It's Taxation Without Representation

 Financial FAQs

“Oh, and as for all these tariffs: Whatever you think of them (and I am not a blanket opponent), they are taxes. They are sales taxes. Where in my copy of the United States Constitution does it say that the president has the power unilaterally to impose whatever sales taxes he wants, on whatever products he wants, at whatever moment? I must have skipped school the day they taught that in civics.” Bret Arends, MarketWatch

Thoughtco.com

I quoted MarketWatch columnist Brett Arends because it was a cause of our Revolutionary War for those that remember the Boston Tea Party. King George III tried to tax American colonists and it didn’t work. Why does ‘King’ Trump believe it will work when he promised he would bring down inflation on “Day 1?”

We are already seeing the result in almost all prices. Walmart and Target have already announced that they will raise some prices because they can no longer absorb the increased cost of their imported goods from the tariffs.

It’s Trump’s attempt to bring back President McKinley’s Gilded Age of robber barons and rampant corruption that prevailed in 1900, until McKinley was assassinated and Vice President Teddy Roosevelt succeeded him and initiated the modern Progressive era of reform.

Britannica has more to say about its history.

“The great burst of industrial activity and corporate growth that characterized the Gilded Age was presided over by a collection of colorful and energetic entrepreneurs who became known alternatively as “captains of industry” and “robber barons.” They grew rich through the monopolies they created in the steel, petroleum, and transportation industries. Among the best known of them were John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Leland Stanford, and J.P. Morgan”.

The Foreign Trade Court that has jurisdiction on such matters has ruled Trump’s tariffs without congressional approval are illegal. Yet gave Trump the opportunity to continue the tariffs while it was being appealed.

And though Trump agreed to repay the tariff taxes he has already collected if he loses the case on appeal, he continues to levy the tariffs.  Why? They already amount to more than $130 billion the Treasury must repay that it has already collected.

Because he knows our federal debt is unsustainable, and so he must find some way to pay for the tax cuts in his big beautiful tax cut bill that are projected to add $5 trillion to the federal debt.

On May 16, Moody’s Ratings downgraded the U.S. credit rating, citing an “inability of the nation to address large and growing deficits.” This downgrade means that for the first time ever, all three major credit ratings agencies have downgraded U.S. credit below their top AAA rating.

Trump is therefore begging an appeals court to allow the tariffs. It could lead to a “GREAT DEPRESSION” Trump said on social media, with Americans “forced from their homes” that will threaten social security and Medicare.

But what if the higher tariffs lead to stagflation, the combination of slow growth and inflation that caused so much grief in the 1970s? Economists are saying it’s a risk. Higher prices are already affecting consumers that power 70 percent of economic activity and the retailers.

So what do we need that can stop Trump’s highway robbers from not only milking the American people of their money and social benefits, but reversing the environmental and public health protection that protected Americans until Trump’s big beautiful tax cut bill and DOGE firings eviscerated the federal government?

Do we need another revolution?

Harlan Green © 2025

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

What's Next, Republicans?

 Financial FAQs

“What if conservatives succeeded in repealing Obamacare? “Republicans' Obamacare repeal bill would leave 17 million more people uninsured next year, and 32 million more in 2026, the Congressional Budget Office said in an estimate Wednesday. It also said premiums would double by 2026. …By 2026, three quarters of the population would live in areas with no insurers participating in the non-group market, due to upward pressure on premiums and downward pressure on enrollment, the report found.”

I wrote a Huffington Post piece in July 2017 during President Trump’s first term that could predict what we might look forward to with Republicans, and Donald Trump’s healthcare policy in his second go-around as president.

Huffington Post

The result for working Americans of Republicans’ repeated attempts to repeal Obama that I wrote about then is shown in the above graph. It compares the soaring death rates of 45-54 white American males with other developed countries (red USW line). Obamacare is the only American universal healthcare plan that covers workers with pre-existing conditions if no employer healthcare, and yet Republicans can be expected to again attempt to replace it with a “concept” in Trump’s words.

Americans had just avoided another health care disaster in voting down the Senate’s ‘skinny’ Obamacare Repeal and Replace bill in 2017. Even though maintaining most of the taxes to pay for the Medicaid portion, it would have made insurance coverage prohibitively expensive for those older and sicker users with the removal of the private and employer mandate requirements that would cause younger and healthier people to leave the insurance markets.

This is just the latest precipice that’s been avoided. Americans already have the worst health outcomes in the developed world, precisely because America is the only developed country—in fact, even of undeveloped countries—that doesn’t have universal coverage.

The result is one of the highest birth death rates, as well as diabetes, heart and other infectious disease rates—which are diseases usually associated with poorer, undeveloped countries.

The last time Republicans swept the presidential election in 2017, it was the very white, male Tea Party reacting to our first Black President. But they didn’t replace it with something new. They went back to their base of wealthy Oligarchs formed during the Reagan era, still fighting labor unions and resisting more social programs to help the less fortunate, as Trump’s MAGA nation has promised to do.

Trump’s electorate has been good at wanting to tear down the old institutions, but not good at replacing them with a newer, better system. And if Elon Musk becomes the efficiency czar in Trump’s new administration, and he continues to brag he can cut $2 trillion in waste from the federal budget, we know social programs and maybe much more will suffer in the name of reducing the national debt.

There is another, better way to replace what hasn’t worked for working Americans; but that must be based on science and new technologies that can come from our educated elite (rather than our political and wealthy elite).

If Republicans want to be part of that future, they can’t follow a con artist who doesn’t believe in the future, only the past.

Harlan Green © 2024

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

The Real Donald Trump—Part II

Popular Economics Weekly

President-elect Donald Trump is about to move into the White House. This is the man who has become a case-study and text book model of Narcissism for Psychotherapists. Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) as defined by Wikipedia, ‘is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others' feelings.”

 Or, a Narcissist can also be defined as one who has to believe he cannot do wrong, cannot admit he has ever been wrong or apologized for any of his failings. So it could be helpful to understand President-elect Trump’s failings, in order to understand and perhaps influence (as President Obama says he wants to attempt), just how he might behave as ‘our’ next President.

In fact, that is why Trump doubles down on any who would question him, accusing the accuser of the same misdeeds. Maria Konnikova implied that Trump was a classic Con Artist in her now famous New Yorker article: “A grifter takes advantage of a person’s confidence for his own specific ends—ends that are often unknowable to the victim and unrelated to the business at hand. He willfully deceives a mark into handing over his trust under false pretenses. He has a plan.”

That has to be why Trump maintained during the campaign that he would convene a special prosecutor to prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton for her “crimes”, when in fact Trump himself has been prosecuted for outright criminal behavior, such as the three Trump University lawsuits that he had to settle. Whereas, Hillary was cleared of all criminal charges for use of a private email server by FBI Director Comey.  We need need not compare their Trusts, as the Trump Family Foundation has just admitted to the IRS that it was ‘self-serving”, meaning it it broke IRS regulations that govern a foundation.

Or, he accused President Obama of not being born in the US for six years, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Was Trump being stupid? No, he was currying favor with the birther movement to gain their support; mainly white male, racist Tea Partiers still fighting the Civil War who wanted to cast doubt on Obama’s legitimacy as the first African American President.

“What ultimately sets con artists apart is their intent,” says Konnikova. “To figure out if someone is a con artist, one needs to ask two questions. First, is their deception knowing, malicious, and directed, ultimately, toward their own personal gain? Second, is the con a means to an end unrelated to the substance of the scheme itself?”

It is the classic definition of a con game. Distract from the actual behavior by misdirecting our attention elsewhere—preferably to something even more sensational. Mitt Romney, Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and many others have called him a classic con-man.

But no one seems to be asking why he has had to perpetuate so many cons, broken so many contracts, filed multiple bankruptcies, and been involved in so many lawsuits—some 4,000 at last count—on his way to become the celebrity billionaire? The toll on supporters—even his family—must be devastating to maintain that image of success with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A major reason has to be his very short attention span. Tony Schwartz, ghost writer of Trump’s “The Art of The Deal”, has described him best: “Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn’t seem to be fully understood,” Schwartz told Jane Mayer, author of a New Yorker article. “It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s never explicit—or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” said Schwartz

Trump in fact may only be able to focus on what is in front of him at the moment, hence his need for advisors more capable than he to pay attention, to analyze and make intelligent decisions. It has to be why he has lost so much money in his various ventures (such as the Trump Casinos), stiffed so many investors, walked away from so many debts, so that all the major banks now shun him.

We can now know the reason for his admiration of Vladimir Putin, for instance, who Trump has been trying to cultivate since his 1980 Miss Universe contest held in Moscow. It was really an attempt to buy a Moscow hotel. He has had to turn to Russian oligarchs and Mafia figures in order to fund many of his real estate ventures. How’s that for a classic conflict-of-interest as President?

So the question: if once a con-artist, always a con-artist? He’s 70 years old, and one doesn’t change their behavior at that age. But can he use such talents for the good of US, as he has promised; or once again, for his own self-aggrandizement and wealth?

Harlan Green © 2016

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Repubs Anti-Science Agenda Endangers US

Financial FAQs

Last week, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, headed by Texas Republican Lamar Smith, approved a bill that would slash at least three hundred million dollars from NASA’s earth-science budget, says the New Yorker’s Elizabeth Colbert. “Earth science, of course, includes climate science,” Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat who is also on the committee, noted. (Smith said that the White House’s NASA budget request favored the earth sciences “at the expense of the other science divisions and human and robotic space exploration.”)

This is just the Republican’s latest effort to cut more funding from those government agencies that provide climate data to help us predict all kinds of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and tornadoes. Have they forgotten Hurricanes Sandy, or Katrina, or the record number of tornadoes that have hit the Midwest and South? House Republicans are now passing bills that are dangerous to everyone’s health, in a word.

It is becoming more obvious why the Republican Party have been so anti-science; in fact anti-all scientific research. It enables them to deny any reality that will decrease the profits of their supporters, such as the Koch Brothers with a net worth of $100 billion, no matter the danger to the environment. They have been denying climate change of any kind in order not to have to put CO2 scrubbers on their power plants that emit so much heat.

Representative Johnson tried to get the cuts eliminated from the bill, but her proposed amendment was rejected. Defunding NASA’s earth-science program takes willed ignorance one giant leap further, says Colbert. It means that not only will climate studies be ignored; but weather data won’t be collected that helps to predict the increasing number of natural disasters.

It takes Republicans’ efforts to dumb down their electorate to a whole new level. Their intentions were first apparent when Wisconsin’s Tea Party Governor Scott Walker recently proposed turning the University of Wisconsin into a trade school, after the Republican-led legislature banned collective bargaining of school teachers, in an effort to dumb down their public educational system.

His latest salvo was directed at the University of Wisconsin. He proposed not only to cut its budget, but proposed downsizing its mission from that of higher education to supply more workers, whoever they might be. Walker’s new budget proposal would slash $300 million from the University of Wisconsin system over the next two years. That’s a 13 percent reduction in state funding.

The vote on the NASA bill came just a week after the same House committee approved major funding cuts to the National Science Foundation’s geosciences program, as well as cuts to Department of Energy programs that support research into new energy sources. As Michael Hiltzik, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, noted, the committee is “living down to our worst expectations.”

This willful ignorance of anything scientific endangers much more than our health and worsening environment. It endangers all scientific research—solely in order to protect the profits of their wealthiest supporters.

The practical implications of the proposed cuts are certainly disturbing. (It’s going to be hard for D.O.E. to find new energy sources if it isn’t even looking for them.) But perhaps even more distressing is the mindset that led to them. The “I’m not a scientist” line that all Republican candidates to date have espoused is basically a declaration of willed ignorance, said Colbert.

It highlights the dangers that such an agenda presents not only to scientific research, but to the health and well being of all Americans.

Harlan Green © 2015

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

The Bully Mentality—Part II

Financial FAQs

NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, just announced 2014 the warmest year in recorded history, and 14 of the last 15 years as the warmest in recorded history.

Yet Paul Krugman in his latest NYTimes Oped still seems mystified by conservatives’ opposition to Good Government—such as denying the results of NOAA, the government organization mandated to track global warming (or maybe he isn’t, really):

“And why this hatred of government in the public interest? he writes. Krugman cites political scientist Corey Robin’s explanation that conservatives in particular are “…reactionaries. That is, they’re defenders of traditional hierarchy--the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government, especially when that expansion makes lives of ordinary citizens better and more secure.”

That, of course is the definition of a conservative—preserving the status quo. I would posit there is another, deeper reason for the denial of scientific results—whether it’s climate-related, or the record income inequality that almost all economists agree is real.

It’s called the bully mentality that has been discussed in prior columns. Bullies are those who want to dominate others without regard to reason or even common sense. And they appear periodically when prevailing cultures or societies lack strong leadership—positive leadership, that is.

Wikipedia defines it as, “Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual.”

For instance, school bullying is at an all-time high, and has been the reason for many of the school shootings by those who have felt bullied. The NRA is a classic institutional bully—demonizing opponents with falsehoods, such as its campaign of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” in wanting to remove all gun controls, even though assault rifles with expanded magazines have been used in all the mass shootings to slaughter dozens, even hundreds before they were stopped.

Political bullying is another example. Republican bullying, particularly the Tea Party types that called compromise a dirty word, began when a very inexperienced Barack Obama became President who had no apparent experience in dealing with bullies.

And that is the point. Bullies have a wholesale disregard for scientific truth, or any other, and only stop bullying when they are opposed. America’s bullies can only be stopped with equal and opposing force, and where are the leaders capable of that?

Senator Elizabeth Warren is popular because she has been willing and able to stand up to the financial bullies. She sees Wall Street and the financial industry as classic bullies that need to be opposed at every turn to reverse the record income inequality. Hence her opposition to the just-passed $1.1 trillion federal budget authorization that extended the deadline for Wall Street institutions to divest themselves of the riskiest derivatives.

"Pretty much the whole Republican Party—and, if we're going to be honest, too many Democrats—talked about the evils of 'big government' and called for deregulation," Warren said at the recent AFL-CIO National Summit on Raising Wages. "It sounded good, but it was really about tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do whatever they wanted to do."

“These families are working harder than ever, but they can’t get ahead. Opportunity is slipping away. Many feel like the game is rigged against them—and they are right,” Warren said. “The game is rigged against them…. The world has changed beneath the feet of America’s working families.”

Maybe President Obama finally understands that it’s not in the nature of bullies to compromise as he proposes policies on immigration and reducing carbon emissions (such as rising CO2 levels that even the Pentagon has foretold could result in future wars) that require executive action only, which will benefit all Americans. It doesn’t look like the new Republican Congress wants to compromise, which means they don’t want government to work at all if it will benefit Main Street, rather than Wall Street.

Harlan Green © 2015

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Jobless Rate Falls to 5.8 Percent—Why be unhappy?

Financial FAQs Weekly

Nonfarm payroll jobs advanced 214,000 in October after gaining 256,000 September and 203,000 in August. Net revisions for August and September were up 31,000. The unemployment rate dipped to 5.8 percent in October from 5.9 percent in September. So why were voters Tuesday so pessimistic about the economy and jobs?

Graph: Marketwatch

Job creation in October marked the ninth straight month the economy has added 200,000 jobs or more, a feat last accomplished in 1994. The U.S. has created some 2.3 million jobs this year and is on track for the biggest gain in almost a decade. What’s more, job openings recently hit a 13-year high while layoffs have fallen to the lowest level since the turn of the century, says Marketwatch.

The unemployment rate, meanwhile, fell again as more than half a million people found work, according to a survey of households. And another 400,000-plus joined the labor force, a good sign because it means people think more jobs are available.

But wages are still rising 2 percent per year, which is just keeping up with inflation. And the U-6 measure of so-called underemployed is still 11 percent, which includes not just those who are unemployed, but those who are “marginally attached” to the workforce as well as those who want a full-time job but can only work a part-time job.

These are some of the reasons that voters were unhappy at last Tuesday’s election. Exit polls after Tuesday’s midterm elections showed that just one-third of Americans think the economy is getting better, and an even larger number believe the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction.

Goods-producing jobs increased 28,000 in October after a 36,000 gain the month before. Manufacturing employment increased 15,000 in October, following a rise of 9,000 in September. Motor vehicles and parts rebounded 3,000, after slipping 1,000 the month before. Construction advanced 12,000 after a gain of 19,000 in September. Mining edged up 1,000 in October, following an 8,000 rise in September.private service-providing jobs gained 181,000 after a 208,000 boost in September. Strength again was seen in professional & business services and retail trade.

The question is why when several times since the 2009 end of the Great Recession, Republican anti-government policies almost drove us back into recession. In 2011, Republicans took the government to the brink of default on its debt (and S&P downgrade of U.S.) , which led to an agreement with Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to cut spending, by automatically sequestering funds if necessary.

A year ago, the Republicans again forced the issue with a 16-day partial shutdown of the federal government, which led to another agreement with the Democrats on spending cuts.

So now that they control both the House and Senate, and new Senate Majority Lead Mitch McConnell says they will no longer be shutting down government, they will have to find a way to work with the Democrats to lose their ‘no compromise’ past.

The problem is Republicans have been wrong on every economic issue that would improve lives—from budget deficits to health care, from tax cuts to public infrastructure spending, environmental safeguards, Dodd-Frank financial regulation; not to speak of their war on contraception, voters’ rights, and collective bargaining that would raise workers’ income—you name it.

They have literally been wrong on every issue that keeps this economy afloat. It is an abysmal record of economic ignorance. How will they change their ways?

Harlan Green © 2014

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Bullies, Not Government Is the Problem

Financial FAQs Weekly

Even though the U.S. economy grew by a 3.5 percent annual rate in the third quarter, boosted by a surge in exports and the biggest jump in federal spending in five years, Democrats don’t seem to be taking credit for it.

Why? The bullies are in control, whether they are Republican Tea Partiers that refuse to compromise on any legislation that won’t downsize government programs, the Koch Brothers who fund any candidate or cause that cuts environment regulations, or the NRA, lobbying arm of the gun industry that capitalizes on gun violence to boost weapons sales; they control Washington’s agenda these days.

And it has almost wrecked our economy several times since the 2009 end of the Great Recession. Republicans dare not take credit for it, either. “Anyone who trusts the Republicans hasn’t been paying attention to what their economic policies have been. Instead of focusing on full employment and higher wages, the Republicans have doubled down on the trickle-down policies that have failed so miserably over the past 30-plus years,” says Marketwatch economist Rex Nutting.

In fact, several times since the 2009 end of the Great Recession, Republican anti-government policies almost drove us back into recession. In 2011, Republicans took the government to the brink of default on its debt (and S&P downgrade of U.S.) , which led to an agreement with Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to cut spending, by automatically sequestering funds if necessary.

A year ago, the Republicans again forced the issue with a 16-day partial shutdown of the federal government, which led to another agreement with the Democrats on spending cuts.

Why do we call them bullies? Because they have been able to get away with it. And because it looks like Republicans might gain control of the Senate, it’s Democrats who have been willing to compromise, when their economic agenda has brought the unemployment rate down to 5.9 percent, and economic growth above 3 percent over the last 2 quarters.

The problem with dealing with such bullies that say it’s ‘my way or the highway’, is that they take any sign of compromise as a sign of weakness. So when Vice President Biden says, ““[L]ook, we’re — we’re ready to compromise,” bullies see it as a sign of weakness, that they have already won the battle of this midterm election, so there is no need to compromise.

“Going into 2016, the Republicans have to make a decision whether they’re in control or not in control,” the vice president told CNN’s Gloria Borger. “Are they going to begin to allow things to happen? Or are they going to continue to be obstructionists? And I think they’re going to choose to get things done.”

Unfortunately, that is not how to deal with the bully mentality that has pervaded much of today’s politics, as well as our schools. It only happens when there is a leadership vacuum, when strong leaders refuse to step forward that know how to oppose bullies. Yet we know how--history has told US. That’s how we defeated the biggest bullies of all; Hitler and Emperor Hirohito, and even Stalin. Just stand up to them, and only compromise when the bullies are willing to compromise.

Harlan Green © 2014

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Opposing the Bully Mentality—Part II

Financial FAQs

How does one stop the bullies? Put simply, find a way to stand up to them. Economic bullies behave no differently than individuals when confronted by a person or organization willing to oppose them. But how are the 80 percent that are wage and salary earners to do that whose incomes has been whittled away since the 1970s by anti-union legislation and outright banning of collective bargaining in many of the right to work states?

Popular culture has enshrined the superhuman heroes who have tamed bullies; from Superman and Wonder Woman, to Batman, and now Captain America taming Nazi bullies. But taming economic bullies doesn’t have a popular precedent other than Robin Hood, it seems.

And Robin Hood was an English legend. America can only come up with its opposite, reverse Robin Hoodism, or taking from the poor and giving to the rich. That is how Nobelist Paul Krugman characterizes Republican attempts to cut taxes further and oppose raising the minimum wage.

“In the past, Republicans would justify tax cuts for the rich either by claiming that they would pay for themselves or by claiming that they could make up for lost revenue by cutting wasteful spending. But what we’re seeing now is open, explicit reverse Robin Hoodism: taking from ordinary families and giving to the rich. That is, even as Republicans look for a way to sound more sympathetic and less extreme, their actual policies are taking another sharp right turn.”

So the cards seem to be politically stacked against those who oppose the economic bullies. “(But) It wasn’t always this way,” says Marketwatch’s Rex Nutting. “In the 1950s, 1960s and into the 1970s, trade barriers, strong unions and discrimination gave workers (white male workers, that is) more bargaining power to get higher pay. It created the middle class.”

The result of such economic bullyism is that American wages haven’t grown since the 1970s, except for a brief period in the 1990s, when the Federal Reserve allowed the unemployment rate to fall to 4 percent, before beginning to raise interest rates. Thank you, President Clinton (and then Fed Chairman Greenspan during his easy money phase).

The share of national income that goes to labor (including the CEO’s salary and his stock options) has plunged from about 63 percent to 57 percent, says Nutting. The 6 percent of national income that’s going to profits instead of wages amounts to nearly $900 billion a year.

Graph: WSJMarketwatch

“For corporate businesses, after-tax profits are at record levels as a share of national income,” says Nutting. “Since the recession ended, profits are up 65 percent to $1.68 trillion last year. Small businesses aren’t doing quite so spectacularly, but their income is up 13 percent and their net worth is up 33 percent to $8.7 trillion since the recession ended. And the workers? Even after a big gain in the first quarter, median wages are down 3 percent since the recession ended.”

Many commentators and sociologists in particular assert 9/11 brought modern economic bullying to a high point. It’s rationale was the US put on a semi-permanent war footing, so that “Allegiance to the old public virtues—respect of the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions and the rule of domestic and international law—was mocked and dismissed as quaint and soft by our new drill sergeants, according to a recent Canadian study. “From then on a state of emergency replaced the rule of law and set itself up as the norm.”

On a personal, workplace level, “If we are in a constant war-like mode societally, it sounds trivial, it sounds child-like, it sounds naively utopian to say, ‘Can’t we all get along?’” says Gary Namie of the Workplace Bullying Institute. “If you call for civility or a suspension of unmitigated, unfettered aggression, they call you a wimp. They think you are a wimp.”

There is another term for economic bullies, used by Professor Krugman, among others, in his most recent NYTimes column. They are sadomonetarists, or bankers and economists who want to tighten credit even during such tough economic times, as now: “At some level it has to reflect an instinctive identification with the interests of wealthy creditors as opposed to usually poorer debtors. But it’s also driven, I believe, by the desire of many monetary officials to pose as serious, tough-minded people — and to demonstrate how tough they are by inflicting pain.”

That, of course, is the most cogent definition of a bully. They want to demonstrate how tough they are, regardless of the consequences. For instance, the NAACP recently posted a report by Devin Burghart, Leonard Zeskind and the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights called “Tea Party Nationalism,” exposing what it calls links between various Tea Party organizations and racist hate groups in the United States, such as white-supremacist groups, anti-immigrant organizations and militias, who have by definition, the bully mentality.

The bully mentality manifests in many forms, besides politically. The gun lobby via the NRA, ALEC, and other organizations have succeeded in blocking government study of the causes of gun violence, even though 31,000 gun-related death occur per year, the highest by a factor of 10 of any country in the world. Needless to say that inhibits development of policies and laws that might lower gun violence, whether in the schools or our inner cities.

So it turns out the bully mentality is part of human nature, really, and so part of our culture. It is then up to those employees who want to better themselves to find a way to oppose that culture and mentality. That means pushing back against the fear that such bullying engenders in all of us—against the ‘boss’ mentality, as well. Remember, such fear has to also be felt by those economists and politicians that allow it.

Harlan Green © 2014

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Is This A New Civil War?

Popular Economics Weekly

The New York Times stated in a 2010 poll that the 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. History tells us the last time white males were willing to destroy the economy and maybe country. It was the United States Civil War, of course. Then it was about such men attempting to preserve slavery and state rights. Today, it is about not giving more rights to minorities and the poor.

Then it was about the south, desperate to preserve their privileges, today those Tea Party Republicans are desperate to preserve their traditions of power—low taxes and small government—even though our modern economy can’t function without an effective government that makes the rules that allow financial markets as well as our overall society to function smoothly.

So they are now desperate enough to use the debt ceiling as their Weapon of Mass Destruction. Not okaying an increase means the government is shut down, as well as the U.S. financial system that depends on debt to finance operations. And there are those on the right, such as Tea Party Republican Ted Cruz that would like to see this happen.

“The debt ceiling historically has been among the best leverage that Congress has to rein in the executive,” said Cruz to CNN’s Candy Crowley recently. “There’s great historical precedent. Since 1978 we’ve raised the debt ceiling fifty-five times. A majority of those times, twenty-eight times, Congress has attached very specific and stringent requirements, many of the most significant spending restraints, things like Gramm Rudman [i.e. the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act], things like sequestration, came through the debt ceiling.”

The last Civil War cost some 600,000 lives. If prolonged, this civil war would cost millions of jobs. In a new report, the Treasury Department studied the economic fallout from a similar debt ceiling impasse in 2011 — when the nation came within days of defaulting on its obligations — and said that the country could see similar effects this year if lawmakers wait until the final hours to raise the debt ceiling.

“A default would be unprecedented and has the potential to be catastrophic: credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, U.S. interest rates could skyrocket, the negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse,” the report said.

Yet as the New York Times reported, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups put together a plan to defund Obamacare in 2012.

“It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government.”

Yet this hasn’t sunk in to the general public, apparently. The 18 percent of the electorate, those Tea Party males, are willing to fight another civil war they cannot win, but could cause great damage to all of U.S.

So how long might this civil war last? “You’re here because now is the single best time we have to defund Obamacare,” declared Mr. Cruz, at a recent fundraiser. “This is a fight we can win.”

Will we need another Abe Lincoln to save the Union?

Harlan Green © 2013

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarlanGreen