It pays to be an ex-president

Cranking out books is one thing, but signing on for "consulting" work for businesses such as banks or countries who want US access is another story. It's part of the corruption mentality that is so pervasive in Washington politics and it needs to stop. This CNN story much too kind to the former presidents who have cashed in because we know that Bill Clinton, for example, did not amass his fortune by speaking alone. That's been part of it but there's much more. One can only guess how Bush generated $15 million since leaving office. CNN:

Right after Clinton left the White House in 2001, the Greater Washington Association of Executives paid him $125,000 for a speech, a very standard price for a former president. "I've never had any money until I got out of the White House," Clinton told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in 2010. "But I've done reasonably well since then." That's quite the understatement. Since 2001, he's earned $75.6 million giving speeches to corporations and organizations around the world, according to the latest financial disclosure required of his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Center for Public Integrity estimates George W. Bush has made $15 million from speeches since leaving office.

At least CNN does mention Reagan's cashing in with a few speeches in Japan, though they failed to talk about the mansion that his "friends" bought for him when he retired. Nice friends, huh? If only the problem was only limited to ex-presidents. How long until we see Tim Geithner making millions on Wall Street? Or what about retired generals? Or Congressional aides who leave? Or former SEC officials who jump to the other side? In Washington if you're not cashing in, you're a chump. Too bad things never work out well for the taxpayers with all of these deals. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: What's being cut is heavily focused on investment; that's an "utter disaster"

The Professor does put too fine point on it. The austerity situation in this country is "an utter disaster."

In a recent post, Paul Krugman identifies what Republican-induced (and Obama-enabled) austerity is doing to the United States — we're slashing investment to pander to electoral freaks on the right (and the Billionaires who love them).

(Sorry, was that too direct? Sometimes I forget myself. By "electoral freaks" I naturally mean fine and worthy citizens of the opposite but reasonable persuasion; people who spend more time at the mall than the airport; people who rarely get porn-scanned. Them.)

Here's Krugman's way of putting it (my emphasis):

[W]e’re sacrificing the future as well as the present. Oh, and the cuts that aren’t falling on investment in physical capital are largely falling on human capital, that is, education.

It’s hard to overstate just how wrong all this is. We have a situation in which resources are sitting idle looking for uses — massive unemployment of workers, especially construction workers, capital so bereft of good investment opportunities that it’s available to the federal government at negative real interest rates. ... What an utter disaster.

"What an utter disaster" indeed.

Think back to all of last year, when Mr. Bipartisan threw rightwing-framing gold at the Republicans so they (and their racist base) would like him. Mr. Multi-dimensional Mindset. Mr. Chill, I Got This.

Mr. Reap What You Sow, say I.

Not in 2012, of course — he's a shoo-in for that one. No, the reapage will come later. Obama will spend the rest of his life repairing his legacy; which will only stand scrutiny inside the moat around the walls that surround the gated mansions he's due to be fêted in, while the wind howls outside everywhere else.

The man has ruined us (if The Professor is to be believed). We now have a vastly diminished national investment, and without investment, a vastly diminished future.

And yet it's still arguable that the next Republican president could be worse. After all, that one might try never to leave office. Then where would we be?

What a revolting development, the radicalized Riley might say. The radicalized Krugman agrees.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Arab League suspends monitoring in Syria

The Arab League has to stand up and take action against Assad if they want to cling on to any legitimacy. The Guardian:

The Arab League has suspended its monitoring mission in Syria and criticised President Bashar al-Assad's regime for the escalating violence that has claimed the lives of at least 80 people in recent days. In a statement, Nabil el-Araby, the league's secretary general, said around 100 observers would remain in the country but would not undertake new missions. "Given the critical deterioration of the situation in Syria and the continued use of violence … it has been decided to immediately stop the work of the Arab League's mission to Syria pending presentation of the issue to the league's council," he said.

Read the rest of this post...

Arrests made following police raid at Murdoch's UK office

The situation is sounding more and more serious for Rupert Murdoch following the police visit to the News Corp UK offices. Does anyone seriously think that the US offices of News Corp are untouched by this? We deserve an investigation over here as well to see exactly what this business is up to. The Guardian:

The role of the former Sun editor Rebekah Brooks is expected to come under fresh scrutiny after four of the paper's current and former journalists were arrested on Saturday in connection with an investigation into corrupt payments to police. Detectives with Operation Elveden, the Metropolitan Police's investigation into illegal payments to officers, raided the Sun's offices in Wapping, east London, morning after receiving information from News Corp, the parent company of News International, which owns the paper. A serving police officer in the Met's Territorial Policing command was also arrested at his place of work and questioned at a police station. In a statement, News Corp said: "Metropolitan Police Service officers from Operation Elveden arrested four current and former employees from the Sun newspaper. Searches have also taken place at the homes and offices of those arrested. News Corporation made a commitment last summer that unacceptable news gathering practices by individuals in the past would not be repeated."

Read the rest of this post...

Who is Sheldon Adelson and why is he buying Newt Gingrich?

In a recent article in that wonderful publication, New York Review of Books, Elizabeth Drew examines our election system and asks: "Can We Have a Democratic Election?"

It's a longish piece and worth your time. She covers many aspects of the answer, including the Republican war on voting rights.

Here I'd like to single out just one observation, involving a certain Sheldon Adelson, one of the mega-rich — the top .01% — and someone you've likely never heard of. But if you think "Koch Bros" you're there.

Sheldon Adelson is the 8th richest man in the U.S. and the 16th wealthiest person in the world. In other words, he's a player in the big leagues, a billionaire among billionaires. (Mostly, these guys go unobserved, like billionaire sports franchise owners. Quick, who owns the New York Giants? Now, who plays quarterback for them? See? Adelson flies under that radar too.)

Back to Elizabeth Drew. The context of the discussion is the dueling Super PACs, Romney's and Gingrich's, each flooding their respective primary campaigns with bought resources, like media ads and "documentary" films. Drew writes (my emphasis below):

When Gingrich’s Super PAC was running low on funds after Iowa it was rescued by Gingrich’s longtime backer, Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson. Adelson and his wife have spent at least $10 million to put Gingrich on the course to the presidency, and Gingrich has vowed to issue an executive order on his first day as president to move the American embassy in Israel from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv [sic]—a cause long supported by Adelson and other strong supporters of Israel. Were Gingrich to win, Sheldon Adelson would be one of the most influential people in the country.

That took my breath away. Pause to consider.

Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson, a man worth $23 billion, drops a mere $10,000,000 (that's 10 very big ones) into Gingrich's pocket — for the primary.

So I start asking myself:

1. What are we on course for? Rhetorical question, of course. Answer — Baronial rule via paid retainers (here, Gingrich).

After all, why allow the rich to become that rich if they can't buy stuff with it? In this analogy, Gingrich — and the presidency — count as "stuff."

I'm serious about this. We allow people to acquire mega-wealth, then we let our politicians sell out to them, then we complain about the result while pretending we have a democracy. It's nuts, I know. That's why I don't think about it; hey, there's a game on somewhere (Vegas?) and I think I need a drink.

2. What does that make Gingrich? Another rhetorical question, but this being a family paper, I'll just say "paid lackey" — an eager one. Or if you insist on the polite term — "retainer," a kind of highly placed personal servant (and very responsive, given the pay).

3. What does that make people like Adelson? The old term would be "kingmaker," but kingmakers didn't rule after the election. There's no question that a Koch Bros President would take his orders "directly from Chief Powatan" (in Stan Freberg's delightful formulation). Doubt me? Listen again to Gov. Scott ("Reporting for duty,sir") Walker. Check out the tone.

In fact, Sheldon Adelson — and all who invest alongside of him — are angling to own the President. As are Romney's major investors. (As are...well...)

If you care, there's a lot more on Sheldon Adelson here.

3. In which election do we discover that this kind of bought-ness applies to every important state and federal election? This means, all governors, majorities of state legislators, all elected state Supreme Court judges (as already practiced in Wisconsin); plus enough congressmen and senators to create a permanent ruling majority in Washington.

Don't be stunned by the list of offices; that's the side show, the given. Go back to the question — in what year will this discovery be manifest?

I'll give you only two choices — In this federal election (2012)? Or the next one (2014)? Frankly, if you think this won't play out publicly until 2016, you seriously underestimate our billionaires.

Sheldon Adelson, Newt Gingrich's new owner, and yours, if Gingrich gains the crown. Watch for much more of this stuff; it's the new normal. Ten million dollars is nothing to the Adelsons ($23 billion strong), and there are many more Adelsons in this world than we realize. (Note, I said "in this world." Do you think this is just a national sport?)

Soros may well be right (another of his sins).

GP Read the rest of this post...

The Kinks - You Really Got Me

My Scrapple breakfast at a diner was a complete success yesterday so I'm set for a while. That stuff is great, especially when it's crispy on the sides. Later today I'm seeing my little niece who is not very little anymore and only a few inches shorter than I am. She has a cheerleading competition which is something that I've never done so I'll have a few hours worth today. After that I'm heading to dinner with my nephew who is trying to decide where to go for college next year. He's applied to a handful of schools across the US and waiting to hear from most of them. Read the rest of this post...