richest 1% of Americans earned 9% of all US income. Now they earn 24% of all US income. One percent of Americans earn nearly one fourth of all the income in the country.

Then came the crashes of 2001 and 2008 and the recessions that followed.
The crash hasn’t changed anything. Things have become worse.
From 1990 to 2005, adjusted for inflation – the minimum wage is down 9%, production workers’ pay is up only over fifteen years 4.3%.

At the same time, the rich get richer:
Corporate profits are up 106.7%.
The S&P 500 is still up 141.4% since 1990.
CEO compensation is up 282%.

Call it transfer of wealth. Or call it class warfare.

What’s wrong with the rich getting richer?
Timothy Noah, in The United States of Inequality (Slate, 9/30/10), wrote,
‘Income distribution in the United States [has become] more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador.’

Take a look at that list.

Countries with wide income inequality don’t lead the world in research, technology, industry, and innovation. They’re unstable. They have large underclasses. They have high rates of crime. They have little opportunity.
In such countries the rich have disproportionate power. They take control of all aspects of society, especially government, the police, and the judiciary. They become self perpetuating.

If current trends continue, ‘the United States by 2043 will have the same income inequality as Mexico.’ (Tula Connell, Mar 12, 2010, AFL-CIO Now).
Countries with high levels of income inequality are third world countries.

Here’s how regular people can deal with cultures of high inequality.

The primary, and best, weapon is a progressive tax structure.
As people move up the income ladder they pay a higher rate at each rung. Unearned income -from dividends and capital gains – is taxed at least as high as earned income (money that people actually work for.)
Tax cuts for the wealthy mark, with great precision, the decline in fortunes of ordinary Americans.
Tax cuts for the wealthy mark, with equal precision, the increase in inequality.
We had a chance to slow the process by letting the last round, the Bush tax cuts, expire.
We’ve lost that round.

People can become educated and move on up.
Back in the 60’s, when I was growing up, New York City had free universities. The burgeoning SUNY system charged $400 tuition a semester. The minimum Regents scholarship was $400 a semester. If a student didn’t get one, he or she could easily earn enough to pay their tuition with a summer job. The same held true for most state university systems across the country.
Today, students have to borrow.
The median student debt for an undergraduate degree – forget about a doctorate, law school, and med school – is $20,000. The first, and truest, lesson you learn when you go to college is how to be in service to the banks.
We’ve lost that battle.
What does it mean?
‘Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
‘Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.’
(Understanding Mobility in America, April 26, 2006, Tom Hertz, American University)

Working people can organize and form unions.
Unions do more than raise wages. They improve working conditions and safety. They provide protection against abuse, intimidation, and wrongful dismissal. Non-union employers have to compete, partly to keep out unions, so the existence of unions helps everyone. Unions also have political power, they spend money and mobilize their members to vote.
Businesses have become very good at beating unions. And they’re getting better at it. According to Business Week, (“How Wal-Mart Keeps Unions at Bay,” 10/28/2002),’over the past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its ability to fend off labor groups.’
In the 1940’s a third of private sector employees were unionized. Now it’s down to just 7.2%.
Unions only remain strong in the public sector, where membership is 37%.
If you read the papers or watch the news, you will see an anti-public service union story almost everyday. These are the people who teach your kids, pick up the trash, clean the sewers, drive the buses and trains, they’re the police and fireman. The stories will tell you that their pension fund liabilities will bankrupt the states. That it’s unionized teachers who have ruined our schools. Charter schools – without unions – are the new favorite charity for billionaires.

When a country is, or becomes, a third world country, the other thing people can do is run. To some place richer and freer. Like America.
But when America becomes Mexico, where you gonna run to?”

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE to unseat the reactionary, Tea Party-infested Republicans on NOV. 4!!!!!



Posted in economics, Thom Hartmann, wealth disparity | Tagged , | Leave a comment


Oct. 12, 2014  By Jack Jodell (in association with Fair and – see my Blohroll at lower right). 

Happy Indigenous Peoples Day, everybody! This being Monday, I am happy to present another pair of a regular series of superb podcasts by our podcaster extraordinaire, Mr. Burr Deming. Burr is also the creator and chief author of the excellent and always thought-provoking blog known as Fair and Unbalanced. Please visit there and review his backlog of literally thousands of insightful posts!

Today, Burr focuses first on the latest Mitt Romneyisms. Of this pathological BURR DEMINGliar, Burr observes, “News reports, analysts, and pundits flooded networks and print media with accounts of the Romney interview. It was  ig news.

The most significant item was mentioned in the interview, but was lost in the coverage.  It was overridden by the hot, hot question raised by the interview. Will Mitt run again?

News focuses on the unusual. In another era, the confession would have dominated. Today, it is scarcely worth mentioning.”

Podcast link

Article link:

burr demingNext, Burr asks “How Has our President Been Doing? On this topic, he states, “My conservative friend was, as usual, blunt.

‘Mr. Deming, Do you find President Obama to be a man of his word who governs with integrity and without misdirection and outright lies?’  

It seemed a shame to avoid such a direct question from such a good friend. So I invited him for a quiet stroll through the record.”

Podcast link:


Posted in Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney's LIES, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment


Oct. 9, 2014  By Jack Jodell.

Americans have long deluded themselves with some pretty ridiculously false notions. One was that, by deposing a democratically elected leader in 1953 in Iran and installing the brutal pro-western, CIA puppet known as the Shah in his place, political and economic stability for the entire region would result. What we actually ended up with, of course, was the rise of radical Islamic fundamentalism, ongoing instability, and a huge increase in anti-American sentiment. Another delusion was that, by equipping Iraq’s brutal dictator Saddam Hussein with millions in military hardware, he would use it against Iran, become victorious and would defeat the fundamentalist regime in Iran. It was envisioned again that peace, stability, and prosperity would result. Instead, he squandered this aid by using it against his own people and nearly bankrupted his country by fighting to a bitter standstill against Iran. After this, rather than achieving political and economic stability there, we got three separate and very costly bloody Iraqi wars, political and economic upheaval there, and ongoing instability resulting in more and stronger anti-Americanism as well as  the creation of an even greater potential threat in the establishment of a fundamentalist state known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (aka ISIS).  An earlier and equally deadly delusion was the belief that, by giving millions of dollars in military aid to Osama bin Laden and his  Mujahideen as they fought Soviet occupation of Afghanistan 3 1/2 decades ago  we would magically buy their friendship and obtain freedom and lasting peace for that country. Instead, all we got was an inept, weak, and corrupt “government” in and around Kabul only; the installation of a brutal and fiercely anti-American  Taliban regime in most of the rest of that country; the horrible 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon; the loss of Americans’ civil liberties; an unprecedented surge in the power of our military / industrial complex; and perpetual warfare throughout the entire Middle East. And those are just some of the many foreign affairs delusions we have been operating under!

On the domestic side of the coin, we have also been deluded by a huge number of costly, false notions. One of these (perhaps the costliest of all) was that by slashing taxes on the very wealthy and by greatly reducing government regulations on corporations and big business, there would be a tremendous rise in the number of good paying jobs and that unequalled prosperity would occur all throughout every level of our economy. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, this absurdly errant economic theory was put into practice. Championed by the very flawed economist Milton Friedman, as well as foolish adherents of the hypocritical and equally flawed author Ayn Rand – like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney – (plus that rabid number ot blind extremists who now have become the Tea Party-infested, reactionary Republican Party), the adoption and implementation of this crazy “trickle down economics” theory has led not to more prosperity for most of the population, but instead to many disastrous and undeniably bad results. Among these are included the Great Recession of 2008, which COST the world economy untold MILLIONS of jobs; a record disparity in wealth here in America; the destruction of many labor unions (which has led to the elimination of any leverage American workers may have once had to better their wages and working conditions, as well as to the horrible and unjustifiable outsourcing of millions of good-paying American manufacturing jobs to cheaper, even slave wage labor markets outside our borders); the overall lowering of our standard of living for all but the wealthiest fraction of 1% of our population; a large tax cut provided the wealthy by both Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush; a rise in reckless and wasteful financial speculation on Wall Street by the rich which led to the crash of 2008;  a precipitous decline in our infrastructure; and a huge increase in the number of bought-out politicians in Washington, due to large gains in special interest lobbying  thanks to the  horrendous Extreme Court 2010 Citizens United decision. How can we recover from the disastrous consequences of following this disastrous economic path?

I learned one important way by watching the  Thom Hartmann Program on Free Speech TV recently.  Hartmann, who has long been critical of the trickle down economics theory so prevalent in Reaganomics, discussed how author Larry Beinhart had proven that anytime the wealthy’s tax rate is set at a point higher than 50%, the entire economy does better. By clicking on this link below, you will see and understand this plus more.  Should that link not work, try Googling Larry Beinhart-Huffington Post. Scroll down his listed entries until you come to one entitled Weird Tax Myths #2 – Recessions, Depressions and Tax Policy. This is clear and concise, well-documented proof which destroys the MYTHS that by giving the wealthy huge tax breaks, a large number of new, high paying jobs will be created and that “the Federal Government has never created even a single new job.” It even destroys another false notion: that, in times of depression or great recession, federal spending must also be reduced. (While you’re at it, read the other fascinating and relevant Beinhart pieces such as Class Warfare I, Class Wargare II, Class Warfare III, Weird Tax Myths #1- Tax Cuts Create Jobs, and all the others).These mean the lies that Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and reactionary Republicans have been bombarding us with ever since Inauguration Day in 2009, about how federal spending is too high and must be reduced at all costs, is patently false. As the information contained within the above link abundantly proves, the path that Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and all the mindless moron parrots over at Fox “News” advocate is DEAD WRONG and has actually slowed – rather than helped – our economic recovery!

For reasons so beautifully detailed by Larry Beinhart, this country desperately needs another New Deal. Our crumbling bridges, roads, train systems, and schools all demand immediate government aid! Government intervention NOW would create millions of new, GOOD-PAYING jobs; would increase tax revenue to pay for these programs; could all but eliminate poverty; would put a lot of money into the hands of those who most need it and would definitely spend it; and would create demand for even more goods and services which would revitalize the entire economy, at all income levels! What are we waiting for, and where do we start? The first and most obvious step would be to remove from office permanently as many nay-sayers and obstructionist, government-hating, reactionary, Tea Party-infested Republicans as possible on Nov. 4! We must also remove the timid, wishy-washy, corporatist conservative Wall Street Democrats who would stand in the way. We must replace all of these nincompoops with PROGRESSIVE candidates who are forward-thinking and visionary in their approach. That is the ONLY way we can implement an action-oriented, fairness and forward-oriented Congress which will enact legislation beneficial and fair to everyone, not just special interests! The next and most obvious step is to greatly increase the top marginal tax rate to at least 56% or greater, and to eliminate all loopholes. Making it a criminal offense with mandatory prison time for the wealthy who set up phony overseas tax shelters to hide their profits in would also be an absolute must. Finally, putting heavy restrictions on campaign donations and tightly regulating special interest lobbyists would help tremendously and is something we MUST concentrate on!

I realize these are revolutionary changes I am advocating here, but they are much-needed if we are to restore this country to a more egalitarian financial setting. To achieve this, though, we must CLEAN HOUSE in Congress on Nov. 4 by voting in a slew of true Progressive candidates. That is why we MUST Vote! Vote! Vote! VOTE!!!! For, if we can raise taxes on the rich to a point higher than what Reaganomics dropped them to, our wealth disparity will be much reduced, and you will definitely begin to see prosperity GROW!   

On Nov. 4, VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!!!!!                                             

Posted in commentary, Democratic Party, economics, extremists, Fox "News", labor unions, libertarians, lobbyists, Mitt Romney, Osama bin Laden, Politics, Progressives, reactionary Republicans, regulation, special interests, taxes, Tea Party, Tea Party-infested reactionary Republican Party, the 1%, THE MAJORITY 99%, Thom Hartmann, wealth disparity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Oct. 6, 3014  By Jack Jodell (kn association with Fair and – see my n;ogroll at bottom right).    

Happy Monday, readers! We’ll start this week with a new podcast from our podcaster extraordinaire, Mr. Burr Deming, who is also the creator and chief author of the excellent website known as Fair and  

It was startling these past few days to learn that gunshots had been fired through one of the family windows at the White House, and that, in a separate incident, one knife-wielding individual had actually made it inside as far as the Green Room before finally being apprehended! It was evidence that guns must be controlled and kept out of the hands of wacko, crazed fanatics, and that White House Security has become far too slack. In the post below, Mr. Deming reminisces about past attempts on Presidents’ lives, over-the-top partisan hatred, racism, and the important role the Secret Service plays in protecting a President. This is very serious food for thought for all who hate any President so much as to wish for that President’s violent death, especially for the hateful extremists who hate the current President so much!  

burr demingIn his own words, Burr tells us “The unraveling of the Secret Service protection of President Obama is a scary thing for those of us who remember the most painful moments of the 1960s, or the near murdwr of another President almost 20 years later. It now appears that two demented individuals came very close to repeating those searing events, not while our President was on a sidewalk or in an automobile. They both came closer than we knew at the time, both violating the People’s House. The White House is where the President and his family live, where the first couple sleep at night, where their children have played while growing up.

Gunshots have broken a window in the family living quarters. A man carrying a knife came very near. Had the First Family been delayed even a few minutes in leaving on a trip, and had the intruder turned left instead of right at a critical juncture, tragedy might have struck again.  In a literal sense, that’s close to home.”  

Podcast link: 

UP NEXT (on Thursday): “START TAXING THE RICH HIGHER AND WATCH PROSPERITY GROW!”                             
Posted in extremists | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment