The Big Pay-Off

Everything to do with money and finance is sooner or later seen to be branches from the same tree. Everyone is free to join in the wealth of America, but remember that there are also Darwinian processes to cull out the "unfit": sub-prime mortgages being only the most recent. Sub primes will destroy the mortgager and the last mortgage holder- being essentially a game of musical chairs that, when the music stops, the bomb in the bag goes off and the guys left holding the bag are removed from the competitive field. Campaign Finance is obviously the buying of influence. It is also, therefore, the peddling of Influence. It is clear that since the middle class and poor have no funds of money to buy influence, the influence being bought will only represent their interests by a happy accident. The clearly observed road of the last quarter century has been that Politicians have been purchased by groups that wish (1) increased military activity, and (2) decreased social programs of any nature to assist the less wealthy. Thus we had Katrina in 2005. Read Mr. Houssein-zadah's article Hurricane Katrina and War-what Is the Connection? http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ismael_h_070914_hurricane_katrina_an.htm "...It is true that some disasters cannot be prevented from occurring. But, with proper defenses, they can be contained and their destructive effects minimized. Katrina was not; it was not “because of a laissez-faire government that failed to bother to take warnings seriously,” and because of a skewed government fiscal policy “that is stingy when it comes to spending on public goods but lavish on armaments and war.”[1] More fundamentally, because, driven by powerful special interests, the government has since the advent of Reaganomics in the 1980 been steadily diverting non-military public spending to military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby bringing about a steady erosion of the infrastructural defense systems against natural disasters." "...Not only did the Bush administration and its corporate allies in the Congress not finance urgent requests for the repair of the deteriorating public infrastructure, but at times the administration even punished dedicated civil servants who insisted on the necessity of such repairs. For example, Mike Parker, the former head of the Army Corps of Engineers, “was forced to resign in 2002 over budget disagreements with the White House.” Parker drew media attention (and the White House's ire) in 2002 by telling the Senate Budget Committee that a White House proposal to cut just over $2 billion from the Corps' $6 billion budget request would have a "negative impact" on the national interest. After Parker's Capitol Hill appearance, Mitch Daniels (former director of the Office of Management and Budget, which sets the administration's annual budget goals), wrote an angry memo to President Bush, writing that Parker's testimony "reads badly . . . on the printed page," and that "Parker. . . [was] distancing [himself] actively from the administration." Parker “was forced to resign shortly thereafter.”[4]" "...Champions of war and militarism tend to justify their capricious escalation of wars of choice on the grounds of “national security.” Yet, by hollowing out national treasury in favor of military spending at the expense of non-military public spending, they have created enormous economic insecurity and social vulnerability in the face of natural disasters, as painfully experienced by the victims of Hurricane Katrina. They have also created more political insecurity, both at home (by creating an atmosphere of fear and anxiety akin to an emergency or national security state) and abroad (by creating more opposition to the imperial policies of the United States and, therefore, adding to the ranks of Al-Qaedeh, for example). The fundamental moral of Katrina disaster is unmistakable: contrary to the dogma of neoliberalism and/or supply-side economics, governments bear vital responsibilities. These include provision of essential services and critical public goods that individuals and the private sector would not provide. They also include the building of a robust public infrastructure that is necessary for a vibrant economy and a civilized society." Someone said this was Bush-bashing. I mean, how can one be accused of bashing someone like the President? I suppose if one ran on and on about this and that, a little war here, a little oversight there, a little Harriet Meyers on the Supreme Court over yonder, one might appear to be bashing Bush. I think the record speaks for itself. I think Mr. Bush's acts speak for themselves. I think Mr. Cheney's acts speak for themselves. There is no ambiguity, there is no obscurity; we know them for what they are.