"Check It Out" for Tuesday, February 24th

Check It Out has a number of offerings of interest.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon writes about the myth that Americans want bi-partisanship.

"...the NYT released a new poll (.pdf) which included findings showing what Americans think about "bipartisanship" -- and it is the exact opposite of what harmony fetishists continuously claim about Americans' supposed desire for "bipartisanship."  Consider, first, this question: 

Which do you think should be a higher priority right now for Barack Obama -- working in a bipartisan way with the Republicans in Congress or sticking to the policies he promised he would during the campaign?


Working bipartisan way -- 39%; Sticking to policies - 56%

"By a 17 point-margin, Americans think it's more important that Obama "stick to his policies" than try to dilute them in order to attract Republican support in pursuit of "bipartisanship."  It's not surprising that 39% want Obama to pursue bipartisanship.  There are still many people who prefer Republican policies and naturally want Obama to embrace those policies in the name of "bipartisanship" -- but the group that wants that is in the clear minority.  That's why Republicans lost so decisively in the last two elections.  

But even more revealing is this next question:

Which do you think should be a higher priority for Republicans in Congress right now -- working in a bipartisan way with Barack Obama or sticking to Republican policies?


Working bipartisan way - 79%; Sticking to policies: 17%

"That's actually an amusing result:  a huge majority of Americans want Congressional Republicans to be "bipartisan," but don't want Obama to be.  Overwhelmingly, then, Americans favor "bipartisanship" only to the extent that it means that Republicans support Democratic policies and abandon their own


"Put another way, the reason that Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats in the last two elections and overwhelmingly against Republicans is because they want Democratic policies and not Republicans policies.  They drove Republicans out of office in massive numbers because they don't want Republicans and their policies governing the country.  They want something different than Republican policies, meaningfully distinguishable from those policies -- "change." 

"The political establishment has never come to terms with, and the media establishment just refuses to acknowledge, how deeply unpopular and discredited the GOP is among most Americans in the wake of the eight-year Bush disaster.  Political and media elites don't want to acknowledge that because they lent their continuous support for eight years to Republican power, yet -- even with Bush gone -- it's scarcely possible to imagine how a major political party could be held in lower esteem among voters.

"Of course, nobody embraces this bipartisanship myth more than Democrats do, even when (perhaps especially when) they're in the majority.  When Republicans controlled the White House and Congress during most of the last eight years, demands for "bipartisanship" -- even from Democrats -- were virtually impossible to find.  Instead, Democrats were more than happy to meekly assume the complicit posture for which they became known, using their minority status as an all-purpose excuse as to why they couldn't stop -- and usually supported -- even highly unpopular Bush policies (such as the Iraq War).  Yet now that they're in the majority, "bipartisanship" suddenly becomes not only the supreme Beltway religion, but the battlecry of Democrats as well -- the phrase that justifies everything from embracing GOP positions to allowing flagrant Bush war crimes and other lawbreaking to go unpunished (as but one example: it's rather difficult to listen to Robert Gibbs and conclude anything other than that the administration is strongly considering the type of "Social Security reform" which people like Ponnuru have long advocated)."

A commentary in the Christian Science Monitor about Obama taking on the very rich who don't pay their fair share of taxes.

"The amount of money that goes into executive pockets is staggering. So is the amount that comes out of those pockets in taxes: precious little. America's super-rich are paying far less of their incomes in taxes than average Americans who punch time clocks. This is grossly unfair. The good news: Under Mr. Obama's new plan to cut the deficit in half, the very richest Americans will start paying something closer to their fair tax share.


"It's been a while since they've done that. As recent IRS data show, these elites are paying less in taxes – much less – than their deep-pocket counterparts used to pay. In 2006, the 400 highest-income Americans together reported $105 billion in income, an average of $263 million each.


"Having trouble visualizing that? To pocket $263 million a year, you would have to take home over $60,000 an hour – and work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for an entire 12 months. Sounds tiring, doesn't it? But most of the top 400 make their fortunes buying and selling assets, everything from stocks and bonds to the exotic paper that helped inflate the housing bubble.


"Uncle Sam taxes income from those assets – whether that income be capital gains or dividends – at a much lower rate than income from work.


"The current top tax rate on "ordinary" work income sits at 35 percent. But dividends and capital gains from the buying and selling of most assets face only a 15 percent top rate. That's why in 2006, America's top 400 paid just 17.2 percent of their $263 million average incomes in federal tax. 


"Millions of middle-class American families, once you tally income and payroll taxes, pay far more of their incomes in tax. One particularly striking example from billionaire investor Warren Buffett: In 2006, he paid 17.7 percent of his income in total taxes. His secretary, who made $60,000, paid 30 percent of hers."

Another view and review of best picture Oscar winner,"Slumdog Millionaire", at AlterNet: 

"Indeed, if anything, Boyle's magical tale, with its unconvincing one-dimensional characters and absurd plot devices, greatly understates the depth of suffering among India's poor. It is near-impossible, for example, that Jamal would emerge from his ravaged life with a dewy complexion and an upper-class accent. But the real problem with "Slumdog" is neither its characterization of India as just another Third World country, nor, within this, its shallow and largely impressionistic portrayal of poverty.


"The film's real problem is that it grossly minimizes the capabilities and even the basic humanity of those it so piously claims to speak for. It is no secret that much of "Slumdog" is meant to reflect life in Dharavi, the 213-hectare spread of slums at the heart of Mumbai. The film's depiction of the legendary Dharavi, which is home to some one million people, is that of a feral wasteland, with little evidence of order, community or compassion. Other than the children, the "slumdogs," no-one is even remotely well-intentioned. Hustlers, thieves, and petty warlords run amok, and even Jamal's schoolteacher, a thin, bespectacled man who introduces him to the Three Musketeers, is inexplicably callous. This is a place of evil and decay; of a raw, chaotic tribalism.


"After a harrowing life in an anarchic wilderness, salvation finally comes to Jamal, a Christ-like figure, in the form of an imported quiz-show, which he succeeds in thanks to sheer, dumb luck, or rather, because “it is written.” Is it also "written," then, that the other children depicted in the film must continue to suffer? Or must they, like the stone-faced Jamal, stoically await their own “destiny” of rescue by a foreign hand?


"Indeed, while this self-billed "feel good movie of the year" may help us "feel good" that we are among the lucky ones on earth, it delivers a patronizing, colonial and ultimately sham statement on social justice for those who are not."


And from Matt Renner at Truthout a report on a special hotline from Wall Street to the SEC to slow or stop government inspections.


"In a hearing which exposed failures by the government's financial police, Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-Massachusetts) highlighted the existence of a "hotline," which he said could be used by Wall Street firms to call off government inspectors. The existence of a "hotline" has been confirmed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), though its purpose has been disputed.

"During the hearing, Congressman Lynch said that current and former SEC employees complained to him about the existence of a "hotline" used by Wall Street firms to call directly to top SEC officials to "stop an investigation or slow it down."

    

" 'The other thing that I keep hearing from some current SEC and former SEC is that there is a hotline. I was told that senior SEC management had actually gone to a financial services industry conference and basically said to the firms out there  'If you feel that you are being too aggressively investigated, then I want you to call this office,'  Lynch said"


"The SEC - the federal agency tasked with policing the financial industry - has come under heavy criticism for incompetence and negligence in its role as the regulator of the giant Wall Street firms, the collapse of which has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars and continues to threaten the world economy. The most prominent example of SEC failure is the decades-long $50 billion Ponzi scheme - likely the largest financial fraud in history - orchestrated by Bernard Madoff. The fraud was identified by money manager and private investigator Harry Markopolos, the star witness at the February 4 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

    

"Markopolos spent nine years trying to get the SEC to investigate Bernard Madoff for a scheme that Markopolos claims he identified in "minutes" and proved in "hours" using basic financial modeling. Despite dogged communication by Markopolos, the SEC failed to thoroughly investigate Madoff. After Madoff admitted his fraud in December 2008, the SEC publicly stated that they had received evidence of Madoff's scheme and had failed to stop it."

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this post.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.