Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE

OCCUPY THE COMMONS


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0


Thursday, May 19, 2011

In Alabama, the Police Savagely Beat the Elderly if they Report Crime

The Raw Story

84-year-old man allegedly beaten by police officer after calling 911


By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 -- 7:21 pm

An Alabama police officer allegedly hospitalized an elderly man who called 911 to report an accident across the street from his house while his wife watched the entire beating from her wheelchair.

The Courthouse News Service reported that 84-year-old Dorsey Henderson of Fairhope, Alabama called 911 after investigating the car accident and discovering that the driver of the vehicle was severely intoxicated.

Henderson told the driver of the car he was under citizens arrest and needed to wait near his car until police arrived.

When Officer Trent Scott arrived on the scene, Henderson attempted to inform him of the driver's belligerent behavior and that the driver had been placed under citizens arrest. The officer allegedly told Henderson there was "no such thing as citizen's arrest in Alabama," and to "get out of the way, old man."

After Henderson tried to explain that he was only trying to help, Officer Scott placed him in an arm bar and slammed him face first into the ground, breaking his nose and eyeglasses. Henderson's wife, Dorris, watched from a wheelchair at the front window of her house, telling a 911 dispatcher that the officer was "beating the hell out of my husband."

At no point did Scott place Henderson under arrest or charge him with any crime, but kept Henderson handcuffed in the backseat of his police cruiser.

Roughly ten minutes later, Scott sent an ambulance that had arrived away, telling the paramedics that the elderly man "doesn't need an ambulance."

A superior office who later arrived on the scene ordered the ambulance to return and Henderson was taken to the hospital, where he doctors said he suffered a broken nose, multiple contusions and a torn rotator cuff.

As of May 16, 2011, Scott was still employed by the Fairhope Police Department.

View the complaint here [PDF]

5 Mega-Banks Have Defrauded Homeowners -- Will the Justice Department Actually Prosecute?


AlterNet.org



ECONOMY

5 Mega-Banks May Have Defrauded Homeowners -- Will the Justice Department Actually Prosecute?


The nation's five largest mortgage companies are being accused of defrauding taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans.

The Huffington Post has revealed that a set of confidential federal audits accuse the nation’s five largest mortgage companies of defrauding taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans. The audits conclude the banks cheated the government by overvaluing their losses on foreclosed homes and submitting faulty and defective documents to get federal reimbursement. According to the audit, the banks—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial—violated the False Claims Act, which protects the government from fraudulent billing. The findings have been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.

AMY GOODMAN: The Huffington Post has revealed a set of confidential federal audits accuse the nation’s five largest mortgage companies of defrauding taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans. The audits conclude the banks cheated the government by overvaluing their losses on foreclosed homes and submitting faulty and defective documents to get federal reimbursement. According to the audit, the banks violated the False Claims Act, which protects the government from fraudulent billing. The findings have been referred to the Justice Department.

The companies named are Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial. Two of the banks, including Bank of America, refused to cooperate with investigators. The audit concludes Bank of America failed to correct its practices even after renewing foreclosures following a brief moratorium last year. The moratorium was imposed following revelations bank employees had approved thousands of foreclosure affidavits and other documents without proper vetting. State officials are hoping to use the audit’s findings as leverage in their ongoing talks with the banks to settle the foreclosure fraud allegations.

For more, we’re joined by Shahien Nasiripour, a senior business reporter for the Huffington Post. He has been reporting extensively on the talks over the settling of the foreclosure fraud allegations and broke the latest story on the audit’s findings.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

SHAHIEN NASIRIPOUR: Thanks for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain it in full detail.

SHAHIEN NASIRIPOUR: In terms of this particular audit? So, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which—they oversee the FHA, the Federal Housing Administration—they have an internal auditor, the inspector general. So the inspector general went back, and they reviewed foreclosures on homes that were purchased with government-backed loans. And they looked to see how—you know, when the banks repossess these homes, and if they sell for the value that’s less than the outstanding mortgage, they’ll file with FHA a claim for reimbursement, because they’re insured by the government. And so, the HUD IG went back and looked at how the foreclosures were being processed, whether they used defective documents, false affidavits, any other kind of faulty documents which may not have conformed with state or local laws or federal rules. And for these five institutions, they found that they submitted false documents, and they claimed government reimbursement, and so taxpayers suffered losses. And because they defrauded the government, the government is now alleging they broke the False Claims Act, which is a Civil War-era law used to go after folks who swindle taxpayers. And so, that’s where we’re at right now.

AMY GOODMAN: So, who’s being held accountable right now? How does this fit into the settlement talks that the government is engaged in with these banks?

SHAHIEN NASIRIPOUR: So, the HUD IG referred these to Justice. So nothing can really happen unless Justice brings charges. But now the pressure is on the Department of Justice, because now we know the existence of these reports. In terms of the ongoing settlement discussions, the states and their federal partners who are involved in talking with the five institutions, they were hoping to use these audits, kind of keep them in their back pocket as leverage, if—you know, last week, the banks gave what was perceived as a lowball offer, $5 billion, to settle all claims, all mortgage-related probes. And state and federal officials deemed that far too low. And so, now we have these audits that are on the table, and the banks know that essentially the government is here to play ball, and they’re not messing around.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about Bank of America, in particular, Shahien.

SHAHIEN NASIRIPOUR: So, Bank of America, back last autumn, they halted all home seizures in judicial foreclosure states. These are states where you have to actually go to court to repossess someone’s homes. And they kind of expanded their moratorium because there were revelations that they employ so-called robo-signers and they used faulty and defective documents. When you go to seize someone’s home, essentially you’ve got to cross all your T’s and dot all your I’s. You have to swear before the court that you’ve reviewed all the documents, all the documents are truthful, you’ve gone over everything. And they allegedly didn’t do so, and they didn’t do so on a mass scale. And so, they halted home seizures. About 10 days later, they start them up, and they say that they had fixed everything and that everything was on the up and up. Well, the HUD IG says that it’s actually not true. They didn’t correct all their problems. They still had deficiencies. Yet they still went through and claimed that everything was OK. That’s one thing.

The second thing is, BofA is one of two firms that allegedly did not cooperate with investigators, which—you know, on one hand, firms like BofA, Wells Fargo, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, they’re subject to thousands of lawsuits and thousands—God knows how many regulatory investigations. So it’s interesting that while they make bank employees available, they make documents available, they apparently chose not to cooperate with this one. That’s something I’m still trying to dig into. I’m actually not clear on how they didn’t cooperate. A lot of the details really aren’t clear, because these are confidential audits.

AMY GOODMAN: The State of New York has also launched an investigation into Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley over the mortgage security operations at the three banks.

SHAHIEN NASIRIPOUR: Correct. So, the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, he’s empowered with the Martin Act, which is this law that’s actually kind of amazing, because the New York Attorney General can really investigate whatever he wants with respect to Wall Street and with respect to securities. He’s not hamstrung like other states who don’t have these—they don’t have these statutes on the books. And so, he can look at pretty much anything he wants. And right now he’s focused on mortgages. So he’s looking at essentially predatory lending, how these loans were bundled and packaged into securities, whether they followed the law, whether they deceived investors—the whole gamut.

AMY GOODMAN: One last question, Shahien, and that’s about banks foreclosing illegally on active-duty soldiers.

SHAHIEN NASIRIPOUR: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: The significance of this? A review of about 2,000 loans that experienced foreclosure, what, about 50 active-duty soldiers, their homes were foreclosed on?

SHAHIEN NASIRIPOUR: Well, that’s what we know of. That’s based on—government regulators looked at 2,800 loans. They looked at 14 mortgage firms.

AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.

SHAHIEN NASIRIPOUR: OK. Out of two of those 14, they found almost 50. So who knows how many actually were illegally foreclosed on?

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Shahien Nasiripour is senior business reporter for the Huffington Post. We’ll link to his articles there.

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

If a 50 Foot American Woman Fall Dead, Did She Make A Sound?

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice


If a 50-Foot Woman Falls Dead and No One Notices, Does She Make a Sound?

On April 27th, Yvette Vickers, an 82-year-old former Playboy playmate and star of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, was found dead in her Los Angeles home. Her remains were mummified and she’d been deceased for several months. Her fame and beauty were long gone and she passed away in solitary anonymity.

On February 18th, a 51-year-old L.A. County auditor named Rebecca Wells died in a cubicle at the California Department of Internal Services. Her demise wasn’t discovered until the following afternoon. No one approached her upright corpse until a relative called to report her missing.

In January 2009, Nebraska resident Mary Sue Merchant neglected to pay $234 in property taxes. The county she lived in sent a delinquency letter to her P.O. Box, but it was returned because she never responded. On December 1, 2010, the county sold her $160,000 home (complete with a recent model 4-door Chevy out front) for $20,000. When someone finally examined the property, they discovered Merchant’s dead body in the house with her dead dog nearby. Merchant had died of natural causes almost two years prior. Her dog had died of thirst shortly thereafter.

In early 2006, Long Island resident Vicenzo Ricardo sat down on his couch and turned on his television. Unlike his 200 million fellow American TV consumers however, Ricardo didn’t turn the TV off that evening or the next evening or the evening after that. Ricardo sat on his couch in front of the television for a year straight. His TV didn’t get turned off until mid-February of 2007, when a group of workers were dispatched to his address because freezing weather had caused his water pipes to burst.

Inside the workers found his well-preserved, mummified remains still propped up in TV viewing repose. His power had never been cut off.

For the first half of the 20th century, your average American knew their butcher, milkman, grocer, paper boy, banker, neighbors, etc. Their relationships weren’t virtual and their conversations weren’t electronic. They didn’t have each other at the push of a button that could just as easily have raised someone else at a different push of a button. They knew each other; they depended on each other. They were connected.

We’re simply linked.

And because of our lack of real human connections and dwindling, practical, face-to-face interpersonal relationships, too many of us live and die in unacknowledged isolation.

Metaphysically speaking, an unobserved event—like the deaths of Vickers, Wells, Merchant and Ricardo—has no perceivable effect, so an unobserved incident is identical to a non-event. If Vickers’ neighbor hadn’t decided to check on her, she’d still be mummifying. If Merchant’s house hadn’t have been sold out from underneath her, her and dog would still be lying in the dark. If Ricardo’s water pipes hadn’t burst, his TV might still be on as if he was still alive and soaking up the deceitful selling points and clever ad copy that shape the glittering unreality that thrives due to our disconnectedness.

Sometimes people just fall through the cracks. Sometimes it’s isolated individuals; sometimes it’s whole social and economic classes. The wealthy elites who run our country obviously don’t hear us falling. They’re so insulated from our struggles that our collapse has mostly been a non-event.

I fear in the end the stories of Vickers, Wells, Merchant and Ricardo will be our stories and humanity’s story. Eventually, there will be a virus or super-bacteria or bomb or cataclysmic cosmic or climate event. We’ll die in front of our TVs or in cubicles or in traffic and no one will notice.

The machines that we’ve left on will eventually shut off. The mythologies we fought over will become little more than oily films on the surface of the ocean.

Nature’s observance of our passing will only be acknowledged in its sudden thrivings, its new abundances and the re-enfranchisement of its law-abiding citizens.

Yvette Vickers, Rebecca Wells, Mary Sue Merchant, and Vincenzo Ricardo are forebodings of what we as a culture and a species are dithering towards.

E.R. Bills is a writer from Ft Worth, Texas. His recent works appear in Fort Worth Weekly, South Texas Nation, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth Magazine, etc. He can be reached at: erbillsthinks@gmail.com. Read other articles by E.R..

This article was posted on Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 at 8:02am and is filed under Culture.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Appalling Greed: Richest 400 Average $270.5 Million Incomes, Pay Almost Nothing in Taxes

AlterNet.org


ECONOMY

Appalling Greed: Richest 400 Average $270.5 Million Incomes, Pay Almost Nothing in Taxes


Compare that to 1955, when the country's most affluent made far less money and paid 51 percent of their income in taxes.

May 16, 2011 |








In 2008, the IRS revealed last week, 400 Americans reported at least $110 million in income on their federal tax returns. These 400, in a year that ended with millions of Americans out of work and home, averaged $270.5 million each, the second-highest U.S. top 400 average income on record.

The IRS only started reporting top 400 income calculations in 2003, and the agency's official “top 400” totals just go back to 1992. But older IRS data reports do make top 400 estimates from some earlier years possible. And these earlier figures leave the latest IRS numbers in even starker relief.

In 1955, for instance, America's top 400 averaged — in 2008 dollars — $13.3 million. In other words, the top 400 in 2008 reported incomes that, after taking inflation into account, amounted to more than 20 times the incomes of America’s top 400 a half-century ago.

But 1955’s top 400 didn’t just make far less than 2008’s top 400. The rich in 1955 paid far more of their income in taxes than today’s rich. In 2008, the new IRS data show, the top 400 paid only 18.1 percent of their total incomes in federal income tax. The top 400 in 1955 paid 51.2 percent of their total incomes in tax.

After taxes, and after adjusting for inflation, 2008’s top 400 had a staggering $85 billion more left in their pockets than 1955’s most awesomely affluent.

You don’t have to go all the way back to 1955 to see how little today's top 400 are paying in taxes. In 1992, the IRS stats detail, only 33 of the top 400 paid less than 20 percent of their incomes in federal income tax. In 2008, 253 did.

The main reason: Today’s rich are getting more and more of their income from capital gains — the profits from buying and selling stocks, bonds, and other assets — and these capital gains now face a substantially lower tax rate than they did two decades ago.

Some specifics: In 1992, the top 400 grabbed 26 percent of their income from paychecks and 36 percent from capital gains. In 2008, by contrast, only 8 percent of top 400 income came from salary — 88 of the year's top 400 didn’t even have jobs — and 57 percent came from capital gains.

These 2008 capital gains faced only a 15 percent tax rate, down from a 1992 rate almost twice that high.

Incomes for the 2008 top 400 did dip from top 400 levels in 2007, a year that saw the top 400 average $344.8. But the dropoff from 2007 to 2008 turned out to be less steep than the dip in 2000 after the dot-com bust.

America’s richest came roaring back, fairly fast, from that dot-com setback. How fast will the next comeback be for America’s super rich? We won’t know for sure until next spring, when the IRS releases top 400 income figures for 2009.

We can, in the meantime, do some reasonable surmising. Next year’s top 400 figures for 2009, we can predict with some confidence, figure to be real stunners. One statistic behind that confidence: In 2009, we already know, the financial industry’s top 25 hedge fund managers averaged a record $1.01 billion, over double the $464 million hedge fund top 25 average in 2008.

Top 400 tax rates

Sam Pizzigati is the editor of the online weekly Too Much, and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

The Rise of the Obamabots: Stifling Liberal Dissent Under Obama




SYNDICATED COLUMN: Rise of the Obamabots

Stifling Liberal Dissent Under Obama

After they called the presidency for Obama, emails poured in. “You must be relieved now that the Democrats are taking over,” an old college buddy told me. “There will be less pressure on you.”

That would have been nice.

In the late 1990s my cartoons ran in Time, Fortune and Bloomberg Personal magazines and over 100 daily and alternative weekly newspapers. I was a staff writer for two major magazines.

Then Bush came in. And 9/11 happened.

The media gorged on an orgy of psychotic right-wing rhetoric. Flags everywhere. Torture suddenly OK. In a nation where mainstream political discourse was redefined between Dick Cheney on the right and libertarian Bill Maher on the not-as-right, there wasn’t any room in the paper for a left-of-center cartoonist. My business was savaged. Income plunged.

My editor at Time called me on September 13, 2001. “We’re discontinuing all cartoons,” she told me. I was one of four cartoonists at the newsweekly. “Humor is dead.” I snorted. They never brought back cartoons.

McCarthyism—blackballing—made a big comeback. I had been drawing a monthly comic strip, “The Testosterone Diaries,” for Men’s Health. No politics. It was about guy stuff: dating, job insecurity, prostate tests, that sort of thing. They fired me. Not because of anything I drew for them. It was because of my syndicated editorial cartoons, which attacked Bush and his policies. The publisher worried about pissing off right-wingers during a period of nationalism on steroids.

Desperate and going broke, I called an editor who’d given me lots of work at the magazines he ran during the 1990s. “Sorry, dude, I can’t help,” he replied. “You’re radioactive.”

It was tempting, when Obama’s Democrats swept into office in 2008, to think that the bad old days were coming to an end. I wasn’t looking for any favors, just a swing of the political pendulum back to the Clinton years when it was still OK to be a liberal.

This, you have no doubt correctly guessed, is the part where I tell you I was wrong.

I didn’t count on the cult of personality around Barack Obama.

In the 1990s it was OK to attack Clinton from the left. I went after the Man From Hope and his centrist, “triangulation”-obsessed Democratic Leadership Council for selling out progressive principles. Along with like-minded political cartoonists including Tom Tomorrow and Lloyd Dangle, my cartoons and columns took Clinton’s militant moderates to the woodshed for NAFTA, the WTO and welfare reform. A pal who worked in the White House informed me that the President, known for his short temper, stormed into his office and slammed a copy of that morning’s Washington Post down on the desk with my cartoon showing. “How dare your friend compare me to Bush?” he shouted. (The first Bush.)

It was better than winning a Pulitzer.

It feels a little weird to write this, like I’m telling tales out of school and ratting out the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. But it’s true: there’s less room for a leftie during the Age of Obama than there was under Bush.

I didn’t realize how besotted progressives were by Mr. Hopey Changey.

Obama lost me before Inauguration Day, when he announced cabinet appointments that didn’t include a single liberal.

It got worse after that: Obama extended and expanded Bush’s TARP giveaway to the banks; continued Bush’s spying on our phone calls; ignored the foreclosure crisis; refused to investigate, much less prosecute, Bush’s torturers; his healthcare plan was a sellout to Big Pharma; he kept Gitmo open; expanded the war against Afghanistan; dispatched more drone bombers; used weasel words to redefine the troops in Iraq as “non-combat”; extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich; claiming the right to assassinate U.S. citizens; most recently, there was the forced nudity torture of PFC Bradley Manning and expanding oil drilling offshore and on national lands.

I was merciless to Obama. I was cruel in my criticisms of Obama’s sellouts to the right. In my writings and drawings I tried to tell it as it was, or anyway, as I saw it. I thought—still think—that’s my job. I’m a critic, not a suck-up. The Obama Administration doesn’t need journalists or pundits to carry its water. That’s what press secretaries and PR flacks are for.

Does Obama ever do anything right? Not often, but sure. And when he does, I shut up about it. Cartoonists and columnists who promote government policy are an embarrassment.

But that’s what “liberal” media outlets want in the age of Obama.

I can’t prove it in every case. (That’s how blackballing works.) The Nation and Mother Jones and Harper’s, liberal magazines that gave me freelance work under Clinton and Bush, now ignore my queries. Even when I offered them first-person, unembedded war reporting from Afghanistan. Hey, maybe they’re too busy to answer email or voicemail. You never know.

Other censors are brazen.

There’s been a push among political cartoonists to get our work into the big editorial blogs and online magazines that seem poised to displace traditional print political magazines like The Progressive. In the past, editorial rejections had numerous causes: low budgets, lack of space, an editor who simply preferred another creator’s work over yours.

Now there’ s a new cause for refusal: Too tough on the president.

I’ve heard that from enough “liberal” websites and print publications to consider it a significant trend.

A sample of recent rejections, each from editors at different left-of-center media outlets:

• “I am familiar with and enjoy your cartoons. However the readers of our site would not be comfortable with your (admittedly on point) criticism of Obama.”

• “Don’t be such a hater on O and we could use your stuff. Can’t you focus more on the GOP?”

• “Our first African-American president deserves a chance to clean up Bush’s mess without being attacked by us.”

I have many more like that.

What’s weird is that these cultish attitudes come from editors and publishers whose politics line up neatly with mine. They oppose the bailouts. They want us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. They disapprove of Obama’s new war against Libya. They want Obama to renounce torture and Guantánamo.

Obama is the one they ought to be blackballing. He has been a terrible disappointment to the American left. He has forsaken liberals at every turn. Yet they continue to stand by him. Which means that, in effect, they are not liberals at all. They are militant Democrats. They are Obamabots.

As long as Democrats win elections, they are happy. Nevermind that their policies are the same as, or to the right of, the Republicans.

“So what should I think about [the war in Libya]?,” asks Kevin Drum in Mother Jones. “If it had been my call, I wouldn’t have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I’d literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he’s smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted.”

Mr. Drum, call your office. Someone found your brain in the break room.

Barack Obama and the Democrats have made it perfectly clear that they don’t care about the issues and concerns that I care about. Unlike Kevin Drum, I think—I know—I’m smarter than Barack Obama. I wouldn’t have made half the mistakes he has.

So I don’t care about Obama. Or the Democrats. I care about America and the world and the people who live in them.

Hey, Obamabots: when the man you support betrays your principles, he has to go—not your principles.

(Ted Rall is the author of “The Anti-American Manifesto.” His website is tedrall.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2011 TED RALL

Monday, May 16, 2011

Donald Trump Not Running for President

The Daily Beast
The Morning Scoop May 16, 2011


Donald Trump Not Running for President


The Donald has officially bowed out of the 2012 race. Howard Kurtz on why he chose Celebrity Apprentice over the White House—and why he never stood a chance anyway.

Donald Trump was playing with us all along.

He chose today to tell the world what many had suspected all along, that he’s not running for president—a day that, it just so happens, NBC was meeting with advertisers about its fall schedule. If Trump was still exploring a White House bid, the network couldn’t have pitched his Celebrity Apprentice at the upfronts.

Article - Kurtz Trump No Run Jim Cole / AP Photo

In what has become the standard I-coulda-won statement from Republican dropouts, Trump said in a statement: “This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country. I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election.

“I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”

Of course business—the business of marketing himself—is his greatest passion. The Donald is hardly a natural politician, given his propensity for outrageous statements occasionally punctuated by F bombs. The remarkable thing is that the thrice-married real-estate developer was, for the briefest of moments, the Republican presidential frontrunner.

He had done this tease before, but never to this extent. My sense is that the flirtation was originally a lark, albeit one that would bring massive publicity to the Trump brand. But when he shot up in opinion surveys, I believe he was tempted and started taking his pseudocandidacy more seriously. The field was weak, and money would not have been an issue.

Had he stayed in the 2012 hunt, though, Trump undoubtedly would have imploded. There were signs that this was already happening when he pulled the plug.

The most bizarre aspect of Trump’s short, strange campaign was his initial obsession with the birther issue. The media establishment challenged and even mocked him for pushing the nonsense that President Obama wasn’t born in America, but it didn’t seem to hurt him—at least not with the nearly half of Republican voters who already harbor doubts about the president’s citizenship.

Trump declared he was “proud” of himself for essentially forcing Obama to release his long-form birth certificate, but that—and the president’s humiliating jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner—made clear that he had been peddling a load of garbage. And the successful strike against Osama bin Laden the next day made the whole episode seem, in retrospect, like small potatoes. His poll numbers quickly collapsed.

Any honest assessment of the Trump Moment has to acknowledge that he touched a nerve. To be sure, part of it was the successful businessman and Washington outsider railing against a dysfunctional system that many Americans already resent. When Trump complained that the United States needs to stand up to China and the OPEC sheikhs, he tapped into a deep vein of discontent with our conduct of world affairs.

Never mind that Trump’s prescriptions were wildly unrealistic—he would just seize Libya’s oil as one of the spoils of war, or bludgeon Middle East potentates into lowering the price of oil. They felt good. And politics is about emotional responses as much as the intricacies of policy.

Not only that, but Trump is a master showman. The media love covering him. He obliterated coverage of Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty and whoever else is running these days.

Had he stayed in the 2012 hunt, though, Trump undoubtedly would have imploded.

But Trump’s fleeting success also contained the seeds of his self-destruction. As news organizations began taking him more seriously, they started digging into problems with some of his condo projects and his modestly named Trump University—which I wrote about for NEWSWEEK and which as recently as last week hit the front page of The New York Times. And there were a slew of pieces about his draft deferments, past contributions to Democrats, failure to vote in past elections. The Donald had to be asking himself how much more scrutiny he was prepared to face if he ran—along with the inevitable stories about his extramarital affairs.

It was an exciting and symbiotic relationship while it lasted, Trump and the media feeding their mutual love of bombast and hatred of boredom. But the relationship would not be consummated. It was like a spring romance that flamed out before anyone had to make a serious commitment.

In his statement, Trump served notice that he will not fall silent: “I will not shy away from expressing the opinions that so many of you share yet don’t have a medium through which to articulate.” Trump’s medium is himself, and media outlets will continue to channel him.

Howard Kurtz is The Daily Beast and Newsweek's Washington bureau chief, and writes the Spin Cycle blog. He also hosts CNN's weekly media program Reliable Sources on Sundays at 11 a.m. ET. The longtime media reporter and columnist for The Washington Post, Kurtz is the author of five books.

6 State Battlegrounds in the Right-Wing War Against Teachers, Firefighters, Caregivers and the Entire Middle Class

AlterNet.org

ECONOMY

6 State Battlegrounds in the Right-Wing War Against Teachers, Firefighters, Caregivers and the Entire Middle Class


Our nation has devolved into a new and nasty civil war, with moneyed elites now charging into legislatures and courts to establish themselves as a de facto plutocracy.

You're not likely to have known Robert Clark, Ruth West, Chet Newall, Webb Kamp, or Darrell Odom, but I wouldn't be who I am without them. And you might have a similar honor roll of those who spurred, inspired, lured, intrigued, goaded, and otherwise motivated you to do more than you might otherwise have done -- a list of your special public school teachers. The junior-high, senior-high, and college teachers on my list largely sparked my lifelong interests in language, history, politics, and how (and for whom) government really works.

However, I was naive about their motivation. Little did I know at the time that their ilk are tax-sucking leeches, glorified babysitters, overpaid slugs who leave work at 3 p.m. and take the whole summer off. "Greedy," as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie barked at teachers in his state.

Thus America is suddenly at war against its own teachers -- along with its firefighters, police officers, public health researchers and caregivers, sanitation workers, census takers, park rangers, air traffic controllers, and the whole horde of 'do-nothings' on the public payroll. Fire 'em, bust their unions, take away their democratic rights, slash their pay, increase their workloads, eliminate their pensions, and (most especially) scorn them.

Those are not just the vitriolic sentiments of a few red-faced, tea-party lunatics -- but of a squawking flock of right-wing governors, state legislators, mayors, and members of Congress. These are our leaders speaking!

[Ironic aside: The 'leaders' who're so wildly assailing public employees also happen to be public employees, and they consume a whole lot more of our tax dollars than those they're dissing. Gov. Christie, for example, siphons $175,000 a year from the public treasury in salary -- far more than any of those "greedy" teachers in his state. And while politicos screech for deep cutbacks in rank and file workers, notice that they're not volunteering any givebacks in their own pay, pensions, health care, limousines, mansions, and other public subsidies. Apparently, they never had a teacher explain 'irony' to them, but it would be a better world if they took a remedial class on the concept. Oh, too late -- teachers of irony have been fired.]

Funded and orchestrated by such hard-core, anti-laborite billionaires like the Kochs, DeVoses, Bradleys, Scaifes, Coorses, and Waltons, the right wing has declared open season on public employees. But don't think that the assault by corporate extremists stops there. Using the GOP and the tea partiers as their political foot soldiers -- they intend to dismantle the public sphere, crush all unions, downsize the entire middle class, and banish egalitarianism as an American ideal. Ready or not, our nation has devolved into a new and nasty civil war, with moneyed elites now charging into legislatures and courts to separate their good fortunes from the working class and to establish themselves as a de facto plutocracy.

Battlefields

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," declared Sen. Barry Goldwater in his failed presidential try in 1964. Today, though, the billionaires masquerading as Goldwater's libertarian heirs are seeking only to 'liberate' themselves from our democratic society's essential rules of fair play. They resent paying taxes for anything that benefits others, they demand freedom from regulation of their corporate excesses, and they absolutely reject the notion that workers, consumers, environmentalists, and other community interests should have any power over corporate whim.

Their sense of entitlement is nauseating, and their ongoing militant maneuvering in state after state to dis-empower America's workaday majority constitutes a declaration of war against our people's democracy. "Extremism in the defense of elitism" is their ugly purpose. That is a vice.

Ugly Number One is that theirs is a most uncivil war. It's based on demonizing some of the best and most useful workers in our country, pitting these people's very modest incomes and perfectly reasonable benefits against those who've been knocked down and have less. "Don't look at us," shout the corporatists who've been doing the downsizing and privatizing, outsourcing and offshoring -- that have knocked down the middle class and held down the poor. "Instead, look at those just above you who are struggling to stay in the middle class. It's unfair that they have health coverage and you don't, so let's pull them down, too."

Who benefits from that?

The good news is that folks mostly have not swallowed this divide-and-conquer battle cry. Polls are consistently showing widespread opposition to right-wing proposals to fire the masses of pubic employees and rescind the rights of unions. The bad news is that GOP governors and congressional leaders don't give a damn about the will of the people; they're listening to the will of Big Money. So Ugly Number Two in the elitists' war is their willingness to use raw autocratic power to ram through their anti-worker agenda.

How ironic (there's that word again) that those purporting to be champions of "small, inobtrusive government" are quite comfortable with big, invasive, bullying government slapping down millions of America's working families. Let's take a tour of just a half-dozen battlefields in this rapidly expanding war:

FLORIDA. When newly elected Republican Gov. Rick Scott declared last year that he would run this state's government like a business, it was no idle threat. He had previously been CEO of the giant health care conglomerate Columbia/HCA, where he presided over massive Medicare fraud that cost his culprit corporation a $1.7 billion federal fine and cost him his job.

Scott is a failed corporate executive, but he made off with a personal fortune, so naturally he dove into politics. His money allowed him to 'win' a three-way race for the governor's mansion with only 49 percent of the vote. Bringing his finely honed sense of big business ethics to the job, Scott is on a rampage to bust teachers and other wage-earners, slash services that regular people need, and make his state a safe haven for plutocrats. In only his first four months, Hizzoner has:

Demoralized Florida teachers (already among the lowest paid in the country) by moving a bill requiring each of them to reapply for their job every year, with renewal of their contract dependent on how their students perform on a single standardized test. The bill will force more teaching-to-the-test and less classroom innovation, setting up even good teachers for failure and making the profession less desirable. In addition, Scott is a 'don't-tax-the-rich' zealot, so the state's budget deficit is to be substantially narrowed by firing teachers and increasing the workloads of those who remain.

Depressed (both economically and psychologically) Florida's hard-hit workforce by pushing legislation to cut jobless payments. With 11.5 percent unemployment, and with some of the most miserly unemployment benefits in the country, Scott is slashing the number of weeks that out-of-work Floridians can get jobless aid to as low as 12 weeks, rather than the standard 26. To add to his Scrooginess, his proposal also makes it easier for a corporation to fire employees, making workers ineligible for any unemployment assistance. As the house sponsor of Scott's bill explained, "Businesses need the state's help."

Worked diligently to help one business in particular: his own. After being dumped by Columbia/HCA, Scott set up Solantic, a Florida chain of emergency care clinics. As guv, he is working to privatize Medicaid, which would create a huge statewide customer base of poor people for a certain chain of clinics tied directly to Scott (lest you think this is self-serving, the governor made a point of divesting his interest in Solantic just before taking office -- he transferred ownership to his wife, literally putting his interest at arms length! This was so stinky that he later was forced to sell it).

Issued an executive order requiring drug tests on thousands of state workers and every future applicant for state jobs. He's also pressing the legislature to mandate drug tests for all the hard-luck Floridians who apply for welfare benefits. Welcome to Rick Scott's Florida -- please pee to prove your innocence! Now, guess which corporation is in the drug-testing business? Yes, Solantic.

Catered to the rich. He has proposed massive tax cuts to corporations and millionaires, even as he wants to whack state education spending by 10 percent and taken an average of $2,300 a year out of each teacher's paycheck. Moreover, in a perfect snapshot of his class-based values, Scott has tried to eliminate state spending on two historically black universities, while trying to funnel taxpayer dollars into the construction of golf courses in state parks.

MAINE. For sheer crudeness in going after labor, it'll be tough to top Paul LePage, the new gubernatorial potentate of the pine tree state. Previously the manager of a chain of discount surplus and salvage stores, this right winger won the five-way governor's race last fall with only 38 percent of the vote. Unencumbered by humility, LePage has interpreted his meager percentage as a sweeping mandate to repeal workers' bargaining rights, restrict the ability of unions to collect dues from their members, cut pension benefits for state employees (though he mercifully exempted one -- himself), raise the retirement age for public workers, cut programs that benefit Maine's middle class (while generously lowering the tax bill for the state's richest one percent), and even roll back child labor laws!

Then he literally raised disdain for working families to high art. In March, the governor dictated that an 11-panel mural be removed from the state labor department's lobby. The piece depicts scenes from the state's rich labor history, but the governor says it represents a "one-sided decor" that reflects poorly on his pro-corporate agenda. Also, his office claims that "some business owners" complained, including one who saw the painting as an attempt to "brainwash the masses." So, ever attentive to the artistic sensibilities of unnamed corporate executives, the mural was 'disappeared.'

This made LePage a national joke -- "The most moronic and mindless anti-worker gesture in the country," editorialized the Hartford Courant, and the Maine People's Alliance ridiculed him as "the state's interior decorator." The sharpest sting, though, came from the US Labor Department. Pointing out that the mural had been paid for by a federal grant under George W. Bush's regime, the feds are dunning LePage to return the money or reinstall the artwork. The governor's office is presently studying its options.

MICHIGAN. Rick Snyder posed as a moderate Republican to win the governorship last November. But the real Rick turns out to be a flaming corporatist.

In a state desperate for programs to help its hard-hit working families, Snyder's first budget priority was to give corporations a 60 percent cut in taxes. To help make up for that revenue loss, he proposed to tax the pensions of working class retirees and kill the state's earned income tax credit for the poor.

Then came his low blow to Michigan's huge number of jobless folks. He snuck a provision into law that stops unemployment benefits after 20 weeks, taking away six weeks of assistance that every other state provides. The state chamber of commerce gloated that "it's a huge win for job providers" (aka, corporate barons). Indeed, the slick move will save corporations about $300 million a year -- money taken right out of the hide of jobless people.

But the jaw-dropper is his Local Government Fiscal Accountability Act. This tyrannical law effectively authorizes Snyder to seize control of local governments, suspend democratic sovereignty, and hand municipal authority and assets to the corporations of his choice. He can declare that any city, county, school district, etc... is 'insolvent' and then appoint a manager to run the entity. This autocratic regent, which may be a private corporation, would have the power to bypass and even dismiss elected officials, commandeer the public budget, cancel all contracts (including collective bargaining agreements), decertify public employee unions, sell off assets, and even dis-incorporate the local entity.

It's the reincarnation of King George III, dressed in corporate splendor.

OHIO. John Kasich, a former GOP congressman, routinely bashed Ohio's unions in his 2010 gubernatorial run.

Backed financially by the likes of the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch, he is now backing their vision of a union-free America. His club of choice is a draconian law that bars teachers and other public employees from striking for any reason, punishes any workers who participate in a walkout, eliminates automatic pay raises, bans any union effort to limit privatization of a government function, prohibits police and firefighters from access to binding arbitration in contract disputes, and only allows public employees to bargain with their governmental bosses when the bosses say they can.

Kasich excuses this by asserting that he was elected to make drastic cuts in state spending, including in the pay of these workers. But he has spared a few workers -- those in his own office. For example, he is paying his chief of staff $170,000 a year, nearly $50,000 more than the position previously paid. To get "good people to come in" to government, Kasich said without a trace of irony, you have to offer good salaries.

None of this has endeared him to Ohioans. The public opposed his attack on working people (it passed by only one vote in the state senate), his approval rating after just three months in office has crashed to 30 percent, a sizable majority now would vote for his 2010 opponent, and there's a move to recall him.

But, for the moment, hundreds of thousands of Ohio workers have had their rights and financial well-being sacrificed at the Koch-Kasich altar of corporate ideology.

TEXAS. Gov. Rick Perry brags that he's made the lone star state "corporate-friendly." Here's what that friendliness buys you: While Texas' unemployment rate is not as bad as most states (it ranks a so-so 22nd), the wage structure here is deliberately worker-hostile -- average hourly pay is the 44th lowest in the country. Texas is, however, at or near the top when it comes to the poverty rate, the percentage of people with no health insurance, the income gap between rich and poor, the most regressive tax system, the cost of electric bills, and the rate of high school dropouts.

Then there's the radioactive $27 billion budget deficit that Perry has run up -- the second-highest in the country. So who's expected to bear this deficit burden? The middle class and the poor, of course, including at least 100,000 school teachers who're now getting their "excessed" notices. Perry's budget chops current school spending by nearly $8 billion, even as student enrollment soars. Teachers and kids must absorb the shortfall, says Texas Rick, because he can't bear to hike the meager taxes paid by corporations and the rich, nor will he stand for eliminating their tax loopholes and state subsidies. Texas budget writers admit that they will not begin to meet the state's basic needs and that Perry's stripped down budget will cost Texans 335,000 more jobs in the next two years. They're praying that theirs are not among them.

WISCONSIN. This is where America's middle class first planted its flag and confronted the civil war. As the Lowdown reported last month, newbie-Gov. Scott Walker's extremist, anti-worker agenda (developed for him by Koch-funded corporate front groups) sparked a massive grassroots rebellion of ordinary Wisconsinites, and they are not going away. In substance, Walker's attack on laboring people is much like his fellow right-wing guvs in other states. But he has been especially arrogant, autocratic, and abusive in trying to ram it into law, essentially operating as an above-the-law, tinhorn tyrant. Walker and his legislative henchmen -- openly backed by Koch money and operatives -- are big government on a rampage. Here are just a few of their ends-justify- the-means tactics:

When 14 stalwart Democratic senators left the state for Illinois to deny Walker the necessary quorum needed to pass his bill killing collective bargaining, his senate leader changed the rules so the 14 could not get their paychecks. When this silliness failed to lure any of them back, Walker's team plotted to send state troopers to arrest them -- even though they had broken no laws.

Furious at the Democrats, Walker got real petty. His legislative leaders decreed that the staffs of the 14 absent senators could not use copying machines in the capitol. That'll teach 'em!

With outraged protestors swarming into the capitol daily, Walker arbitrarily locked it down, illegally shutting peaceful Wisconsin citizens out of their own building.

From the start, Walker loudly insisted that suspending public employee rights was necessary to balance the state budget. Finally, though, with Democrats still denying him a quorum, he suddenly dropped his fiscal responsibility pose, stripped the bill of all budget numbers, and -- in a coup with little advance notice and no debate -- slammed the anti-worker provisions through.

A lawsuit, however, claims the bill's passage was illegal because senate leaders violated the open meetings law to sneak it through. To consider this, a judge has temporarily blocked the statute -- but Walker's agents made an end run and simply declared it enacted. No, said the judge, reinstating her injunction.

With the battle now in court, the GOP senate leader issued a new rule dictating that while the 14 senate Democrats are free to attend committee meetings and cast votes -- "those votes will not count." He was later forced to withdraw this autocratic absurdity.

This is war

The Powers That Be don't like us thinking in terms of class war, or even using the phrase. But from the ever-expanding wealth gap to the relentless downsizing and offshoring of American jobs, from the Supreme Court's enthronement of corporate political money to the state-by-state offensive on worker power -- what else can it be called?

The six states above are certainly not the only battlefields -- perhaps your governor, mayor, and congressional members are pushing the same attack. Did all of these officials independently and simultaneously choose to side with wealth against the rest of us -- or is this a coordinated push? If it's the latter, what can you and I do about it? In the June Lowdown, we'll follow up on these questions with Chapter Two on America's Civil War.

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the new book, "Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow." (Wiley, March 2008) He publishes the monthly "Hightower Lowdown," co-edited by Phillip Frazer.