A MODEST PROPOSAL:

For Improving The Fairness Of Elections And

Making Our Governmental System More Responsive To Citizens.

Yes, our representative democracy is the best system of government that humans have so far derived. But, as almost any American – and probably a goodly number of foreigners – can tell you, there are lots of problems with the government in America, and ways that it doesn’t work.

The Tea Party movement shaking up politics recently is only the latest incarnation of populist revolt against a government that is often revolting. Its root is extreme dissatisfaction with government-as-usual, circa 2010. True, populist movements usually tend to be leftist, not conservative. But, both left and right will agree: that “system” still isn’t perfect by a long shot. But, there is another layer of discontent that hasn’t been seen before: increasingly, voters no longer trust their representatives. The system, yes; the individuals, not so much.

While a complete solution to this problem has many sections, I want to deal with the section of elections themselves. Militarists often say that fighting wars is how we keep our freedom. That is what differentiates a democratic nation from any other. Any third-rate dictatorship can go to war; I say that voting is what keeps us free. Our electoral system once was the model for the world. But, here at home, the way we elect our representatives – at ALL levels of government – is no longer to be trusted. This is especially true after the Supreme Court election of 2001 and the Ohio debacle of 2004.

I think it’s really the system that needs changing. It began fine, but that was 200 years ago. Lately, it has been eroded tremendously by the forces of capitalism over democracy. So, how can it be made better?

## Number-one-with-a-bullet item to improve our imperfect representational government is very simple, but not at all easy:

GET THE MONEY OUT OF IT.

To do that needs two things:

~ A certain number/amount of political ads should be FREE – given to The People by the owners of OUR radio and television frequencies. Cable companies should also be included here; basically any business entity that gets paid for delivering political advertising to the voters. Print media, let’s face it, is becoming more and more marginalized, but wouldn’t it be nice if newspapers would join in the program by also contributing some political ads.

Obviously, this is no small thing. That is why I titled this essay “A Modest Proposal;” I know my Swift. In a land that wasn’t controlled from government on down by those corporate interests, this would be easy to do. In our US of A however, it’s virtually impossible. But, let us dream, shall we. Let us be Utopian and just imagine that this small thing could get done.

~ A measure to limit the duration of political campaigns (like they have in un-enlightened Europe)

to 90 days before Election Day.

Used to be, the “election season” lasted from the political conventions in August to Election Day in November: about 12 weeks. Or, to look at it another way: one tri-mester. Recently however, the time of political candidate news and ads seems never-ending. Remember, Barack Obama campaigned virtually non-stop for two solid years.

#2 That anachronistic Electoral College has GOT to go!

(There's a chant for you: “Hey-hey, ho-ho/that anachronistic Electoral College has GOT to go!” Doesn’t scan worth a damn, but it sure makes sense!)

Historically, we know and understand why the Electoral College was instituted. Remember that ours was the world’s first democratic experiment after centuries of monarchist rule. While government “by the people” was a laudable ideal, the founders were not really sure it could genuinely be done. So they created the Electoral College as a buffer between the voters and the actual government.

Now, of course, the Electoral College is a barrier rather than a buffer. Think about this: Why is it that the “greatest representational democracy the world has ever known” is the only democratically governed nation that has anything like it?

#3 And, speaking about representation, we have absolutely GOTTA get rid of any and all effects of Gerrymandering. There must be a concerted nationwide effort to level the fuckin' playing field so the best candidate – as chosen by a true representation of the voters – can win. (See ‘NO to “open primaries”’ below.)

#4 And, while we're at it, how about proportional representation instead of the un-democratic winner-take-all system we now have in both federal and state legislatures. That’s the way representative government is structured in most European nations, and some other parts of the world. If there are five parties, they split-up the seats according to the percentage of votes each party’s candidate(s) get. So, Republicans might have 45% of the seats, and Democrats 35%. Then, Greens might have 5%, Libertarians another 5%… and so on. This affords a real incentive for folks who are not in agreement with one of the two “major parties” to get involved in the political process. Then I could stay registered Green all year long and actually have a true representative (or more than one!)

#5 MAKE VOTING HARDER, NOT EASIER

It is generally accepted that the liberal thing to do is to encourage as much participation in the voting process as possible. I am actually against universal suffrage. Allowing all citizens to register – at motor vehicle offices, outside of grocery stores and wherever – actually weakens the democratic process.

Although I am a social liberal – to the point of being a raging radical – I do NOT support the idea of making voting so simple that everyone can do it. Voting needs to be more important than that. Voting needs to be so VITAL that everyone will WANT to do it – nomatter how difficult it may be. I much prefer a system where people would first prove their worthiness to vote by performing some type of public service. Just like the idea that children should be given chores to do for their allowance, rather than just receive the dough with no responsibilities, I think that voting is a privilege of Democracy that needs to be earned rather than merely conferred.

Thomas Jefferson, my personal favorite of the founding fathers, wrote that the basis of a strong democracy is an informed electorate - the operative word here being informed.

Too many people who are blinded by “their right” to vote seek to exercise the franchise without the corresponding responsibility. Constituents who are not familiar with the issues and candidates actually do a disservice and harm the democratic process by voting. Those who insist on voting without knowing what they're voting about are actually part of the problem with our system. These are the people that are swayed by the mis-information, outright dis-information, speechifying and sound bites that form political campaigns in our time. I think it's perfectly OK to not be into politics - BUT, if a person is not familiar with the issues and candidates, s/he should not vote. The great philosopher and anti-war crusader Bertrand Russell wrote, "The problem with the world is that the stupid are cock-sure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

A likely consequence of limiting voting rights to those who earn it is that the quality of political advertising will rise tremendously.

Voting has become more of a nuisance than a privilege; something left to the last minute by a large percentage of the population – those who even bother to vote at all, that is. And that percentage is continually one of the smallest in the world of democratic nations: only 56.8% of voting-age population in the presidential election of November 2008.

#6 The Election DAY itself:

While I want to make voting more of a privilege, rather than a “right”, so it isn’t taken for granted, I want the actual act of casting ballots to be made easier for all.~ Expand mail (and, eventually, on-line) voting. The Twenty-first Century is already one-tenth gone; how about our actual electoral process moves into the 21^st before it gets much older. ~ Move Election Day offa the damn Tuesday (again, like they have in other countries).

The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the day of election, only specifying that it be the same day throughout the country. Congress decreed Election Day as “the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in the year before the President's term is to expire” in 1845. The United States was largely an agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicles to the county seat to vote. Tuesday was established as Election Day because it did not interfere with the Biblical Sabbath or with market day, which was on Wednesday in many towns. Those reasons made sense in 1845; they no longer do.

While some states declare Election Day a civic holiday or require that workers be permitted to take time off from employment without loss of pay, the real answer is to move Election Day to either Saturday or Sunday. Or, it could be a Monday or Friday to make a three-day weekend (though this, of course, would not be welcomed by the various business interests that already think there are too many non-work days.

OTHER ANCILLARY ISSUES

## NO to term limits.

Term limits laws were probably the first manifestation of the voters loosing trust in their lawmakers. But actually, it mirrors the electorate’s distrust of itself. It’s like an addict saying ‘stop me before I drink again’ except we’re saying ‘prevent me from voting for that crooked lying bum again because I can’t stop myself’.

I don’t like the concept of political term limits either. It’s a lazy way of doing things; a draconian, zero tolerance thing. It throws out the baby (good representatives) along with the bathwater (crooked lying bums). Anyone who believes in the very democratic ideal of “No Limits” should understand that term limits is actually a limit on WE, THE PEOPLE because it limits our power to have who we want to have in office.

## NO to “open primaries”.

Open primary measures talk about encouraging greater participation in the electoral process – especially in those that aren’t presidential election years – and electing “more moderate” state legislators. But they seek to do BOTH these things in a roundabout fashion that really does nothing to further either goal.

Just because folks in one party – either major political party OR minor fringe group – can vote for another party’s candidate, doesn’t mean any more of them (US!) are gonna come out and vote than already do. And even if more people were to go to the polls doesn’t mean they (WE) are gonna elect people any less into their own party than we now do.

“Open political primary” is an oxymoron; the parties are doing something that is closed: a club is voting on their members. Independents, by definition, don’t get to participate in the games of clubs they don’t wish to be a part of. That’s what general elections are for.

The fault lies not with the primary system, but with the political fact of gerrymandered districts. Trying to “fix a problem” that doesn’t exist in one system will do nothing to alleviate the real problem in the other system. If “open primary” proposals were to be approved, what would happen in those districts that have been gerrymandered to be “safe” for one or the other major party? Can you imagine the top two vote-getters being from the SAME party? I can, easily; mark my words, it will happen.

There we have it, folks: a modest proposal that could go a long way to really allowing America to regain its position as the truly premier democratic nation on this great green planet. Of course, I’m not holding my breath until any of these measures is adopted. But it’s nice to dream.

Just celebrated my B-day earlier this week (64 if you must know) and, in honor of the fact that I just thought of it, I hereby declare the new feature titled “Euphemism of the Week” (abbreviated EoW, and pronounced “yeow!” The worse the euphemism, the more prolonged the yowl.)

EoW #1

In a story about illegal immigrants receiving in-state tuition to California state schools, Constance Carroll, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District said that 1100 out of 140,000 students got the in-state rate:

In a story on ThinkBig.com, which bills itself as the website of “dangerous ideas”, Steven Hawking

is quoted that " the long-term future of the human race must be in space."

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand years,” or so that Hawking says it will take man to make the planet uninhabitable. (http://bigthink.com/ideas/21570)

~~≈≈÷+++÷≈≈~~

Steven, you're a great theoretical physicist and a real source of inspiration to every one about overcoming handicaps, but... tell us something we don't know!

Ever since even before Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury and Robert A. Heinlein, everyone with half-a-head in science knows that.
Readers of Amazing Tales in the 1930s knew that.
Albert Einstein knew it.
I've been reading Sci-Fi since about 1960; I know it.
Gene Roddenberry - bless his imagination! - knew it.
The future of the Human Race - if it still has any - is in outer space.

The simple reason, as noted in the story, is that we've totally plundered and fucked-up this planet, we have to begin again with a brand new world. That's right, a disposable world - use once and just throw it away - like one of those evil alien races from StarTrek. Or the Death Star in Star Wars, only much, much slower... and leaving a dead husk of a world in our wake.

Yes, Hinduism was right after all, Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds is real... and he is us.

And, as also pointed out, while the planet will still orbit our star until it goes nova, Homo sapiens won't be around to see it. We'll have long-ago caused our demise by simply doing what we've been doing progressively better every year: poison our planet.

~ from every morning and evening traffic report on radio or TV:

“…You’ll encounter pockets of slowing on the freeway….”

~ This description is from a story that was translated from Spanish, hence the slightly crooked English

Carlos noticed her ever since they presented themselves at the admission exam in 
the same classroom. 
She was tall with straight blond hair. Her eyes were the color of honey. She always 
dressed in a conservative way, avoiding to show her body, but even this way people 
noticed that it was deviously curvilinear.

It has long been a general point of admiration for the Framers of the Constitution that they not only had the wisdom to create that worthy document, they also foresaw the future need to revise it. Times change, they knew, and the Blueprint of our Nation had to be able to change and grow along with them. In the 219 years since the Constitution was ratified, it has been amended only 27 times, and one of these repealed a previous amendment.

The 14^th Amendment, along with the 13^th and 15^th, was enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War in order to ensure that all former slaves were granted U.S. citizenship, and that they would have all the same rights and protections granted to all other citizens.

While more often cited for its “equal protection under the law” clause, the 14^th begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the Untied States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

It seems simple, straightforward and beneficial. However, as with so many other laws and decisions, there are unintended consequences brought about by the passage of time and changes in laws and circumstances.

At the time of the Civil War, immigration laws did not yet exist. It was a time when the boundaries between nations were still changing – especially in Europe. People could, and often did, cross national borders unimpeded with absolutely no legal ramifications. And the United States was still considered an upstart among nations; just one of many second-rate countries, not yet the foremost nation in the world.

But today, there are tens (or hundreds) of thousands who come to the U.S.A. solely for the purpose of birthing a child who would then be a U.S. citizen. After securing a birth certificate from the U.S. hospital, many of these children then go with their parents back to their country of origin. Their U.S. citizenship then becomes like money in the bank if they should need work or medical care. Due to the simple fact of proximity, most if not all, of these “automatic citizenship” children are from Latin-American nations. Recent news reports have uncovered cartels in China that arrange for "brthing vacations" bringing close-to-term women here to spend a couple of weeks - and also have their babies.

Also, there is the concurrent situation of the millions of immigrants who come to the United States illegally – usually seeking better economic conditions and higher wages for work – who give birth to children who are automatically U.S. citizens. What happens to these minors when the parents are caught, detained and finally deported as illegals? Currently, if they do not have a relative who is a citizen or legal resident, they are placed in foster care. Perhaps these children should not be automatically conferred with citizenship. Then, they would simply stay with their parents when deported rather than destroying a family.

It is not my intent to argue the larger issue of immigration, either legal or illegal. Nor should this essay be mistaken as an indictment of the hard-working people who take advantage of the economic opportunity afforded them in coming here. After all, this is the same reason that brought so many of our  - yes, mine and your – ancestors to these shores. While the immigration debate is a larger part of this question, in this article I am only interested in this one small segment of the issue. The question is this: 

Should all children born on US soil automatically be granted citizenship under the
14^th Amendment – nomatter what the legality of their parents may be? Or should
a revision to the “automatic citizenship” clause of the 14^th Amendment be explored?  

It may be that a simple legal interpretation of the 14^th Amendment is all that is needed. Neither courts nor Congress has ever specifically decreed that those born here of illegally immigrated parents are indeed citizens. The phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction” usually holds as subject to our laws, but can easily be taken to mean those who owe allegiance to no other nation. Therefore, a citizen of another country would not be subject to our jurisdiction.

The Birthright Citizenship Act (HR 1868) would eliminate automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal aliens.

The bill would establish that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14^th Amendment awards birthright citizenship only if one of the parents is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien in the United States; or (3) an alien on active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

I think I would support this bill. I think this clarification deserves to at least be debated in Congress.

If you agree, contact your congressional representative and let her/him know.

Also, please advise parents that when they receive an invitation to a child's party -- or any party, for that matter -- to RSVP!                             ~~ from a recent “Dear Abby” column

There seems to be oodles of confusion about what "RSVP" means. Some people think it means they should respond only if they plan to attend the gathering. But, etiquette dictates that if a prospective guest cannot attend, that he or she contact the issuer of the invitation and offer regrets. This is only common courtesy.

So, when does one respond?

“Répondez s'il vous plaît" is a French phrase that translates simply to “Please respond.” That is, will you be coming to the event or not? It is standard practice to reply to an RSVP request whether confirming attendance or declining.

Not “respond if you’re coming,” not “respond if you’re NOT coming.” It means, “Please tell me one way or the other.”

So many people seem to not know what RSVP means, AND more and more young people actually do not even know the phrase. This is documented by Beloit College on their 12^th Annual Mindset List. A compilation done each year to remind teachers that some references they use may not mean anything to their increasingly younger charges, this year’s listing includes – you guessed it – RSVP. Ron Nief, one of the creators of the list, notes that part of the youngest generation’s unfamiliarity with the term may be a result of the increasing level of informality in our society. I also think that the lessening use and influence of French idioms in our everyday speech has much to do with it.

This is not to berate or blame anyone for a simple lack of knowledge. Society changes and language changes along with it.

But, since so many people seem to think that - whatever it means! - it doesn’t apply to them, a change must now be made. (Actually, a change is way overdue!). So, let’s get on with the change to make communication clearer.

I would like to suggest that the phrase “RSVP” hereby be retired from our American lexicon.

Instead, I propose we write, simply:

“Are You Coming? – Yes or No"

This phrase, like the one it aims to replace, acronyms conveniently: AYCYN; to be pronounced “A-SIN”.

What it doesn’t have is the word “please”. This is intentional. Since saying it in French doesn’t seem to work with today’s “increasing level of informality”, let’s just stop saying and, instead, gently demand an answer.

I invite any- and everyone to hereby erase the antiquated RSVP from your usage and begin using AYCYN in all polite communications.

Yes, the terrible temblor tragedy in Haiti is a monumental disaster and yes, the outpouring of human support from all parts of the globe are wonderful. The amount of money being donated by governments and individuals alike is admirable. The attention of many non-governmental organizations and the number of (mostly volunteer) aid workers who have gone to Haiti from countries large and small, rich and not-so-rich is also marvelous. I am not writing about running any of that down.
But I do think that by simply being REactive to calamity, the world is not doing all we can to aid those who need it the most. With a little imagination and foresight, we can capitalize on a great opportunity to be PROactive – to save lives by anticipating the conditions that turn a mere bad situation into a full-fledged natural disaster.
Just imagine for a moment if Haiti was not the pit of poverty that it unfortunately is. Imagine if the economy was only third-world poor instead of disastrously dominated by deprivation. If the people of Port-au-Prince lived in just marginally acceptable hovels instead of cheap, unreinforced concrete structures. It could have made the difference in magnitude of tragedy between merely awful and the complete catastrophe it turned out to be.
After all, the 6.7-magnitude Northridge California earthquake in 1994, and the famous Loma Prieta quake (magnitude 6.9) of 1989, each killed fewer than 100 people.
The simple difference is poverty. The world has known about Haiti for decades – the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere and easily one of the poorest in the entire world. It was a calamity just waiting to happen; if not an earthquake, it might have been one last hurricane….
But, what about all the other areas in the world that are also disasters just waiting to happen? We’ve seen this scenario in so many places – from Bangladesh to Banda Ache to New Orleans’ Ninth Ward, where people live in poverty, loss of life and property are greatest when disaster strikes.

What I am proposing is simply a preemptive strike on disaster. Instead of waiting until the earthquake (or the flood, or the cyclone, or the volcanic eruption) happens, nations and NGOs the world over could coordinate efforts to help an economically depressed country before the event happens.
I’m not talking about disaster preparedness, like we have in SoCal in case of an emergency. I’m suggesting a full-on response to an emergency but before the emergency occurs. The kind of response that provides people with the bare necessities – food, shelter and clothing – but actually geared to providing what people need for living. Maintenance necessary to keep the power and water delivery infrastructure operational, for example. And especially the shelter part. Strengthen structures to make them sturdy enough to just not fall down when the disaster hits.
Perhaps such an effort could be coordinated by an agency of the United Nations. Certainly that organization would seem perfect for such a project and task, even with some spectacular failures such as the ongoing crisis in Darfur, Sudan. Perhaps a NGO like DERA, the WHO, or the organization that produced the series of LiveAid shows. Perhaps declaring an emergency in one area each year and treating it like an already-happened emergency. This year, 2010, is already for Haiti. Perhaps plans could be organized to announce a recipient for 2011. Just perhaps….
Of course, many natural disasters are virtually impossible to anticipate. This is not about trying to predict earthquakes or landslides before they occur, for example. But, many natural disasters are virtually inevitable – monsoons, hurricanes, floods and some others that happen over and over, like clockwork. These are the emergencies that could – and should! – be planned for.
Of course, many details would have to be arranged, talked about, worked-out and nailed down. Those NGOs mentioned – and many others – already have the experience and expertise to do this. Many such international efforts have been stymied recently by governmental or religious differences. Once an enterprise such as this gets off the ground, these differences could be viewed as making any area or country ineligible for help. In other words, if you can't play nice, you can't play. 
Of course, there will be some negativity regarding the cost. But I think that the sheer amount of money doesn’t matter. It’s going to be spent sooner or later; let’s just spend it before the catastrophe happens. And actually, by spending money before the emergency happens the amount needed will certainly be much less than by doing nothing. Look at how much can be saved just by not having to try getting emergency services around and through the rubble of destroyed structures. Not having the chaos of looting and lawlessness. Not having to provide emergency medical treatment or evacuate thousands of injured!

My purpose here is just to plant a seed. Just to get someone – anyone – thinking about this idea as a mere possibility. Sure, there are a thousand reasons why such a thing shouldn’t work. But there is only one reason why it should: to save lives. And there is no method to figure the value of that.

Occasionally there’s a story in the news about an automobile accident caused when a driver mistakenly steps on the accelerator instead of the brake. The most disastrous of these occurred in 2003 when ten people were killed and 63 injured at a farmers market in Santa Monica. This month here in San Diego, another such event was reported: a 91-year-old driver died from injuries sustained when his vehicle plunged down a ravine at Cabrillo National Monument after he unintentionally stepped on the gas instead of the brake – twice. Yes, after his foot accidentally slipped from the gas to the brake, the poor man was so flustered he hit the gas again. Nearly all of these tragic incidents involve older drivers, but another occurrence here in San Diego in 2007 involved a 25-year-old woman demonstrating that young drivers can also make this error.

Tragedies of this sort are caused by the common practice of using the right foot for both gas and brake pedals in automatic transmission vehicles, while the left foot and leg does nothing. Of course, this is a holdover from the days when the left foot was used for the clutch and right foot worked both gas and brake pedals. This is what all drivers have been taught, even with automatic transmissions – two pedals, not three – now standard on the great majority of cars and trucks in America.

I would like to suggest that young motorists be taught - and all drivers be encouraged - to use both feet, right for the gas and left for the brake, instead of just one. As a driver who learned on, and drove, manual transmission cars for years before ever sitting in a vehicle with automatic transmission, I began doing this as a way to work both legs rather than just one. But, I have come to think that this simple change, if employed as a matter of course, could save much injury and property damage - and even many lives. Very simply, one would virtually never mistake the gas pedal for the brake and would never have to worry about foot slippage from the brake pedal to the accelerator.

I suggest that driver education classes, drivers’ manuals and private schools of driving begin making this change immediately. For veteran drivers, re-learning to do this could take some time and extra effort, especially for older drivers. But, considering the potentially disastrous alternative - and the increasing distractions drivers are subjected to - please consider the worth of this suggestion.

 “Because we’re a capitalist system, everything is a thought of as a ‘commodity’” ~ Dana Gould

Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition group member Sarah Bond said that liberty is at risk under President Obama’s economic stimulus plan and the recently passed California budget.

“Capitalism is the only economic structure that promotes liberty and freedom,” Bond said. “Capitalism is under attack from a socialistic government expansion through needless tax increases and reckless spending. I am demonstrating to protect capitalism, so that my children have the same opportunities and freedoms that I have had.”

====================================

Capitalism seems to be taking it on the chin lately so, in honor of the opening of Michael Moore’s new film 'Capitalism: A Love Story', I thought I’d get my licks in, too.

First, and very importantly, I’d like to differentiate between the two levels’ of capitalism as I see it. I think there is normal ordinary “individual capitalism” and there is “corporate capitalism”. And, there is a HUGE difference between providing a service or a product to people - and making some money in the process - and just plain trying to make money. Local individually-owned stores and businesses are usually the former. They carry on to provide necessary products or services, not to make a fortune. They're not in it just for unbridled profit; they want to see the smiles on peoples' faces in their local communities, as well as make enough money to live good comfortable lives.

Corporations and big businesses are different; they exist primarily to make a profit; to “maximize return to their investors.” They churn out services that are crappy or products that are cheap and often designed with planned obsolescence to break down after awhile. They don't care about providing quality materials, no matter how much they might advertise that they do. They're not in it to provide real stuff for ordinary people, they're in it for the money. This is the capitalism that has grown to monstrous proportions, become toxic to our very survival as a society, and shaken our society to the very core in doing so. From merely an economic system, capitalism has become a virus, caring for nothing but its own survival and replication, and literally threatening the survival of its host in the process.

One of the classic defenses of capitalism is that it makes productive use of one of mankind’s baser faults: the tendency toward greed. This may still be true, but is no longer an operable thesis simply because there are no longer any controls on the baser nature. We used to give at least lip service to the idea of the Seven Deadly Sins, one was of which Avarice. But, the morality that used to exist no longer holds greed (or any of the other Sins) in check. As a result, capitalism has run amok. Greed is the engine that drives the economic system that corporate capitalism has become; this capitalism is the codification of Greed. In the 1987 movie “Wall Street,” Gordon Gecko said “Greed IS GOOD!” and everyone nodded their heads and went right along, one character snidely asking: “What’s in it for moi?” And look where we have come in 22 years.         

This kind of corporate oligarchy is nothing new; remember the “robber barons” of the 19^th Century. Their brand of laissez faire capitalism led to child labor, sweatshop factories and many deaths. Its hold was finally broken only with the rise of workers unions and anti-trust legislation in the early 1900s.

And there have always been certain businessmen who were greedy and went into their work with the attitude of vultures, giving no quarter to any, gobbling up competitors, terrorizing their employees. For virtually all of American history, there have been only rich and poor. The vaunted American Middle Class dates only from the end of WWII – before that was the Great Depression; before that, the rise of unions just mentioned.

Since 1967, probably the last year of true social progress in the United States, the average wage ratio between company CEOs and the workers of those businesses has grown from an already large 40-to-1 to an outrageous 550-to-1! Average household income has continued flat, not even increasing to keep pace with normal inflation; small businesses are taking an increasing brunt of our tax burden, especially in states like California; the Horatio Alger spirit that fueled American growth in the 20^th Century is discouraged at every turn causing some of our best minds to go elsewhere (would you believe France!) to make their modest fortunes.

Especially in the last ten years, government has promoted cronyism, curtailed and destroyed oversight and regulation, fostered financial shenanigans that nobody can even understand, let alone regulate, and supported bigger and bigger consolidations until the businesses became “too big to fail”. And then – sure enough! –were then bailed-out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Sometimes called ‘corporate welfare’, I prefer to call this ‘Republican socialism’. This is what we are seeing much of in the U.S. today where the profits are concentrated among the few, the shareholders, the politically connected; and the liabilities or losses are spread out among the many, the taxpayers, the politically disassociated. Clearly, corporate capitalism is no longer working in the United States – if, indeed, it ever really did.

And, of course, it goes the other way, too. Corporate donations to politicians amount to literally millions of dollars. For example, the current health care bill that is being hashed-out in Congress is already bought and paid for. The Senate Finance Committee’s ranking Reptilian, Sen. Chuck Grassley has received more than $651,000 from the healthcare industry. But wait – before you liberals start to crow – good ol’ Max Baucus, the Dumocrats committee chair, has amassed almost $1,763,800 from those same interests.§ And that’s only the top two members!

Now, let’s add to all this the recent developments in the industries that have been in the news such as insurance, real estate, banking and health care. While those actually involved in the treatment of illness (nurses, therapists, some doctors and other true health care professionals) are struggling to make a decent living, the corporations involved in insurance and health care are raking in billions by denying needed care to those who are sick and infirm. Real estate and loan interests created the fiction of sub-prime mortgages, causing the housing meltdown that spread to Wall Street. And banks, which used to be a place to store your money, now are “investment banks” – factories to make money by creating and marketing those impossible-to-fathom “financial products,” like derivatives. Now, after all these have spread their capitalist poison over the land, we sit in the tunnel of the worst recession in 70 years, hoping that we’ve seen the bottom and are finally on the way up. Wall Street may be on its way up – the Dow is actually in sight of 10,000 again – but you can bet that you and I aren’t out of the woods.

And now, the final reason I have decided to name the capitalism of corporations “viral capitalism”: the ultimate euphemism: “life settlement securities.” It has come down to this: death as a commodity.

Here is how it works. The bankers buy life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash — $400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. They then bundle them, repackage them, and sell them to major investors such as pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die. These death bonds bet heavily on the inevitable surcease of breath. More bluntly, the sooner the death, the greater the return on investment.¶ Either way, Wall Street would profit by pocketing sizable fees for creating the bonds, reselling them and subsequently trading them. So, even as Washington debates increased financial regulation, bankers are scurrying to concoct new products.

These “death bonds” repeat the sub-prime mortgage formula that generated outrageous fees and bonuses and contributed to the housing bubble, bust, and bailout. Same players, same computer models, same huge bonuses and fees along the way. A new ghoulish mega bubble; this time using people instead of houses.

Mark my words: these death bonds will become THE iconic image of corporate capitalism run amok.

So, there we have it. From its beginnings as a system that promised everyone a piece of the pie – if you only work for it – capitalism has evolved to a viral monster that unmistakably threatens the very society that gave it breast milk. Far from affording freedom and opportunity, viral capitalism assures our children a jungle where, unless they are in that top 1% that controls virtually all the capital, they will need to literally fight for their very survival.

One last thing: in his film, Moore promotes the idea that capitalism’s opposite is democracy. I must disagree with him on this point: while I think the two are incompatible, I do not think they are opposites because one is a political system while the other is an economic system. Of course, as I have (hopefully!) demonstrated, the two systems are intertwined – at least in this country they are. But, they are not opposites.

: : : : : : : : :

STAY TUNED TO THIS BLOG-SITE FOR THE NEXT EXCITING CHAPTER IN "CAPITALISM" …
A HOUSE DIVIDED

                FOOTNOTES:

§ figures from OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/profiles.php?cmteid=S12&cmte=SFIN&congno=111)

¶ more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06insurance.html