Why the Republicans are "Communists"

Lets start off by defining communism via copying from Wikipedia;

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."

That very good sentence is not what I mean by referring to the "W" administration as Communist.

Lets shade things in a little:

When I was growing up you were a Pinko, Commie, or as Wally George would say, "Looney Liberal" if you disagreed with trickle down economics.



Aside from Appeal to the Masses approach of name calling, why would I conclude that the label of Communist, as the many Republicanistas I have known over the many decades, would call someone, group, or argument which believed in any hint of the socialist concept of nationalization of wealth, be an appropriate adjective for the Republicans?

Lets construct the argument from the Republicans and their Administration.

(1) Paulson hands in a three page proposal to solicit $750BB by using an Appeal to Fear.

(2) The congress, after some questioning, submits to this request without examining the construct of mechanisms of oversight, re-regulation, or sufficient scientific or public input by certifying the Appeal to Fear and also using an Appeal to Consequences.

(3) Paulson in turn has "bailed out" only the richest and most influential corporations without any calculation towards restoring the credit markets. In doing this he acting as proxy for the "W" Administration has nationalized more dollar for dollar (adjusted) private wealth than did Lenin in the 1917 Russian Revolution.

The main difference between the almost 90 years and two continents? Lenin nationalized means of production, and Paulson/Bush have nationalized private failures.

As sickening as that statement is alone, it in my opinion gets worse.

(4) Now it also turns out that the execs and other elite do not have to take any pay cut for their failures.

The primary argument from all the trickle downers was that through facilitating the elites, you create more jobs, and thus have a social hierarchy which is a form of meritocracy. Often the arguments from those same trickle downers was that to have a state mechanism which takes care of less fortunate, say war veterans or people with disabilities, would reward failure, incompetence, or lacksadaisy. Can you see where I am going on this one?

The beneficiaries of the decades of pro-corporation, deregulatory, and trickle down thinking has been turned on its head by those very same people who would have argued (in the face of say a $700BB package to allow individuals who earn less than $50K per annum to write down their losses [not pay taxes], be reimbursed for incompetence, and be availed of debts incurred from their poor decisions by the US government) against such a blatant avoidance of capitalist consequences.

Those who would argue that somehow the Clinton years were not in this bag of hammers are dead wrong. Clinton worked with the Knut Gingrich congress to get those lazy welfare mothers back to work, for instance. Only Jimmy Carter tried to oppose the Nixonian economic dismantling of the Great Society and the New Deal-- and he was absolutely punished (for not doing a very good job of trying to swim against the current).

So, was Paulson's appeal true or false? Probably a little of both. Yes, the sky was falling, but not in the way anyone could comprehend-- or at least anyone who truly comprehended this did not say. (On a separate note, how convenient is it of the anti-government Republicans to not only have built the largest American bureaucracy in history, but to have also spared us poor innocent citizens from the awful and complex truth involved in the facts {thus a defacto Nanny State mentality, to boot}?)

So, was Congress reasonable or irrational to take such drastic action? Probably a bit of both. On the one hand to it was fairly unpopular (especially at first blush), but to have gone into lame duck session without action could have been political poison for reelection.

So will the companies chosen to be bailed out be a good or poor move by the collective US Government? Probably a bit of both, again: On the one hand if we are truly getting preferred stock interest, corporate bonds, and other repayment guarantees, then there is a real probability (say 30 ~ 55% chance) that the US government (and hence the taxpayer) will come out ahead in dollar for dollar inflation adjusted numbers at the end of two or three decades. On the other hand it is in my estimation also a fair probability that dollar for dollar we could come out behind.

Effectively the US Government will have to now manage a portfolio. On the other hand, it will control certain of these groups (like Fannie-Freddie). All the while being the regulator for these corporations! This is a Corporatist Socialism model which in large part has been the fantasy of many of the Pro-Business "Libertarians" I have read.

They showed Soylent Green on TV yesterday, and that is taking the overreach and complicit conspiracy between corporation and government to a natural and far reaching (if not simplistic) conclusion.



My recommendations for the new administration:

(a) Re-enforce various merit based pay systems/anti-golden parachute provisions for these loans, or they will become due. The Republicans (and many Dems) are fond these days of talking about mortgages and other legal devices as if these are mutable documents. The basis of law is the immutable nature of such binding agreements in writing and witnessed. If there is going to be any flexibility in interpreting legal agreements lets start with the fact that the intention of the parties was NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES!

(b) Envigorate and expand regulatory mechanisms. Further this by making public oversight commissions to review this triangle between the US Government as Stock/Bond holder, US Government as regulator and enforcer of laws, and as shepherd of tax dollars thus invested. (Think Customer, Regulator, and Broker-- of which US Govt is now all three.)

(c) Create new rules for this new use of tax dollars to further discourage cronyism, quid pro quo, and other unsavory action which could clearly emerge over time from this unholy trinity by creating trust fund and anti-collusion rules for the US Government as Broker.

(d) Create timelines (not in terms of time, rather in terms of event mile markers) which delineate the divestment of these holdings (as Customer).

(e) Enforce the bloody rules that are on the books! And simplify them so that even the company Receptionist could theoretically blow the whistle upon detecting malfeasance or felonious behaviour!!

So now I am going back in time, to 1987, Reagan is President, and I am going to visit Wally George and be on the lame-ass Hot Seat show to say, "We need to infuse business with $700BB in order to allow them to avoid losses, keep their jobs, and 'stimulate the economy.' I believe the government should become three times bigger than it is today. I think it will be good for us to avoid confusing our consumers, I mean citizens, with any real information or data germane to the decision making processes, because politicians know best. And then I believe as regulator, primary stock holder, and investor the US Government shouldn't be burdened by little details like accounting for how those funds are used by the corporations we deign to be worthy of state investments!"

Commie!