Greed and Political Influence of Corporations Makes U.S. Rate as More Corrupt

A recent online article,

http://www.aolnews.com/money/article/perceived-us-corruption-grows-amid-financial-scandals/19690043

notes that, in a ranking of countries of the world according to corruption (at least as defined in this study) shows the U.S. as having slipped to No. 22 (with No. 1 being the least corrupt). The U.S. is remarkably free of bribery in public office compared to other countries; but

the past year of headline-making investigations into Wall Street practices and associated government lapses has brought to light a narrative of unbridled greed that has undermined confidence in public institutions and stoked perceptions of corruption here.

Another factor, as noted in the article, is the increasingly unrestrained and covert role of private money in the political system -- especially since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January, which former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized as a threat to judicial independence and checks on campaign spending.

Update, May 27, 2011
Here I mention the Citizens United decision. I gave an incorrect impression, that that decision permits corporate contributions directly to candidates. It did not; rather it permits corporations to fund, for example, advertising on issues rather than candidates. (Thus we see TV "public service announcements" that advocate for or against a certain position or proposed law, and their sponsorship by corporations or industry trade groups is disguised by a statement such as "Paid for by Citizens for Such-and-Such.") However, in today's news, a judge has ruled that corporate contributions to candidates are legal.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

The Myth of "Big Government"

Two days ago, I think it was, a guy named Fox appeared on the PBS program "Nightly Business Report." This guy is the editor of the Harvard Business Review and so, presumably, a candidate for an MBA degree at Harvard--and MBA types are typically quite conservative.

He said that the idea of "big government," which the Tea Party types have been complaining about so vocally, is a myth. For one thing, he said, if you disregard the increase in spending for entitlements (e.g., Social Security, Medicare) and stimulus money, government spending has actually decreased.

But (as should not surprise any thoughtful person), many people like the Tea Partiers hold their opinions with a forcefulness which is in inverse proportion to their knowledge. In other words, the less they know, the more vocal they are.

And, like all zealous believers, their minds are made up and they don't wish to be confused with the facts.

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein

Why Should Americans Pay Any Taxes?

In the United States, it would be difficult for anyone to be unaware that it is election season. We are all being barraged by election/campaign messages—on our televisions, on our telephones, in our mailboxes.

Here in Illinois, our Democratic governor is up for re-election (this is the man who became governor when the infamous Rod Blagojevich was impeached, so this man was never elected governor on his own); and the man who was our state Treasurer is running for the Senate, to fill the seat once occupied by Barack Obama.

The State of Illinois is financially in crisis, with a huge budget deficit. Both the governor and the state Treasurer have said that, to rectify the deficit, our state income tax should be increased from 3% to 4%.

Probably no one likes to pay more taxes and, not surprisingly, Republicans are using pro–tax-increase statements by the Governor and the Treasurer as ammunition against them. Both the Republican party and the Tea Party keep railing against "big government" and politicians who want to increase taxes.

Now, let's remember that Bill Clinton left office with a surplus in the national budget. His successor, George W. Bush, cut taxes—and thus turned Clinton's budget surplus into a big deficit.

The conservatives who don't like tax increases also complain that the national debt is a "burden passed on to our children and grandchildren." They don't like the deficit but they don't like tax increases. Can you say "inconsistency"?

Also: the very same conservatives who don't like tax increases very generally support wars. The United States is fighting a war—no, two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are expensive beyond most people's imagination. How do we pay for these wars, or any war? If the government does not have enough revenue coming in, it prints money or it borrows-- for example, by issuing Treasury bonds. (The relationship between government borrowing and "printing money" is a complex matter which I won't go into here.) This adds to the national debt.

So I'd like to ask the anti-tax folks if they'd favor immediately ending those wars. I think I know what they'd say. No, cut federal spending somewhere else.

Several government missions, like protecting us from unsafe food and unsafe drugs, are already underfunded. We've seen outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. The E. coli outbreaks caused by ground beef can be laid at the door of the Bush administration, which managed to not implement a Congressional mandate to increase inspection of meat-processing plants.

To some of the extreme anti-government people, I'd like to ask, Do you want the government to no longer help ensure the safety of our food, water, air, medicine?

Would you like the government to not have fire trucks to come to your aid when your house is on fire? To stop building roads? (By the way, we already have a near-crisis of deteriorating infrastructure: roads, bridges, sewer lines, and so forth.) To not install traffic lights?

Sure, let's just rely on the food industry to police itself. We all know that we can absolutely trust large business to act in the public interest.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

U.S. Government Fostering Increase in Economic Inequality

In a recent blog posting I mentioned the increasing economic inequality among Americans. As an article in the online Daily Finance (see http://srph.it/bfM9fH) says,

The top 20% of Americans own 93% of all financial wealth. . . .

This article also says that in fact the inequality is increasing:

From 2002 to 2006, the top 1% of Americans received two-thirds of the gain in national income.

A recent article in Smithsonian magazine says,

In recent decades certain high-end occupation incomes grew rapidly, while wages for lower-income and middle-class workers stagnated.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[T]he rate of upward mobility has stagnated overall, as wages have largely failed to keep up with the cost of living. It is no easier for poor and working-class people to move up the socio-economic ladder today than it was in the 1970s; in some ways, it's more difficult.*

The Daily Finance article blames policies of the Federal Reserve system, specifically its keeping interest rates close to zero—which helps banks, who can borrow at an interest rate of almost nothing and then re-lend that money at 5%--thus making huge amounts of money. And this is at the expense of retirees and others who depend on interest from savings accounts and so forth for part of their income.

I credit the government and its economic policies with saving the U.S. and much of the world from total or near-total financial collapse in 2008; so I am not quick to criticize present government policies. But I have to admit that the Daily Finance article makes sense and is both sad and troubling. Furthering economic inequality is the last thing one expects from a Democratic administration.
_____________

*"Ready Set Grow," Smithsonian, July-August 2010, p. 67.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

What Do "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" Mean?

In some countries such as those in Latin America, "Left Wing" has meant favoring the rights, the voice, and the wages of workers and peasants, and maybe redistribution of land. "Right Wing," on the other hand, has meant favoring or preserving the power of those who've got money and influence—the wealthy, the traditional landowners.

These Latin American countries are agrarian countries with a very pronounced wealthy, landowning class, and a very definite, very poor class at the bottom (usually the indigenous peoples, who have faced egregious racial discrimination since Colonial times). And, in many counties elsewhere in the world, movements on the Left have struggled to further the rights and power of the poor, the masses—in opposition to entrenched monetary and political interests.

But obviously the United States is a different sort of animal altogether.

Well, maybe not. In the 1930s, Socialism was not a dirty word in the U.S., and you had a genuine socialist and even communist movement in the U.S. This was closely allied with the labor movement, which was still fighting for decent wages and working conditions for workers in mines and factories (and, by the way, often being resisted with clubs and occasionally bullets by the factory owners and their allies, the police).

And of course we have had our racial discrimination (and maybe gender discrimination), which has had the effect of causing one group to make less money than others.

And the United States has actually been moving in the direction of greater social inequality. Wealth is becoming more concentrated in the hands of the few at the top of the pecking order. This trend has been going on for a while, favored by tax policies which let the rich keep more of their money than they were able to when the scale of rates of our progressive income tax was steeper. (In other words, the "Bush tax cuts" that favored the rich, and no one has been able to argue that that was not the case.)

Here is a link to an article with some statistics on how wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few in the U.S.:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/disturbing-statistics-on-the-decline-of-americas-middle-class/19676292/?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec4_lnk2%7C178480&icid=sphere_copyright

In the U.S., for a long time the principal political party on the Right has been the Republican Party. They are devoted to keeping taxes on corporations and on wealthy individuals low. Despite their attempts to include a wider following, such as by appealing in religious conservatives, and their attempts to have people believe otherwise, they are still the party of a rich minority.

Yet, in terms of who identifies as Republican or who votes Republican, it's not that simple. Many people support the Republican Party who are not in that wealthy upper few percent. Not wanting to oversimplify—I grant it's not that simple—I think that many times these people fail to perceive where their interests lie.

In previous blog postings I've gone into how I think the moneyed interests manage to evoke the sympathy and support of a wider base. They fund the Republican Party and now the Tea Party. And, with their money, they support candidates, lobby Congress, and do a lot of what is essentially propaganda, though nowadays we call it "public service messages" on TV.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

How Corporations Are Controlling America

The trend continues for America to be controlled more and more by big business—who want everything to go according to what is in their interests—meaning their profits.

For a long time this was accomplished by lobbyists. Many industries have their trade associations who maintain offices in Washington because their chief activity is to marshal lobbyists who try to persuade Congressmen and Senators to vote their way. They do this with persuasion, which is completely legal; but also with favors to Congressmen like gifts, trips, and entertainment, which is not legal. Or with promising campaign contributions, which has become legal since the recent Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United.

Here is an article on how industry influence has prevailed over the interests of the public in the case of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/13/reform-of-toxic-chemicals-law-collapses-as-industry-flexes-its-m/

Here is a bit of the history of efforts to rein in industry influence on federal governmental regulation and law-making. Some progress to reduce the influence of corporate contributions to politicians was made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.

McCain-Feingold was upheld by the courts in a 2003 case known as McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission.

A later ruling (2007), known as Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., created a very big exemption—but the consequences of this supposedly are still up in the air.

Most recently (2010), Citizens United partly overturned McConnell. Now corporate contributions can once again have a great influence on our elections. The party or candidate who has the most money can buy the most TV commercials. That means more persuasion, which is likely to be effective with voters. And those corporate contributions go much more heavily to Republican candidates. (Maybe now some is going to Tea Party candidates, too; I don't have information on that.) Thus corporate money is achieving a more "business-friendly" America and will continue the process of turning our country toward the Right that got such a big boost when the likes of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito gained seats on the Supreme Court.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Money, Greed, Materialism, Capitalism

The other day I ran into someone I used to know a long time ago (he said something about it being 20 years). I'll call him N.

This guy is maybe the gentlest soul I know. And he doesn't "got" anything. N. doesn't own a computer, he told me, and I wasn't really surprised. Either he's poor or he's an apostle of the simple life. Maybe both.

How much in contrast with the avarice and acquisitiveness that's prevalent in our society. And those who've got the most (money, possessions, whatever)—how did they get where they are?

Look at British society. Who are their landed gentry? How did they get to be what they are, with their estates and very large houses? Often, by being more rapacious than their fellow man. Chances are, they were on the winning side of some battle and their winning side seized whatever they could: land, livestock, etc.

And in America? I think we're starting to see more clearly that there's a lot of greed in America. For the sake of their personal financial gains, some aggressive, hungry young bucks on "Wall Street" engaged in one or another type of chicanery—and imperiled the entire U.S.-–no, the world—financial order.

Large corporations often focus on their "bottom line" to the degree that they deceive the public, the consumer, maybe withholding information on the dangers of the drugs, toys, baby accessories that they make and sell.

I used to say that "business ethics" was an oxymoron. Well, I no longer would say that every nook and corner of the business world is immoral or amoral. Businesses have now and then been good guys. In particular, I've gained more respect for small business. The typical small business owner works very hard and takes risks—to make a success with selling his ice cream or soup or cupcakes.

And, some people have had a good idea. The right idea at the right time and place, or some useful invention. These people deserve the success that they achieve.

However, look at this: How many big business tycoons have started foundations? From earlier times, there's the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation. Now we have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. These foundations have enormous sums of money to give away. Also, many wealthy families and individuals give away money and in return get their names on auditoriums, libraries, and so forth--and get more gratitude heaped on them than just bronze plaques.

All the money that these companies and individuals and foundations have—where did it ultimately come from? From you and me, from our pockets. Now, a really revolutionary idea: How about these guys charge less for their products? Let them make less money, let you and me keep more of our money. Rather than Bill Gates having obscene billions of dollars to give away, maybe you and I could have kept some of that money, and then we could decide where it should go.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Driving More Safely and More Economically

Some more observations on how people drive, at least here in the big city and its environs.

There's no doubt that big-city drivers drive very aggressively. This may consist of various unsafe behaviors such as aggressively changing lanes and weaving in and out in an attempt to pass everybody out (this counts as road rage and could get you a ticket). Another such behavior is what is known as "late merging."

I think there are at least two things behind this aggressive behavior behind the wheel. One is a sort of competitiveness. I'm not sure if these guys and gals are trying to prove their driving skill or to show that they and their vehicles can get to some point down the road more quickly than the rest of us—which might be the same thing.

Another is just being in a hurry. I already wrote about how nowadays everybody seems to be in a rush--at least in the city; if one goes to some other areas, as I found for example in driving through Michigan's Upper Peninsula one time, there definitely is a slower pace to things. But in urban areas such as mine, everyone seems to live by the axiom that "time is money."

Besides being in the main unsafe, a lot of these behaviors also waste fuel. Saving gas, on the other hand, not only benefits your pocketbook, it benefits the environment. One way that I try to drive more economically: I try to look ahead and when I see a red light, even a block down the road, I slow down—unlike many drivers who seem to me to be foolishly racing to get to that red light. Remember that your brakes are basically turning your gasoline into heat energy that goes into the atmosphere; in other words, it's wasted energy.

Of course we have to brake sometimes. Maybe often. But intelligent driving can lessen how much fuel you are wasting at your brake rotors. I try to avoid braking from 30 or even 20 mph, so I try to coast to a stop whenever I can.

Do you brake very often? Maybe you're not aware of how much you brake, but someone driving behind you can see how often your brake lights come on—more often than mine do. If you brake an awful lot, chances are that you're following too closely. By keeping a greater distance between myself and the car ahead of me, I'm able to brake much less than some other cars I see on the road.

And another peril of following too closely: There wouldn't--logically there couldn't--be 30-car or even 100-car pileups if drivers gave themselves enough distance to stop in, rather than following too closely for conditions.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Second Thoughts on Polygamy

I want to take back what I said about polygamy in an earlier post. I just read a first-person piece by a woman who had been a "sister wife" in a polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) family living in Mexico, and that has opened my eyes; I now see polygamy as an evil.

Polygamy is so anti-feminist. It is like those old ideas of the Sultan's harem. Women seem to be by nature monogamous (or, more properly, monandrous) and usually desire only one spouse. They are jealous when they share their husband with others. So, it's torment for at least some of these wives in polygamous families. They endure it because their religion commands it; and they are made to believe it is God's will and the way to heaven (just one more example of the countless ways in which accepting religious doctrines can cause human grief).

The wife writing in this piece says that their family (with at least six wives) had "over forty" children--who hardly knew their father, since he did not have time to spend with each of his "families." Also, there was not enough money to go around for these six families.

All in all, I think it's pretty heart-breaking to read this. Of course it's all terrific for the guy. That's why it's so one-sided and unfair. I think now I agree with having it be illegal.

Here is the link to this article; it quite vividly depicts the plight of such a wife. Disclaimer: I don't endorse everything that Susan Ray Schmidt says in her article.

www.lemondrop.com/2010/10/19/escape-from-polygamy-a-former-sister-wife-shares-why-she-left/?icid=main|main|dl5|sec4_lnk1|178483

Copyright (c) by Richard Stein

Spoonerisms

Spoonerisms are a type of slip of the tongue where you switch sounds between two words. The error gets its name from a British man, a Canon Spooner, who would say things like "Pardon me, but you are occu-pewing my pie."

It's fun to spoonerize names. I recently read a book by Steven Pinker. If you spoonerize his name, it's Peeven Stinker (I should add that I actually admire Pinker, so this is not to disparage him at all). I used to know a male couple called Mark and Dennis. I called them Dark and Menace (not to their faces). We have a TV news anchor named Cathy Brock. Do you know what you get when you spoonerize her name? (Don't tell her I said that!)

It's fun to spoonerize other words when the spoonerism is a new word pair. For example, tile grout becomes trial gout. Pool cue becomes cool pew. Cold and flu season becomes fold and clue season. You know the vehicle called the Land Rover? If you spoonerize that name, you get a term for an avaricious South African: rand lover.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

A Few Bons Mots

Some of these need the scene set.

One time I was having lunch with a colleague from work. When we got our food, she asked, "How is that miso soup?" I said, "It's really not that good. I'd call it mi-so-so."

At another job, I arrived at a departmental lunch. I'd made a stop on the way, at a sale of kitchen gadgets. So I mentioned that I'd just bought a tomato corer. JoAnne asked, "Is it a hard corer or a soft corer?" I replied, "Well, it starts out soft, but if you fondle it. . . ," whereupon I got a poke in the ribs.

Unfortunately, I don't always think that fast.

And, for those of you who know a wee bit of Yiddish: When Star Trek was in first run, I told my sister that when the show was shown in Israel, they called it Star Schlep.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Parents, Beware! . . .Lest Your Actions Backfire

Sometimes parents' actions, with respect to their children, backfire. And sometimes, I think, the parents deserve it.

When I was a kid, I think I can say that religion was more or less forced down my throat. I was made to go to Hebrew school (two hours a day, after regular public school, four days a week), even though I was terrified of my Hebrew school teachers which caused me stomach aches that landed me in the hospital. But attending Hebrew school had to be done, so that I could have a Bar Mitzvah. (I didn't want to have a Bar Mitzvah, but, in my parents' eyes, how could a boy not have a Bar Mitzvah?) Also, where religion was concerned, I felt I saw hypocrisy in my parents, that they were saying, Do as we say, not as we do.

So I later rejected the ancestral faith pretty completely. I absolutely don't observe it at all--although, to be completely honest, my parents' actions don't get all of the blame for that. But I think my parents richly deserve that outcome.

In another example, when I was a kid I was into photography (I still am). I would use my mother as a photographic subject. So, maybe as a birthday present, my mother gave me a book called How to Photograph Women.

After she gave me the book, my mother discovered that the book had pictures of naked women (I was an adolescent at the time, I believe). Well, one day when I was not around, Mother seized the book—and cut out all the pages with the nude photos.

I think that that's screamingly funny when you consider that I grew up to be gay. I mean, what were the photos supposed to have done to me, make me feel lust for women? Of course I can't say that not having those pictures made me gay; but in hindsight, maybe my mother might have wished that she could have fostered lust for naked women in me.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

The Funny Foods We Eat

We never think about this, but some of our everyday foods are definitely rather oddball, from the botanical perspective.

Take corn. Our corn, or maize, as it's called in much of the world, is very much a man-created plant. Nothing very similar to our familiar corn exists in the wild. In fact, the field of corn genetics is a whole specialty within botany. What is clear is that indigenous American peoples—think Aztecs and Mayans and their predecessors—developed corn from a plant that had a much smaller ear. There is a wild plant called teosinte that has been considered a likely candidate for the ancestor of corn. Among the many ways in which native New World civilizations have usually not gotten the credit they're due is that we overlook the great achievement in plant breeding that resulted in the modern corn plant that we take for granted.

Another perhaps odd food is the banana. Is there any other fruit that is similar to a banana? Did you know that a banana plant or tree only produces one crop of bananas in its lifetime? Then it's cut down and a new tree planted. You'd think that, with the time and trouble involved, that bananas would be scarce and expensive, whereas bananas are a rather cheap, plentiful, and very healthful food source. (They are high in potassium, which we need plenty of, because it can counterbalance the excessive sodium that's common in our modern diets.)

Also, you know those stringy things that you see on a banana when you peel it? I think I read recently that they are analogous to the substance in the inner bark of a tree that carries nourishment for the tree.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Reagan (and Bush) on Energy and Consumer Protection

News has it that President Obama is installing solar energy-producing panels on the roof of the White House.

This item, and earlier ones, reminded us that President Jimmy Carter had also installed solar panels on the White House roof—and then Ronald Reagan removed them. Why would he do this, when it must have cost taxpayers money to remove them? My guess is, simply to thumb his nose at environmentalists.

Also, as is not very well known, on the day of his inauguration, Reagan froze all funding of alternative energy research by the Department of Energy. I can tell you that a lot of alternative energy research that is being called for today or has recently been started up, was going on in 1981 when Reagan halted it. On the smaller scale, Reagan's move cost many jobs (including, ultimately, mine—so yes, I have a personal axe to grind here) but it also set back the efforts to find new energy sources by 30 years.

Many of the bad things that Reagan did (okay, bad at least from my perspective, or any liberal perspective) were not publicized at the time. Reagan was very popular—remember, he was called "the Teflon President," and the Press was afraid to criticize him because of that popularity.

For example, he gutted federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA that were intended by Congress to safeguard our food, water, air, and so forth. He appointed as heads of these agencies industry-sympathetic people or even industry insiders who had no intention of allowing these agencies to function effectively.

Similarly, Congress passed laws to beef up (no pun) government inspections of food-processing plants. Had these measures taken effect, they might have prevented some of the recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella and E. coli from eggs, peanut butter, and so forth (there have been many in the last few years). But the stiffer inspection schedules were never implemented, because of eight years of foot-dragging by the Bush administration.

Update, August 26, 2011
I recently learned that Rodger Mudd, of CBS TV news, did at the time report on Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House. It was a very brief news item and didn't mention any possible explanation.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

How to Live to Age 107

Today we interview George Crumbum, who, at 107, claims to be the oldest man in the developed world.

Old Leftist Curmudgeon: Mr. Crumbum, to what do you attribute your long life?

George Crumbum: Eating pepper.

OLC: Eating pepper?

GC: Yeah. I swallow two tablespoons of ground pepper every day. Sometimes I just chew on whole peppercorns. They're crunchy, and it's a bit of variety.

OLC: And you just swallow the pepper? Isn't that a bit difficult?

GC: Nah. I wash it down with beer.

OLC: Beer?

GC: Yeah, but not just any beer. It's gotta be lite beer. None of that yuppie microbrew crap, or dark beer, or anything like that.

OLC: So you like lite beer.

GC: Yeah. If your beer don't taste like piss, it don't do you no good. Trust me. My age is proof of that.

OLC: Any other tips for readers who'd like to live as long as you, Mr. Crumbum?

GC: Yeah, get plenty of sex. And cuss out your children or your neighbors or anyone else who's handy. Ya gotta do some cussin' every day.

OLC: Well, I'm sure that letting it out is good advice. But do you really have a lot of sex at your age, Mr. Crumbum?

GC: Well, I think I do. I admit, it's been getting hard to tell what I been dreamin' from what's actually happened.

OLC: Mr. Crumbum, thank you for a most interesting interview. And may you live for another 107 years.

GC: [Evil chuckle]

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein