There is a lot of discussion about the slow economic recovery in the U.S., and indeed globally.  A double dip recession is predicted by some.  And many, 80% according to a recent CNN poll, believe we are already in another recession. Then there are the economic pundits that argue that we never exited the 2008 recession.  They argue we are still in the same prolonged recession.  What most all of the observers tend to agree on, however, is that the secret ingredient to recovery is lowering unemployment.

The Bush Tax cuts were designed to stimulate the economy.  And they did. They added over $1trillion USD to business coffers and, in turn the stock market added even more.  The tax cuts did not, however, generate any jobs, or generate enough revenue to pay for the Iraq war or Medicare prescription drug coverage.  And the run up in the stock market made the collapse of 2007-2008 more catastrophic.  Nearly $2.5trillion in bailouts had to be poured into Wall Street and financial institutions to keep the entire house of cards from collapsing.  In the final analysis, it appears the Bush tax cuts ‘stimulated’ all the wrong things.

So here we are. One could argue for weeks about how and why we got here.  But we are saddled with 10% unemployment and a dismal 1% growth – with no end in sight.  There is a circular argument in Washington that federal deficits are driving economic uncertainty and raising revenue back to 2001 levels will penalize job creation.  Yet, everyone looks to the federal government to stimulate employment through further deficit spending and reduced government (which, ironically, will cause even further job loss).

The GOP designates high income Americans as “Job Creators”. And let’s face it, they ARE job creators. They own and manage America’s businesses.  But they do NOT create jobs based on the taxes they pay. They create jobs based on supply and demand.  They also like to see their net worth grow. Lowering taxes helps do that without these job creators having to do anything to expand markets.  So, during a period of economic indecision, they can simply sit under a favorable tax rate, hoard cash and maximize investment income.

Case in point…

So, are we in a protracted recession? A new recession? Has the recession of 2007-2008 never truly ended?  The answer lies in the numbers.  The top 500 ‘blue chip’ U.S. Corporations by-and-large lost tremendous value and cut the dividends they paid to stock holders from 2007 through 2008.  Here in 2011 however, these same corporations – according to the Wall Street Journal – are increasing dividends (as much as 300%) as they accumulate significant cash positions and enjoy excellent profitability.  It seems, that from a ‘bottom line’ perspective, American business – and their investors – have benefited more during the Obama administration than any other time in the last 10 years.

Would returning the tax rate to 2001 levels actually spur job creation?  Yes, it very well may.  The reasons are several.  First, the added revenue would add over $1Trillion to deficit reduction efforts;  an effort that (with some additional cuts in spending) should result in S&P returning our AAA rating.  This in itself would build global confidence in the U.S. Economy.  A return to 2001 tax levels would not be a substantial hit on the “Job Creators” as they would still have a tax rate 57% less than they had under the Eisenhower Administration of the 1950s. A period of time, I might add, when America enjoyed some of the most aggressive economic growth and lowest unemployment in its history.  To be fair, this was due mostly to the infrastructure boom in the U.S. and rebuilding abroad after WWII.  Nevertheless, it demonstrates that wealth is more interested in growth than taxes…

The facts do not bear out the assertions by the right or left that “Job Creators” should be singled out for special treatment. There are more people in these tax brackets than ever before. They are in possession of more wealth that at any time in history.  They have no problem paying their fair share.  However, just getting taxes back to 2001 levels is not the complete answer.  We need to get businesses expanding again, and that means improving consumer – and global – confidence.  Significant reductions in the national debt are paramount to generating such confidence.

And lastly, let’s finally get to the REAL problem with taxes in this country:  The tax code and its loop-holes, deductions, subsidies and special interest kick-backs.  Treated as a politician’s personal expense account, the current tax code is 90% political posturing and 10% fiscal necessity. The tax code needs to be flattened and fair.  I will not vote for anyone in 2012 that does not support that effort.

JB

Sources and further reading:

Andrejczak, M. (2011). Dividend investors: Fatter payday on way, MarketWatch, Sept 2, 2011, Retrieved September 4, 2011 from: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dividend-investors-fatter-payday-on-way-2011-09-02

CNN Political Unit. (2011). Wall Street Journal loves Huntsman jobs plan, CNN Political Ticker Blogs, Sept 2, 2011; Retrieved September 4, 2011 from:  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/02/wall-street-journal-loves-huntsman-jobs-plan/

Condon, S. (2011). Rick Perry says no stimulus when he’s president, CBS Political Hotsheet, Aug 30, 2011; Retrieved September 4, 2011 from:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20099173-503544.html

Levy, A. (2011). CNN Poll: 8 in 10 think we’re in a recession, CNN Political Ticker, Sept 2, 2011; Retrieved September 4, 2011 from:  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/02/poll-8-in-10-think-were-in-a-recession/

Mauldin, J. (2011). It’s All About the Jobs — And Gold, Business Insider, Sept 4, 2011, Retrieved September 4, 2011 from: http://www.businessinsider.com/mauldin-its-all-the-jobs-and-gold-2011-9

Mulbrandon, C. (2010). Historical Marginal Income Tax Rates, Visualizing Economics, Feb 4, 2010, Retrieved September 4, 2011 from: http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/04/historical-marginal-income-tax-rates/

I’ve about had it. Take Michele Bachman. Please.

The poster child for the dangers of religious immersion, Bachman is the quintessential self-absorbed, delusional, ambitious, ideologue that wants all Americans to live in her image.  She is not alone. There have been many religious zealots and fundamentalists that have sought power; among them Hitler, Bin Laden and Jim Jones – to name only a miniscule few. All had blindly loyal followers that would give (and did give) their lives and livelihoods in their service.

Now, Governor Rick Perry of Texas – a self proclaimed Evangelical Christian – is on the verge of completing a list of Republican contenders for president in 2012 that are more Un-American and Anti-Constitution than at any time in our history as a country.

Religion has been the bane of human existence for all of recorded time.  The founding fathers of the United States understood the need to separate governance and religion, as the two have different truths.  The alignment (or conflict) between religious power and governing power has caused the loss of millions of lives throughout history.

The truth of governance is to believe in what we can do; the truth of religion is to believe what we are told. These may seem like obvious differences, but they are not. As human beings we live our lives telling others to do what we say – not what we do.  We almost NEVER live up to our own expectations. Government and religion are, in this instance, strangely aligned. Thus, to govern by belief is a common tactic and plays nicely into the hands of religious factions and politicians alike.  It allows politicians to lie with abandon then blame everyone else when the truth comes out.

As I write this, the economy of the United States is being systematically destroyed by the materialistic religious right that believes our government should insure our country’s financial wealth rather than its financial health.  Economists that understand this dangerous paradox are issuing warnings of dire consequence.  In a political environment where fixing blame is a greater priority than fixing the problem, we hold little hope that anything can be done to avert further economic hardship for the average American.

A fiscal conservative is a pragmatic seeker of truth and a necessary voice in the national economic debate. A religious conservative is a danger to the spirit and soul of the United States and its Constitution.  Where a fiscal conservative believes in a balanced budget – where revenue and spending must be equal – a religious conservative believes in the equivalent of burning witches (repealing Row vs. Wade); the damnation of sodomites (gay marriage ban); the establishment of a state religion (Christianity) and the protection of their wealth (no taxes).

The difference in the two should be obvious. Willing to pay their own way if the money is used responsibly, the fiscal conservative wants to lower our dependence on government, improve the balance of payments and get out of debt.  The religious conservative wants a totalitarian government that rules personal and spiritual choice and taxes the lower classes and non-believers – as they are the recipients of the left-wing-welfare-state policies anyway.

While it is the popular vote that determines which politician represents us, it is not the voters that the politician is indebted to. It’s the people who make money from their policy decisions. All politicians, from the left or right, seem obliged to reward political contributors (both individual and business) with subsidies, tax breaks, government contracts and write-offs. It has become a standard requirement for political office – and anyone not participating in this practice is pretty much assured of only one term.

The smart money backs the leaders of the pack. We the People – through polls and subscriptions – tell the smart money where to invest.  If you really want a functional conservative government, you need to make your voice heard. Demand the removal of religious dogma from political debate and vote for truth tellers – not pandering vote seekers.

Come on America – You’re smarter than this.

JB

Sources and further reading:

Publius, G. (2011). The Bachmann Tea Party: It’s all about abortion, AmericaBlog, March 27, 2011; retrieved August 7, 2011 from:  http://www.americablog.com/2011/03/bachmann-tea-party-its-all-about.html

Ross, B.; Schwartz, R.; Mosr, M.; Chuchmach, M. (2011). Michele Bachmann Clinic: Where You Can Pray Away the Gay?, ABC News – The Blotter, retrieved August 7, 2011 from: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691

Socolovsky, J. (2011). Religious Movement Linked to Texas Governor Stirs Controversy, Voice of America News, September 7, 2011, retrieved Sept 11, 2011 from: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Religious-Movement-Linked-to-Texas-Governor-Stirs-Controversy-129411833.html

This comes under the heading of “I could not have said it better…”:

…”Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph…”

This graphic from the the NY Times on July 23rd, 2011 was again found in the Washington Post a week later – accompanied with this brief analysis from blogger Ezra Klein:

“What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.

“To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, we’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. It’s convenient for whichever side isn’t in power, or wasn’t recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isn’t true.“

Just to be clear about where these lies get their power – it is us. We The People. We vote for these politicians, listen to them and believe them as they vie for power and influence at our expense. This is not a partisan issue. Both parties and their lobbyists are guilty of this behavior. The very few honest congressman and senators are drowned out by the lies and deceit that grip party leadership. Special interest lobbies and rich campaign contributors offer power and money to political blocks like the Tea Party, and we buy these fabrications hook line and sinker.

The other issue at hand here is linking these actions to a President. Labeling or branding events like the “Bush Tax Cuts” and “Obamacare” are well designed smoke screens created and nurtured by congressional staffers to put the blame on a single person’s ideology instead of where it belongs – on our representatives and senators. You see, presidents don’t raise taxes, make laws or pass regulations. Congress does. Presidents don’t write checks for 40% more than we take in – then slash revenues and call for a ‘balanced budget’. Presidents can only ‘administer’ the laws, collect the taxes and run foreign policy. The domestic economy is solely up to congress.

The politicians are on the public payroll their whole political life. They are the ‘entitlement’ kings. They vote themselves raises, retirement benefits and free healthcare – for life.  Then remove all the money from the people’s Social Security trust (that we have been paying into for 50 years) to pay for their contributor kickbacks, subsides and tax breaks.  Then they have the nerve to call Social Security an entitlement that needs to be cut to ‘balance the budget’.

I have watched over the last two weeks as my IRA and 401K investment values have dropped nearly 10%.  All due to the threat of a U.S. credit default.  By playing politics with a fragile economy, the politicians may just have created a new campaign label for 2012 – “The Obama Double Dip Recession”… It has, of course, little to do with Obama personally. But that’s the lie you will hear.

Lastly, I read one of those email chain letters not long ago that questioned cases of “Lying to Congress” in various congressional ‘investigations’ (or witch hunts, as some are).  These people are threatened with years in prison for not telling the truth to Congress. I think We The People need to have our own new federal crime law: “Lying to the American People”.   Every time a politician lies to his/her constituents, they go to jail for one year – while we vote in another guy/gal.  Now that’s ‘political reform’!

JB

Sources and further reading:

Kline, E. (2011). Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph, Blog: Washington Post, July 25, 2011; retrieved July 30, 2011 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html

Tritch, T. (2011). How the Deficit Got This Big, New York Times, retrieved July 30, 2011 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

As I write this, the U.S. government is approaching a ‘debt ceiling’ limit.  For those of you that where, like me, unfamiliar with the history of this issue, you need only look at the congressional record over the last 100 years to better understand where we are and why.  I’ll try to make your research less tedious by explaining what I found.

First, the facts:

No matter what the Democrats say, we have not had a ‘surplus’ of revenue in the U.S. treasury for 100 years. We have been a debtor nation for nearly our entire existence.  A lot has to do with the fact that revenues come in ‘chunks’ (e.g. April 15th); but the government must run year round. So borrowing against revenue is common. However, we have taken this practice to a whole new level.

There are two types of “Debt” in play here. You need to understand the difference.

• In one type of debt, we borrow from ourselves (debts held by government accounts). This includes borrowing from the Social Security trust, the Medicare trust, etc.  We owe $4.6 trillion to these accounts today. It has increased every year since 1917 (when the first ‘ceiling’ was imposed).
• The other debt type is what we borrow from others – like China (known as debts held by the public). We sell Treasury-Notes and Treasury-Bills (a.k.a. Bonds) to cover these debts. We owe $9.7 trillion on these loans today.
• The amount owed has increased every year – except from 1998 to 2001 – when Public debt dropped (but government account debt continued to rise over this period – more than the Public surplus, I might add – meaning the total national debt continued to rise every year anyway.)

Total Debt is now $14.3 trillion. It’s never been higher. And if history is any indication – it will never be substantially lower. Even with the most aggressive possible actions now on the table, our country will owe somewhere over $10 trillion for decades to come.

We are NOT hitting a new debt ceiling on August 2nd, 2011. We ALREADY hit it on May 16th, 2011.

• The U.S. Congress refused to raise the limit in May – causing the current ‘crisis’.
• The U.S. Treasury can use some fancy accounting and actions like borrowing from retirement accounts of government workers – to keep the government running.
• But since the debt is so high now, those methods are not buying six to eight months of negotiating room as they did in the past. Today it buys only about 12 weeks.

This ‘debt ceiling’ thing is nothing new. Since 1962 the congress has raised the debt limit 70 times. Yes, that’s more than once a year!

• The ceiling was lowered a couple times. After WWII for example (from 300 billion to 275 billion). Did I say “billion”? Those were the days!
• The largest bump was the one that funded the Iraq invasion (over 800 billion) and then the ones that funded the bailouts for the 2007-2008 recession stimulus(es) (over 2 trillion).

Now, the politics:

Once the facts are on the table, it’s easy to see that neither the problem nor the solution is one that ANYONE in the government can call their own.  The debt ceiling has always been a political football.  It is a systemic problem in our implementation of democratic capitalism.

The base problem revolves around how taxes and tariffs are levied. They have evolved as the tools of political power and posturing – not the tools of governance that they should be.  Through subsides, tax breaks and loopholes; politicians (of EVERY party) pay for political favors and contributions to elections. Where taxes can’t be used to reward supporters, government contracts can.  Many of the ‘pork barrel’ projects are just another way of using tax dollars to reward political affiliations and support.  These are political practices that go back 200 years. Again, nothing new.

In the year 2011:

So now that I’m a bit more educated, I feel almost helpless. Don’t you? In a country that is supposed to be governed ‘by the people’ why are we at the mercy of several hundred immature power brokers that value financial wealth over financial health?

Can we possibly solve this? Well, anything is ‘possible’, as they say. But since it took us 100 years to get in this mess, there is no reason to expect it will take less time to get out.

The Tea Party movement has one thing right. Raising the debt ceiling is not a solution, it is a problem.  However, some of the more misguided in the movement think that allowing the government to default is some kind of solution in itself. At least it will make the current administration look bad. But all it will do in the short term is cause a ‘run’ on the Federal Reserve and drain about 25% from everyone’s retirement accounts.  It’s kind’a like being in a car wreck and thinking that by refusing to get out of the car, you can avoid another wreck.

Looking in the mirror:

As with most simple minded solutions the Tea Party stance expresses the frustration of the average American, but ignores the REAL problem.  The problem is NOT spending by the administration; it’s the conflicting promises that congress makes – and then the administration must pay for – that is the real problem.

Preaching lower taxes while increasing subsidies and government contracts for political friends are the acts of a fool. Voting for the people that promise same is the act of an idiot. Looking at the facts, I’d say we have all been idiots for about 100 years.

JB

Sources and further reading:

Austin, D. (2008). CRS Report to Congress; The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases, Government and Finance Division; retrieved July 17, from: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf

Smith, R. (2011). The History Of The Debt Ceiling, National Public Radio, retrieved July 17, from: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/05/17/136363196/the-history-of-the-debt-ceiling

U.S. Treasury Dept. (2011). Monthly statement of the public debt of the United States, June 30, 2011, compiled and published by the bureau of the public debt, retrieved July 17, from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds062011.pdf

Some people wonder why certain media outlets are so obviously biased. I won’t name any names here, but you have seen what I’m talking about. Everyone has. They all call themselves “News” programs. It says so right on the banner at the bottom of the screen. Webster defines news as simply “1. Newly received or noteworthy information, esp. about recent or important events. 2. A broadcast or published report of news.”

As you will notice, nowhere in the definition of “News” is there mention of Truth or Bias. The definition of “media” is somewhat more specific: “1. The main means of mass communication regarded collectively: ‘the campaign won media attention’. 2. An intermediate layer, esp. in the wall of a blood vessel.” Note the aspect of an “intermediate layer”.

And then there is the venerable definition of Journalism: “1. The activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television. 2. The product of such activity.” Again, no mention of truth, content or bias.  In essence, any professional writing or speaking – anyone that is “paid” to write or speak the news – can be called a Journalist.

It is important to remember that media is entertainment to most people. Television is a media. So are magazines. Cable & satellite TV.  Internet websites… Most all get the money to present their content from advertisers or you – the subscribers.  Now this is a VERY important distinction, advertisers pay according to the number of viewers or readers the media source has.  This is usually measured periodically by an independent rating and ranking service.  This viewership or subscribership number is used to set prices for advertising. So it is a BIG deal to media outlets. All of them have content and programming based solely on mass appeal.

News media is supposed to be an ‘intermediate’ layer between journalists and the public. But more often they are the creators rather than purveyors of news. Never was this more obvious than the recent Sara Palin fiasco where media clowns follow a person with the IQ of a 1^st grader around the country trying to get her to say something stupid.  She obliged, as she always does. And they are delighted as many of us tune in to hear her stupidity – and watch the advertisements. What makes this specific incident so egregious – is that Sara Palin is a paid member of a media company.  And all the other media companies are treating her as a newsworthy source.  OMG.

True objective journalism is BORING. The contention, the conspiracy, the ignorance – it is all up to the reader or listener to figure out. The problem is we have become so stupid in this country that we must be told what is contentious, conspiring or ignorant.  Truth has become a by-product of opinion. Not the other way around. American media are competing with each other for our attention. Like a playground of boisterous school children.

In a world of blind people, the one-eyed man is King.  The very few that really see the media for what it is – satirists like Jon Stewart– are rare to the point of being considered ‘bourgeois intellectuals’ by the media that feeds their satire.  Go figure.

The journalism of a Bill Moyers and the opining of a Bill O’Reilly have equal stature in media. To O’Reilly’s credit, he’s never suggested (to my knowledge) that he was a journalist. But the logo at the bottom of the screen that constantly says “Fox News” is meant to dupe the ignorant masses into believing that what O’Reilly says is something more than one man’s opinion. It is not.

The Bill Moyers’ and Walter Cronkite’s of this world are vanishing. Combined they were never as popular as someone like a Bill O’Reilly.  But they gave the people much more factual news than any of O’Reilly’s ilk can muster.  The problem was that the viewer or reader had to think for themselves. And many of us have lost that capability.

I do not want to look like I am picking on Fox News here (although, in my judgement they are the most blatant integrator of news & opinion and omiter of fact on the air) – all the major networks, from CNN to ABC and CBS, practice this to some degree. And as Fox’s ratings climb, they have begun to do it more.

Ever wonder why the Republicans want to pull the government’s 5% donation from PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) – the only media outlet that is supported not by advertising but by public funding?  Because ratings, business and political interests have no influence over programming.  It is paid for by the subscribers. It’s content MUST be relevant, factual and unbiased or it could not survive. The public would not fund it. It also disallows opinion in journalistic programming (there have been some high profile firings over this policy). PBS is therefore considered boring by most accounts. But a place we can count on to get the truth, nonetheless. Conversely, PBS and NPR are considered dangerous by Wall Street and big business – and their paid politicians – so it must be marginalized whenever possible.

We the viewers are to blame for mainstream media’s tabloid-like behavior. As we pass through the virtual age of video games, social networking, internet dating , phonic texting and ‘reality’ programming it is getting harder to focus on true reality; to recognize it when we see it. When the only glimpse of sanity is through the lens of the satirist, we have lost a very significant part of our human capability to process facts and understand outcomes.   Americans seem to lead the world in this inability to see past entertainment – unable to seek the boring truth of the matter.

Foreign media has some remaining outlets that clearly separate journalistic news from biased opinion.  Two examples that come to mind are World News and Al Jazeera.  There is biased opinion – such a Dallas Darling’s inciteful ramblings on WN or the eastern bias of the Opinion Corps on Al Jazeera – however, any such bias is difficult to find in their journalism.

I expect America will lead the world in journalistic folly for some time.  As we vote for politicians that lie, cheat and scheme their way into office.  Backed by big money lobbies, and told what to say and think by Wall Street and big business interests, our every move is being choreographed by media and “News” outlets.

It is only a matter of time before we are the news in other counties.  As the most powerful and influential country to yet exist falls into despair.  America will be an example to other nations of what can happen to them when, in their boredom, they tire of facts.

JB

I suppose this post is the closest thing to a ‘manifesto’ that I will ever compose.  For this country to survive another 100 years, I believe we need immediate sociopolitical reform in three key areas:  1) Political Reform; 2) Tax Reform; and 3) Constitutional Reform.  Here is my manifesto then.. my  compilation of three ‘tenets’ of reform:

Tenets of the new American Political Reform movement:

I. Political Reform

1. The term of office for all federal elected individuals, including state representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives, representatives to the U.S. Senate and the President of the United States (“Elected Official”); shall be one single consecutive eight (8) year term.
• No office shall be held for multiple terms. All elections are for non-incumbent officials.
• Officials may run subsequently for office in a different governing body (Representatives may subsequently run for the Senate, Senators for President, etc.).
• The Senate shall elect 50% of it’s body every 4 years.
• The House shall elect 25% of its body every 2 years.
• Any official may be recalled in any 2 year popular vote.
2. Elected Officials shall not personally profit from serving in their respective roles in any way.
   • No salary or wage, beyond expenses outlined herein, will be paid to any federally Elected Official serving the American public.
   • All expenses for the term of the Elected Official’s elected office shall be paid by the electorate. Expenses include but are not limited to:
     • Travel to and from their homes to their offices in Washington DC and travel as required to serve in their respective capacity;
     • Allotments for homes; food, clothing and education for their children;
     • All meals and clothing as required by their service – and for their immediate family;
     • Family and personal health and life Insurance provided under the same conditions and within the same facilities as United States Armed Forces personnel;
     • Other expenses as may be appropriate and explicitly authorized, by referendum, by their constituency.
   • Two years of extended expense paid allotments, each not to exceed the total paid in any given one (1) year of their service, will be extended after eight years of service.
   • No retirement or pension payments will be made by the citizens of the United States beyond these allotments.
   • No income from any third party may be received while holding Elected Office. All monies received, whether from prior enterprise, current annuities or trusts, will be made public record during the Elected Official’s tenure as a public servant. Monies paid to a spouse, family member, business or account(s) accessible by the Elected Official may be audited on demand during their tenure and for a period of 10 years succeeding their tenure. Independent spousal income is exempt.
3. Except in meetings concerning national security, no representative of a private enterprise, a foreign government or a unique special interest may solicit, lobby or meet with any Elected Official without a complete set of minutes of the contact or meeting being recorded and provided to the public. Meetings may be formal, informal or ad hoc. Such minutes shall include:
   • The names of all individuals in attendance.
   • The topics of discussion, regardless of any formal agenda.
   • Decisions and outcomes of the meeting that may affect, in any way, legislation of the past, present or future.
4. No campaign for elected office, individual campaign or national political party may solicit or receive financial (individual campaign) contributions of more than $1000 US Dollars from any source – corporate, individual, domestic or foreign.
   • No contributions may be made by any source that does not possess a valid U.S. Taxpayer Identification – either in the form of a social security number (SSN) or federal employer identification number (EIN). Such form of identification must be recorded for each contributor and names of contributors made available to the public.
   • All individuals providing an SSN may deduct the amount of their contribution(s) up to the $1000 maximum, from their federal tax adjusted gross income for the tax year in which the contribution is made.
   • All candidates will maintain their contributions in a federally insured, federally audited and federally administered account. Funds will be dispersed as required by the candidate where receipts are present to support the transactions.
5. Only individuals may publicly promote the election of any individual to federal office.
   • No corporation, public or private, nor any organization, for profit or non-profit; may promote or otherwise champion the election of a federal Elected Official. This includes but is not limited to political parties, action committees, labor unions, associations and congregations.
   • Individuals and leaders within these organizations may provide any candidate promotional assistance they deem necessary – as long as they are personally identified in such support – and not identified as speaking on behalf of any organization – in whole or in part – as defined above.
6. No Elected Official, while in active office, may directly or indirectly promote the election of any other individual to the federal government. Soliciting, ‘stumping’ or advertizing on behalf of any federally elected colleague is prohibited.
7. To run for federal elected office, candidates must supply an independently audited list of constituent signatures in support of the candidacy in an amount not less than two percent (2%) of the constituent population of the office sought. Support or solicitations on behalf of a candidate by members of an organized political party shall not lend weight to the petition.
8. The electorate will provide, six months prior to all federal elections – via an independent autonomous federal agency – secure web sites with email, video and audio capability, to all candidates for federal office that have acquired the proper constituent support (item 6 above).
   • All candidates must use the federally supplied web services. Content is the responsibility of the candidate and individual contributors.
   • All contributions, their amounts and the identification of the contributor will be listed on these sites.
   • All site content must be paid for by the campaign and cannot be provided without charge by any third party, or campaign supporter.
   • All spoken, electronic or printed campaign communications to the public at large must be posted in its entirety on this site – except those products of an accredited news media organization.
   • Candidates are encouraged to advertise their candidacy, their positions and their political and social views via the federally supplied websites; which, by law, cannot be censored or interrupted in any way.
   • Only a candidate advocating the violent overthrow of the government of the United States, or found guilty of the commission of a felony, may have their U.S. Campaign web site removed from public view. Due process is required for this action.
   • All public remarks at large or in interviews, presentations or speaking engagements must be recorded on the federally supplied web site. All such material, including any accompanying graphics, pictures or imagery must be electronically obtainable by the public.
   • These sites will be discontinued with all material archived in perpetuity after 30 days of a confirmed electoral outcome.
9. All audited campaign funds remaining in a candidate account 30 days after a confirmed electoral outcome will be donated to the independent autonomous federal agency that provides the web services to all candidates. Such funds will be used to reduce the taxpayer burden for supplying said services in the future.

II. Tax Reform

1. A flat personal income tax, not to exceed ten (10%) of an individual’s adjusted gross income shall be levied on individual earnings.
   • All individual taxation shall be uniform, consistent and unrestricted.
   • Marital status shall not be considered.
   • Tax credits, deductions and discounts shall be forbidden, unless in the interest of national security.
2. All business will pay at least the minimum wage to all employees.
   • No exceptions will be made for agriculture, seasonal or migrant workers, citizenship, part time employees or wait staff.
3. A flat business income tax, of not less than twenty (20%) of adjusted gross revenue shall be levied on any business.
   • All business taxation shall be uniform, consistent and unrestricted.
   • Tax credits, subsidies and tax expenditure discounts shall be forbidden, unless in the interest of national security.
4. All businesses shall pay 5% of the total un-loaded payroll (PayTax) for all U.S. Employees and 15% for all non-U.S. employees.
   • All businesses, foreign and domestic, that have places of business in the U.S. shall pay the PayTax.
   • The PayTax shall mirror, in form and function, the current FICA taxes paid on employee earnings by employers in the U.S..
   • The entire amount of a business’s U.S. Employee PayTax burden may be deducted as a tax credit from their corporate revenue taxes described in item 3 above.
   • Non-U.S. Employee PayTax is not subject to any credit.
5. All countries offering 100% duty free imports from the U.S. will enjoy 100% duty free exports to the U.S. No special trade treaty will be needed.
   • Countries that re-export goods or services imported from the U.S. may be exceptions to this policy.
   • Fossil fuels are exceptions to this policy (see EOT).
   • All other Import tariffs will be levied according to the exporting countries highest import duty.
   • Farm subsidies may exist under a trade tariff balancing algorithm that balances import / export duties and exchange rates with other countries that subsidize their identical markets.
6. An energy origination tariff (EOT) shall be placed on all sources of fossil fuel including oil and natural gas.
   • Sources originating within the United States or its commonwealths and possessions, or from the open sea, are exempt from this tax.
   • The EOT shall be levied according to the distance from the source to the U.S. destination of such fuels.
   • The EOT shall not be less than three percent (3%) of the value of any given shipment and shall increase with distance from supply.
   • Supplies may not move between U.S. ports of entry to avoid taxation. The total distance from source to final destination is to be used for EOT purposes.
7. All goods and services sold over the internet shall have a federal sales tax not to exceed one percent (1%).
   • Sales originating in the U.S. or delivering to the U.S. are subject to this tax.
   • The buyer is responsible for collecting such taxes that originate from outside the U.S..
   • The seller is responsible for collecting such taxes that originate from within the U.S..
   • All deliveries made by the U.S. Postal Service are exempt from this tax.

III. Constitutional Reform

1. An amendment that elaborates and defines the individual Rights inherent in the doctrine of “..certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”.
   • What this doctrine is NOT:
     • It is not an individual right to a job;
     • It is not an individual right to wealth;
     • It is not an individual right to discriminate;
     • It is not an individual right to financial welfare or support;
     • It is not an individual right to pollute or degrade the ecosystem.
   • What this doctrine IS:
     • It is the individual right to an education;
     • It is the individual right to adequate healthcare;
     • It is the individual right to uniform social justice;
     • It is the individual right to respect;
     • It is the individual right to privacy;
     • It is the individual right to be judged only on merit.
   • Cases of Application of this Doctrine:
     • Woman’s right to determine if her body may be used for childbirth.
     • Equality of the individual rights of participants in a civil union and a marriage.
     • Equal pay for equal capability and education regardless of gender, culture or race.
     • Freedom from religious persecution or discrimination.
     • Freedom from public disclosure of certain personal private information.
2. An amendment that provides for judicial reform that clearly sets out the rights of corporations as opposed to individuals in the political process and with regard to political funding. The government is supposed to be ‘of the people’ and there cannot be ambiguity about what is an individual right or responsibility and what is a business interest.

Footnotes:

Many of my political friends cringe at portions of these ‘tenets’, if they can be called that. For instance they may cite the fact that many ‘Rights’ are omitted: The right to free speech, free press, gun ownership, etc. These are all covered in other amendments however, and need no clear elaboration beyond what is already present.

There are hiring practice laws that forbid certain discriminations, but there’s not a social policy that forbids them. There are privacy rules in healthcare records (HIPAA) but none on an inclusive national scale. Only one Supreme Court decision (Row vs. Wade) stands between a woman’s rights and forced maternity. We have agencies for health and education… but no social law that requires the government be responsible to its citizens for these measures.

As for tax reform, I avoided the issues with Medicare & Medicaid. I bit off enough with what I proposed.

Political reform is the least likely to ever happen. This country will disintegrate under the weight of special interests, bailouts and national debt long before we make lawmakers accountable to America rather than business or Wall Street. Thus, I made it as Pollyanna as possible. If there’s no chance of it ever happening, might as well set the bar at the pinnacle.

JB

I get a bit frustrated when I hear otherwise intelligent people confusing the terms Capitalism and Democracy. Democracy is a political architecture. Capitalism is an economic architecture.

Capitalism in its truest form is simply a separation between commerce and state. It is the sociopolitical policy of independent ownership of both the enterprise and its means of production and distribution. This independent ownership can be in the form of a privately held company (from self-employed individuals to large family owned corporations) to publicly held companies (those that sell stock/shares to the public).  That’s it.  Capitalism has no constitution, no rules, no rights, no regulation – nor an attachment to any particular form of government.

Inasmuch as democracy sets out social rights in the context of the individual, capitalism is a natural fit. But it is not an absolute necessity that capitalism be practiced under a democratic form of government. In no place is this more apparent than Communist China.

Since before Hong Kong was handed over to the Chinese, the communist leadership was hard at work studying capitalism and perfecting it to run efficiently under communist doctrine. In some cases this meant reforming communist doctrine and laws to adopt meaningful regulation and allow individual and public ownership.

When the bastion of Asian capitalism – Hong Kong – was handed over to the Chinese in 1997, the world’s capital markets braced for a catastrophe.  Not only did the transition occur without incident, but the expansion of the mainland capitalism economy into Hong Kong’s global mainstream markets has made China one of the world’s leading places for long term investment.

I could go on about China all day.. and some day I will.  Right now, let’s get back to what’s important to America.

Now that we understand that Capitalism is not a form of government, let’s talk about what it is and how it can destroy entire civilizations when it is abused.

One of the interesting things about the two parties in our political system is their concept of capitalism.  To hear a Republican talk, you would think that Capitalism is the means by which a democracy promotes wealth.  To hear a Democrat talk, you would think that Capitalism is a means to promote economic equality. However, both parties appear to be in agreement that a key tenant of Capitalism is to fund political campaigns.

Capitalism is not a form of government; however a government can manipulate capitalism to empower the goals of its constitution and laws. Under the U.S. constitution, federal power is supposed to be limited to interstate commerce. Within the states themselves, the doctrine of individual state and personal rights takes over. Of course most large companies – and all publicly traded companies – fall into this realm of ‘interstate commerce’. That’s why it feels as if the federal government is in so many pockets… it’s because they are.

Control over capitalism comes in several flavors. The two that affect us most are regulations and taxes.  Regulation is a hairy topic and we will leave that for later. Regulation is not where the economic impact is most felt anyway. Its taxes.

If there is such a thing as a Ship of State then taxes are its rudder. Taxation – or the lack of it – is used by the government to steer itself in and out of trouble.  Now the Republicans would have you think that it’s taxation that is causing a slow economic recovery.  I can tell you without hesitation that it is not.  Globalization and productivity gains are the key issues in recovery. Not taxes. Many of the largest companies pay no tax at all.

I have to side with the Democrats on this one; not because I want more social programs; but because I want to improve education, rather than cut it and remove barriers to small business globalization.

A few days ago, Fareed Zakaria said on his globally televised show on CNN:

“I think that the solution to the budget is actually relatively straightforward, with one caveat. What I would do is this: I would eliminate almost all tax deductions, loopholes and what are called “tax expenditures,” which are effectively giveaways in the tax code that are almost always in return for campaign contributions.“The reason the American tax code is 14,000 pages long is that it is a series of giveaways to campaign contributors. And so if you get rid of that, the Simpson-Bowles Commission estimates you can get almost a trillion and a half dollars, or you can reduce rates. I would rather, for now, just keep the money to pay down the debt.”

The one ‘caveat’ he mentioned was healthcare. Giving tax deductions for supplying employee healthcare is money well spent.  That and education or university R&D contribution should be the only exceptions, however.  The future of Medicare & Medicaid also need addressed… but I need to stay on task here…

This takes me back to my earlier post on the development of a flat tax.  These “tax expenditure” kickbacks to business are only the tip of the iceberg.

As alluded to by Zakaria, another area that capitalism and democracy get tangled is in political contributions.  If democracy controls capitalism through taxes and regulation, then capitalism controls democracy through political contributions and lobbying. The involvement of business in politics is so blatantly overt and obvious only a child can be ignorant of it.  And it is poised to get worse.

Last year, shortly before Obama’s State of the Union address, the Supreme Court made a decision that incensed the president. They ruled that corporations are de facto ‘individuals’ and their contributions to political candidates could not be restricted solely on the basis of their being a ‘Company” rather than an individual. I do not agree with this ruling. The court inappropriately applied the tenets of democracy to capitalism when no linkage exists.  They seem to be saying that there is no separation between commerce and state. The danger in this ruling extends beyond political contributions into the area of interstate commerce itself. This could get real sticky for the federal government in all laws or regulations that identify corporations and individuals as having separate responsibilities under the law.

The buying and selling of American lawmakers is a time honored tradition that must stop.  The economic crash of 2008 is nothing compared to what is coming next if we don’t stop the exchange of financial favors between commerce and state.

I do not mean to imply that companies are not made up of people – individuals with hopes, dreams and inalienable rights.  They are.  And they deserve to be treated as citizens of a democratic state.  The investors and money players in these companies, however, should not have the same rights as the employees.  The money men behind some of the most destructive fiscal policies in government had no rights except what their money bought them.  It culminated in the great financial collapse of 2008 and few of the practices or policies that caused that collapse have been addressed.

We the People have choices.  We can demand that our representatives and senators fight for a clean, fair and simple tax code without the kickbacks and subsidies. We can demand that they open their personal finances for all to see. List every contributor. Every dime.

We can demand that Capitalism not be a form of government.  We can demand we return to being a Democracy of the People, by the People and for the People.

JB

Sources and further reading:

Hoa, T. ed. (2002). Economic crisis management: policy, practice, outcomes, and prospects, Edward Edger Publishing, retrieved, April 10, 2011 from: http://books.google.com/books?id=A8X502mUVQkC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=hong+kong+1997+economic+transition&source=bl&ots=H7_ks_A2r6&sig=NL7Ud0PpWueSwZ4-YEiQYrlSdz8&hl=en&ei=p_uhTabJFeHc0QGFu_3NDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=hong%20kong%201997%20economic%20transition&f=false

Richey, W. (2010). Supreme Court: Campaign-finance limits violate free speech, The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved, April 10, 2011 from:  http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0121/Supreme-Court-Campaign-finance-limits-violate-free-speech

Webster. (2011). Definition of Capitalism. retrieved, April 10, 2011 from:    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Zakaria, F. (2011). America’s broken politics and bloated budget, CNN – Global Public Square, retrieved, April 10, 2011 from: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/fareed-on-americas-broken-politics-and-bloated-budget/

I don’t always have something to say. I never learned anything while I was talking. The month of March, 2011, was such a time. I’m an observer. A listener. I write about what I see and what I understand. March was a month that defied understanding in many ways.

Made famous in William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, the saying “beware the Ides of March” – which accurately forewarned Caesar of his death at the hands of Brutus on 15 March – is a fitting tag line for this piece. We began March with so much hope.

February ended with us all captivated by the unprecedented popular democracy movements in the Middle East. Tunisia and Egypt looked poised for meaningful social change – through a nearly peaceful revolution. Pressures to develop democratic constitutional monarchies in Jordon and Morocco was afoot.

Although the Libyan protests were becoming increasingly dangerous for the protesters, most thought that it would be only a matter of time before the Gaddafi clan would have to relinquish control. After all, the West was imposing sanctions and putting pressure on him to leave.

Japan

In what will surely be among the most catastrophic natural disasters in modern history, the 9.0 magnitude earthquake that struck Japan on March 11th will probably claim over 25,000 lives. Today there are 13,000 confirmed dead and 14,000 still missing. By this time – 30 days later – ‘missing’ usually means dead.

Japan is one of the best prepared countries in the world. Their building standards have been modeled to the best earthquake standard… most all survived. Then the resulting tsunami made the earthquake resistant construction irrelevant as it destroyed entire cities. The nuclear reactors that were all but destroyed survived the earthquake. The tsunami is what knocked them out.

A tsunami is proving to be the most devastating natural event humans can endure. The 2004 Indonesian Tsunami killed over 230,000 people. More than both atomic bombs dropped on the Empire of Japan in WWII.

As I watch this latest tragedy unfold, as it still is, I try to find something sage and prophetic to say. I try to find some way we could have avoided the destruction; some way we could have prepared better; some way we could prevented the event; some way we could have saved all those lives… I have no advice. No enlightened oratory. I have only awe for the power of nature and the certainty that it will happen again.

Libya

While February was the month of liberation in the Middle East, the pendulum swung during March. Observers in Syria, Yemen and Libya saw unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators killed by the hundreds. Some protestors are now armed rebels.

As NATO cleared the skies over Libya, the tribal mentality cultivated by the despot Gaddafi survives to continue the carnage. The maddening sickness of absolute power has corrupted the ruling class in these countries and they will not yield.

In my earlier writings I said the true path to change is through unarmed protest. We have seen time and time again that governments, citizenry and the military will often have a difficult time with unarmed protest. The USSR, Egypt and Tunisia are a few excellent examples. It is not that armed revolt does not work. It will indeed work, it just has different consequences.

Libya is now an armed insurrection. A civil war by any other definition. It has taken a turn that will give rise to new power icons. No matter which side wins, the country has left the path of political change. It is now headed toward social collapse. Vendettas and vengeance will follow any scenario.

Syria

As opposite as can be from the raving lunatic that is Gaddafi, President Assad of Syria is a shrewd and intelligent power broker. He is as capable as he is brutal. But even he and his elite security forces are finding it hard to cope with an unarmed insurrection.

I really do not know where Syria is heading. I expect it will be somewhat like Iran. Opposition leaders will be ‘dealt with’ under the guise of legitimate trials and detentions. Soon they will just ‘disappear’.

It gets harder every day for this type of policy to work however, mainly because of the power given to individuals through social media and the internet. Well organized and well informed protesters can make such uprisings last a very long time.

Bahrain

The possibility that a regional monarchy could fall to democracy was more that the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could stand. The dominos were seen coming their way and there was no hesitation to send in troops to refortify the royal family of Bahrain.

In time, all the region’s monarchies will either become constitutional monarchies or suffer violent overthrow. Time will tell which country will experience which. The violent episodes are the most dangerous as interruptions to the world’s oil supply will cause conflicting alliances on every side of the conflict. World powers can be drawn into these conflicts with ease. The economic pressure on world governments to end these conflicts quickly may well take precedence over ending them justly.

Egypt

Lastly, Egypt’s revolution is having issues with the military. As I expected they would. People are being detained and in some cases go completely ‘missing’ after encounters with military units.

I feel sure now, that there will be no government in Egypt that the military cannot influence. It is clear that reform will be to appease the masses, but not necessarily to implement civilian rule over the military. Any constitution that, like the U.S., forbids federal military deployments on home soil, will surely be quashed by the military. But then again, we got around that provision with the establishment of the National Guard. They can do the same. Only I suspect their National Guard would be more influenced by Cairo than by local governors.

April

April seems but an extension of tragic March. Lives have been lost by the thousands, countries destroyed, whole towns abandoned. Whether by fate or hate, we all feel so helpless to intervene. Spring holds little promise for reprieve. There are no win-win scenarios when either nature or governments get violent.

Maybe one day we will be able to use the enormity of our human intellect, resources and determination to find ways to predict natural events, influence their impact and avoid human disaster.

We must first learn to do that among ourselves.

JB

Sources and further reading:

JAhmed, A. (2011). Egypt to announce new working constitution, CNN World, March 30, 2011, retrieved April 10, 2011 from: http://us.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/30/egypt.constitution/index.html?hpt=Sbin

JAl Jazerra. (2011). Live Blog: Middle East Protests April 10, Al Jazeera, April 10, 2011, retrieved April 10, 2011 from: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/middle-east/live-blog-middle-east-protests-april-10

JCNN. (2011). Al-Assad could unleash immense violence…; CNN Global Public Square Blogs, March 30^th, 2011, retrieved April 10, 2011 from: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/30/al-assad-could-unleash-immense-violence-tomorrow-and-friday/

Huffington. (2011). Japan Earthquake 2011: 8.9 Magnitude Earthquake Hits, 30-Foot Tsunami Triggered, The Huffington Post, March 11, 2011, retrieved April 10, 2011 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/11/japan-earthquake-tsunami_n_834380.html

The U.S. has again blocked a UN Resolution stating that Israeli settlements in Palestinian lands are illegal. When asked why, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked; “I think it is absolutely clear to say, number one, that it’s been American policy for many years that settlements were illegitimate… “. Using diplomatic double talk to try and make a distinction between Illegal and illegitimate, Clinton pursued that same old line every U.S. diplomat has towed for 50 years.

Adding insult to insult, she went on to say that passing such a UN resolution would be an “impediment to peace”. Like rolling a boulder up a hill would be easier if the hill were steeper.

For the purists in the audience, the many legal definitions of “Illegitimate” (when not used to refer to a person’s birth) include: “… not valid according to law” (Dictionary.Com/Law); “contrary to or forbidden by law”; “an illegitimate seizure of power”; “illicit trade”; “an outlaw strike”; “unlawful measures” (Princeton University Web Word Net); and “…Illegal; against the law” (Wiktionary.com). So yea, Duh – Illegal and illegitimate are the same thing.

The point is, everyone – and I mean everyone – even many inside Israel, see these settlements as illegal. They are a stark reminder that Israel gave up on living in peace with the Arab world long ago. In my personal opinion, our continued protection of Israel’s political ineptitude makes us a “legitimate” target for distrust in the Middle East.

Now, in case you don’t know it, I’m of Jewish decent. My father was a Jew, and his father and mother before him. For many reasons, not only my heritage, I am a staunch supporter of Israel’s right to exist and to exist in Peace. However, when you mix religion, culture, power and prejudice you get a difficult dynamic to govern – out alone understand.

Jews are perpetually persecuted. Or so it seems in the historical record. The German holocaust is only one of several historic attempts to exterminate the Jewish population. The State of Israel itself has been fighting for its existence since literally the day it was created. I’ve been writing in this Blog since 2008 about my views on the state of this ‘Palestinian-Israeli’ conflict. Perpetual as it seems, it is exactly what Jews expect culturally. It is now time for Israel to ask itself – who is most responsible for perpetuating what?

JB

Sources and further reading:

Bennett, J. (2008). Palestinian-Israeli Peace is SIMPLE formula, Aberant News, aberantnews.org, retrieved February 19, 2011, from: http://www.aberantnews.org/?p=32

Dictionary.com. (2011). Definition of ”Illegitimate”, as taken from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. , retrieved February 19, 2011, from: http://dictionary.reference.com/law/illegitimate

Jackson, D. (2011). Clinton says Israeli settlements are ‘illegitimate,’ not illegal, USA Today, retrieved February 19, 2011, from: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/02/clinton-says-israeli-settlements-are-illegitimate/1

WordNet. (2011). Definition of ”Illegitimate”, Princeton University WordNet Search, retrieved February 19, 2011, from: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=illegitimate

Wiktionary. (2011). Definition of ”Illegitimate”, Wiktionary Open Content dictionary, retrieved February 19, 2011, from: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illegitimate

In Prior posts I opined on the possible impacts of the democracy movement in the Middle East. I foresaw many waves and ripples of what I call the Tunisian Tipping Point: A wave of popular demand for democratic reform throughout the region. The perils and the opportunities are many. As the epicenter in Tunis still struggles to find a democratic footing that is viable and representative of its people, all eyes have turned to Egypt.

As I write this, Egypt’s president has resigned and, once again, the Egyptian military is in the driver’s seat. The military has been behind the last three leadership changes in Egypt spanning 60 years. The military installed Mubarak (1981), Anwar Sadat (1970) before him and Nasser (1954) before him. All former generals, they ruled as not-so-benevolent socialist dictators. The Constitution of Egypt has been revised often (as recently as 2007) to try and strengthen the balance of power but to little avail.

It is interesting then, that the Egyptian people consider the military a safe harbor during the governance vacuum that will exist until elections can be held (September, 2011). The military is held in high regard by Egypt’s people. Exactly why is not crystal clear to me. But the military’s response to this popular uprising has been nothing short of remarkable.

Unlike prior coups, this transition of power is a creation of the will of the people – all of them. Not just students, workers, the military, religious factions or special interests,… but the population at large. In many ways the military’s role in Egyptian governance is changing right along with the political culture. The fact that the military seems ok with that is curious. These are either the most patriotic and farsighted military leaders in Egypt’s history or they are just biding their time. I expect it’s a little of both.

The protestors and opposition groups involved in this unarmed revolt are some of the most articulate and informed ever to stage a popular coup. The internet and social media are the lynch pins of this capability. The ability to coordinate and disseminate facts about what is happening and where, with speed and accuracy, were paramount to their success. Understanding this capability, the military has looked at every possible response to the uprising and determined the most sustainable course of action is to become part (or appear to become part) of the solution.

Now many of my left-of-center friends may not like this, but I truly believe that the U.S. Military has had a significant role in moderating the Egyptian military’s response and bringing the leadership closer to the concept of absolute civilian rule.

Trained in U.S. war colleges, most of the top brass in Egypt’s military command have close and serious ties to the U.S. Military – both on a personal and professional level. Also, with the insurgent and non-secular conflicts that America has been embroiled in since 2001, the U.S. military schools have placed new emphasis on the successful pacification of indigenous populations and the introduction of democratic ideals as a counterweight to tribal war lord mentality. This new ‘world view’ that the U.S. military has adopted is filtering out to our allies and Egypt is no exception.

Next?

Well, that’s the real question that governments and media the world over are asking. No other peaceful political or social transformation of this magnitude has had this powerful social networking aspect.

The revolution that toppled the USSR in 1991 was probably the most significant of all latter day peaceful revolutions. However, the participants in that revolution had a lot of ‘disinformation’ to sift through. It was difficult to coordinate activities and oversee events. While the military did not rise against the people, they did not rise against the government either. For this reason, many of the old-guard political culture remained and change came very slowly. Corruption and political slight-of-hand are still commonplace.

Egypt has the capability to get it right the first time. Already, the leadership of the protestors and those of the opposition political parties are designing plans for constitutional change and the election process. And the internet is their collective canvas.

Egypt may see protestors in Cairo’s Tahrir Square right through September’s scheduled elections. This because every move – by the military counsel now running Egypt and the special political interests in the country – will be watched closely by the protest’s leadership. They are striving to learn from the mistakes of the USSR, and others such as Iran, where the result of martyring and sacrifice came too slowly or was misused by power brokers.

This is truly a ‘brave new world’ that we see coming out of Egypt. One of the oldest civilizations in the world may be building one of the most representative democratic governments the region has ever seen. If only the military truly supports the entirety of democratic reform and civilian rule. Time will tell.

What’s all this mean to the U.S.?

The events in Egypt could mean a complete re-assessment of the U.S. standing policy of tacit support for totalitarian rule in other countries. As I have mentioned before, most all countries have a policy of doing business with any government that keeps their local problems to themselves. We have rewarded governments with loans and other types of ‘foreign aid’ when they are successful in not stepping on our national interests. From monarchies to dictatorships, the oil rich Middle East has had little outspoken support for democratic reform from the West.

There is an outside chance that oil supplies and shipping could be disrupted. Economic hardship could be felt the world over if democratic transitions do not continue peacefully. Thus, the U.S. must tread softly and keep a well developed line of communication open to the military leaders in these countries to insure that governments do not overreact using military means. Obama’s measured approach was perfect for the Egyptian situation. All those that voiced unwavering support for Mubarak and those that attacked Obama over his handling of this event look pretty stupid right now.

JB