Berning For You: Why I'm Supporting and Endorsing Bernie Sanders For President

On December 10, 2010, Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont who caucused with the Democrats, disagreed with a bill President Obama had brokered with Republicans that would cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

This was, in part, a Democratic concession so that the GOP would allow for the extension of  unemployment benefits during the recession. Sanders greatly favored the UI extension, but in noting that such provisions had routinely been adopted during periods of high unemployment, he felt that the deal on the table was unjustly weighted to benefit the wealthy. 

So, at the age of 69, Bernie stood and spoke.

For 8-1/2 hours.

Essentially, if not officially, a filibuster.

The next time insomnia strikes, you can read the entirety of his speech here, or watch it in full here, but despite knowing he did not have the political capital for his one-man protest to effect any actual impact, Bernie Sanders stood in place for nearly 9 hours and said things like:

"I have four kids and I have six grandchildren. None of them has a whole lot of money. I think it is grossly unfair to ask my kids and grandchildren and the children all over this country to be paying higher taxes in order to provide tax breaks for billionaires because we have driven up the national debt. That is plain wrong."

"It is important to point out that extending income tax breaks to the top 2 percent is not the only unfair tax proposal in this agreement. This agreement between the President and the Republican leadership also calls for a continuation of the Bush era 15-percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends, meaning that those people who make their living off their investments will continue to pay a substantially lower tax rate than firemen, teachers, nurses, carpenters, and virtually all the other working people of this country. I do not think that is fair." 

As you might imagine, during his lengthy oration, Sen. Sanders railed against many of the economic inequities he is assailing in his presidential campaign, including decrying that the proposed bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 more years--which did subsequently pass--would provide JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon an additional $1.1 million in tax breaks on his $89 million yearly earnings, yet not one Senate Republican supported Sanders' bill to provide a $250 one-time check to seniors and disabled veterans who had gone over two years without a cost-of-living-adjustment on their annual social security income of approx. $15,000-$16,000.

I can't recall if some progressive friends had mentioned Bernie Sanders to me before the "filibuster" speech, but that is when I first came to hold him in high regard.

Regardless of how closely my, or anyone's, beliefs were aligned, there was something refreshing about seeing a U.S. Senator, especially an older and rather disheveled-looking one, standing up--literally, and quite lengthily--for his principles, and those of ordinary, oft-disenfranchised Americans, in the face of Republicans, Democrats and even a President I wound up voting for twice.

Given the huge corporate money and proliferation of lobbyists that greatly influence American politics, and my perception that despite all the polarization between the parties in Congress, Republicans and Democrats essentially drink from the same trough, it was gratifying to see a senator--already iconoclastic and independent--go to bat for, essentially, us.

If nothing else, Bernie has balls few others in our electorate have ever so resolutely and autonomously demonstrated on C-SPAN.

And more than any other presidential candidate I've ever supported, including Presidents Clinton and Obama, I believe what I believe Bernie Sanders believes.

Partial list of issues addressed on BernieSanders.com

I really do not like labels. I think they oversimplify our multifaceted individuality and can serve to curb discussion, contemplation and compromise beyond our polarized classifications.

But based on my voting record, in every election and primary since I turned 18 in 1986, I would be described as a staunch Democrat.

And while I think each of these terms is loaded with unnecessary, imprecise and even inaccurate connotations, my beliefs would definitely get me called a lefty, liberal and progressive, and even a radical with traces of revolutionary.

Think derisively of any or all of these terms, or Democratic Socialist as Bernie Sanders labels himself, and feel free to imagine that we hate the rich, want you to downsize your home, deprive you of your luxury SUV, take away your guns, fire every police officer and kill babies.

But I don't want, or believe, any of these things.

However it gets me labeled, I simply believe we are all equally entitled to a good, comfortable, safe and productive life.

I am no better, more important or more entitled than anyone else, anywhere, but particularly--for purposes here--among those currently residing in the United States of America.

I don't care where you were born, what you look like, how or when you came to the U.S., who you sleep with, what gender you are or identify with, who you pray to (or don't), how much money you have or make, how much education you received, where you work (or don't) or what you believe. In no way are you less worthy of all the opportunities--and basic rights and respect--afforded anyone else, or deserving of denigration.

Yes, sadly, I know that some people aren't good, and a few desiring of doing evil, but nothing has shown me that this is particular to any group, nor that we should castigate anyone who isn't engaging in deplorable actions.

These feelings, of equality and not superiority, have generally seemed more in line with Democrats than Republicans, and thus I have consistently voted that way.

To be fair, though, among personal acquaintances and interactions--i.e. not politicians--I have known Republicans, conservatives, right-wingers, etc., who are wonderful people, and Democrats, liberals, leftists, etc., who are terrible people.

Nothing is cut and dried, including labels. Or political party affiliation.

But without wanting to get into specifics about Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich or any other GOP candidates for President, I hope the last few paragraphs suggest why I am odds with what they--variably, to be fair--espouse.

It's not that I cannot support a Republican, rather that I never have and don't now.

Yet part of why I support Bernie Sanders, for President, but even more so just in general, has to do with dissension derived from the Democrats, including President Obama.

I voted quite enthusiastically for Barack Obama in 2008, and was deliriously happy--in person, at Grant Park--when he became our first African-American president, with messages of "Change We Can Believe In" and "Yes We Can."

I think President Obama has achieved much, especially in the face of considerable Republican opposition, obstinance and vitriol, and I voted for him again in 2012.

But with full regard for the fact that what Obama "got done" in the White House doesn't represent everything he would have liked, let alone me, personal experiences make me perceive many of his most seemingly impressive accomplishments--Obamacare, the considerable improvement of the economy and lowering of the unemployment rate, the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act--as only somewhat effective, or inaccurately portraying the ongoing reality.

I do not blame President Obama for my being downsized out of a good job in 2009 and never since acquiring one of comparable "permanence," responsibility, duration or compensation.

If I can fairly believe that a successful career creating compelling recruitment advertising went to shit at the same time the economy and job market did, then the subprime mortgage crisis and malfeasance of Wall Street, AIG, etc. in either duplicitously hawking or stupidly betting on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) made up of crap, certain-to-fail mortgages but which Moody's and S&P colluded to rate AAA or otherwise low-risk, the shenanigans that was allowed to go on during the George W. Bush administration--abetted by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under Bill Clinton's presidency which deregulated Wall Street and allowed banks to ply in securities--is far more to blame for my own economic downturn than anything President Obama did or didn't do.

Especially if you liked the movie, read the book.
You'll better understand what Bernie is decrying.

To better understand the causes of the financial crash of 2008, I read numerous books--The Big Short by Michael Lewis, Griftopia by Matt Taibbi, The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stiglitz, Predator Nation by Charles Ferguson, Stop This Depression Now by Paul Krugman and others--several articles (mostly by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone) and watched documentaries such as Inside Job, Capitalism: A Love Story and Casino Jack and the United States of Money.

All these sources and more pretty well corroborated the culprits, egregious corruption and wide-reaching consequences of the meltdown, for which--as Bernie recently noted regarding Goldman Sachs--huge, though relatively small, fines have been paid, but no criminal prosecutions of those who perpetuated the malfeasance have been undertaken.

In some ways that have yet to recover, the world economy was decimated, but when the banks got bailed out in part to re-open credit to small business entrepreneurs and stimulate the economy, they kept the money, paid themselves ostentatious bonuses and continued to trade in the type of risky derivatives that caused the bust.

Putting us at risk of an even greater financial calamity.

I don't think President Obama has done nearly enough to curb Wall Street excesses, penalize the criminal perpetrators of the crash, break up or reign in the "Too Big to Fail" banks, take steps to even out the playing field between Wall Street and Main Street, nor help average citizens recoup the jobs, income and/or savings that were lost...while the rich keep getting richer.

Chart from On Inequality and the Shift of Wealth in America
by Michael Collins, IndustryWeek.com

While understanding that there were many systematic and legislative injustices beyond his control, including the Citizens United case in which the Supreme Court held that corporations could make vast, largely unrestricted campaign contributions--i.e. buy control of the political process--I took President Obama to task for not being tougher on Wall Street and income inequality in a Sept. 2012 article in which I considered abstaining from voting that November.

As noted above, I wound up voting for Mr. Obama's re-election, but have remained nearly as disillusioned by the Democrats inability to enact real change as I am by the contrarian beliefs of the Republicans.

Even in areas where I applauded newfound progress--such as marriage equality--it felt like matters of basic human decency were too latently adopted into law, and to whatever extent "the state" can be conjunctively condemned, too little has been done to address the racial divide, discrimination, vitriol and epidemic of murder of African-Americans at the hands of law enforcement officers.

More than any presidential candidate I've come across before, I believe Bernie Sanders wants to correct all of the above, without the obstacle of being beholden to corporate donors or moneyed interests.

Some, including those whose opinions I greatly respect, may believe Hillary Clinton has similar aims, and as she's still the Democratic frontrunner as of this writing, I sure hope so.

One of those--admittedly dubious--online tests that assess who you support based on your beliefs on various issues and topics showed that I was 99% aligned with Bernie, but also 94% aligned with Hillary.

I believe Hillary Clinton is a incredibly smart, accomplished and driven woman who has served this country well. I don't hate her.

And I cringe when thinking about all the vitriol she has faced from the right, as First Lady, U.S Senator from New York, Secretary of State and Presidential candidate.

All the years she supported her husband while patiently waiting in his shadow, her crushing defeat to Obama in seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination and the excessive hatred that has always been thrown her way make it hard not to admire her steadfast ambition to become President of the United States of America.

Whatever one thinks of her, and I don't particularly like her simply as a matter of perception--arbitrary and perhaps immaterial, but maybe not--she is definitely not choosing the easiest, nor most prosperous route, for the next 5-9 years of her life.

Her resumé, particularly when it comes to foreign affairs, is impressive, more so than Bernie's. I accept as valid the argument that she may be better prepared to assume the presidency, and I can more readily see her standing up to Putin, Kim Jong-il and others on the world stage.

That she seems more realistic about what can actually get done in the highest office of the land, with a still highly split, contested, contemptuous, likely GOP-controlled and wealth influenced Congress, is also a sound opinion.

And I think it would be wonderful for the United States to finally elect a woman president, though Elizabeth Warren is politically more to my liking. (I also like Condoleeza Rice more than any of the crop of GOP candidates in this election cycle.)

But even in her borrowing parts of her platform from Bernie, and airing some more progressive stances, I don't trust Hillary Clinton to even try to do what I believe needs to be done.

Negative connotations of the term "establishment candidate" perhaps too brazenly dismiss the popularity, persistence and temerity necessary to win elections and facilitate legislation within the existing parameters of the American political arena, but with a good bit of Howard Beale in me, I don't want the same old song and dance.

And, meaning this more in a philosophical sense than specifically about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and most of the preceding presidents, I don't want "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

I, and seemingly large portions the the U.S. populace, particularly among younger demographics, want to believe that we can return a truer sense of fairness, decency and dignity to America, in terms of jobs, wages, taxes, racial & religious tolerance and who & what controls Congressional decisions.

Roll your eyes at terms progressives throw around such as "corporatocracy," "oligarchy" or simply "income inequality," but they represent realities that have--directly or indirectly--had crippling effects, not only in terms of the ridiculousness of people forced to sleep on streets while others have multiple mansions, but from the poisoning of water to the price of groceries to the erosion of arts education in schools.

So when Bernie speaks of his campaign representing a "political revolution," damn right that's what I want.

This doesn't mean that I hate anyone who has a good job, or even owns a sports franchise.

If you make under $250,000, nothing that Bernie is proposing should negatively affect you, and if you earn a little bit to bazillions more--especially as it means you're likelier to derive substantive income from investment gains, which are taxed much lower than employment income--I think you should pay more in taxes.

Not to the point of having to sacrifice your Lear Jet, but simply so that 1 in 6 Americans no longer have to go hungry. 

Same goes for corporations who use all sorts of loopholes, overseas headquarters, third world factories and other devices to make people at the top wealthier at the expense of the working class.

I'm not going to run through Bernie Sanders' entire platform; he does a good job of it himself and, unlike Hillary, he seems to be incredibly consistent in what he believes and supports, even going back decades.

Many of the things Hillary now says with which I'm in concert seem to have initially and more emphatically--and yes, believably--been espoused by Bernie, who's been steadfast in raising concerns about climate change, supporting gay rights, decrying racial injustice and opposing the influx of money into politics.

Hillary has, in fact, taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees, and campaign contributions, from Wall Street and other moneyed interests, including notably Goldman Sachs, a.k.a. the Vampire Squid. Perhaps this wouldn't taint her policy making, but it does give me pause. I genuine doubt she would advocate overhauling a corrupt system the way Bernie wants to.

And as exacerbated in the past few days between her initial--and subsequently withdrawn in the name of truth--praise of the Reagans for their fictitious advocacy during the AIDS crisis, to her saying "I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94" only to have photos and video released showing Bernie Sanders standing literally right behind her as she gave a speech on health care reform, Hillary has repeatedly shown herself to be a misinformed at best, dishonest at worse, candidate.

To which many might say, "sure Hillary has her flaws, but she's well-intentioned and practical, while Bernie--though wonderfully idealistic--is floating completely unrealistic ideas."

My rebuttal is to suggest that we--even those living pretty decent and contented lives--consider the inequities apparent in the current reality...and start believing a demonstrably better one is possible.

For everyone.

Sure, the likelihood of tuition-free college, a single-payer healthcare system, expanded social security, raising of the minimum wage to $15, the creation of myriad new jobs via massive infrastructure investment, significantly combating climate change and immediate implementation of other Sanders desires seems far-fetched.

But why? Because they're bad ideas or because they would cost a ton of money and don't seem pragmatic in the current system?

Public high schools are tuition-free, why not college? Several other countries offer free healthcare to their citizens, why can't we? And as for the seeming preposterousness of funding all these "freebies," consider that:

Add caption

- The Wall Street bailout cost $29 trillion (source: CNBC.com)

- A single model of fighter jet as shown above has been in development since 2001 and still hasn't been deemed operational for battle, yet has cost over $1 trillion

- The annual U.S. Military budget of approx. $600 billion is more than the next 7 highest spending countries, combined, and by almost double

- As of 2013, the cost of wars in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan stood at nearly $4 trillion and rising 

- The fortunate individuals on the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans are worth an aggregate $2.34 trillion and average $3.86 billion. Think they could get by on just a bit less?

- Even Warren Buffett believes the super wealthy are woefully undertaxed

- Fortune 500 companies combine for $12.5 trillion in revenues and over $1 trillion in profits, yet many pay a relative pittance in U.S. taxes. (From 2008 to 2012, 26 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid $0 in federal income taxes)

- The financial transaction tax of 50 cents per $100 in securities trades--as advocated by National Nurses United--could raise over $350 billion annually with almost no impingement on anyone's way of life.

- Tuition-free public colleges might seem like an outrageous concept, but there are approximately 50 million U.S. children receiving tuition-free public K-12 education. There are currently about 20 million students enrolled in colleges and universities, both public and private. I don't have children, yet gladly pay taxes that support public education.

So sure, some of Bernie's ideas sound radical, but if you ask me, that the Walton family--owners of Walmart but simply the inheritors of what their dad accomplished--has more wealth than 42% of American families combined is what's truly crazy. And there is a plethora of similarly incomprehensible factoids.

I could go on and on, about military spending and foreign trade agreements and injustices of the legal system and the proliferation of guns--yes, I know Hillary has advocated stauncher gun control measures, but Bernie is just as obsessed with public safety, and his representing the views of his Vermont constituency is what a senator is supposed to do--but I think you get the point.

We certainly can't have Trump, or even Cruz or Rubio, who would have angry white people believe--even more so--that their problems are caused by immigrants, refugees, Muslims and people of color.

I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Illinois Democratic Primary
through Early Voting on 3/12/16, and have contribute more to
his campaign--in dollars and frequency--than any candidate ever.

And while I would completely concur that simply in terms of tolerance and other key principles, Hillary Clinton is inordinately favorable to the leading Republican candidates, I think we need to aim higher.

Even if it's impossible for Bernie Sanders to radically change things overnight, his surging popularity--especially among the young--suggests that anything is possible if enough people join together to make it happen.

It's easy to be skeptical given the current political realities, especially when there will be far from universal public buy-in at the outset, but look at how far Bernie has come in less than a year; imagine if the groundswell effect--and insistence on true change--continues to grow exponentially, with his presidency as the catalyst.

As my hero Bruce Springsteen--who, even as an exorbitantly rich man, has openly condemned the "banksters" and campaigned for Democrats John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 & 2012, though has yet to declare his preference this time around--has often exhorted from the stage:

"The country we carry in our hearts is waiting."

I firmly believe voting for Bernie Sanders is the first step.

President Obama, The Sequel -- A few thoughts on the election

Given the only realistic alternative, I’m happy Barack Obama was re-elected President of the United States, as I generally presumed he would be. 

Although—as I conveyed in this September article—I have been dismayed and disillusioned by his performance to date, and seriously considered either not voting or casting a ballot for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, there has never been any variance in my answer to this question:

Of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who would you prefer spend the next four years in the White House?

Any other answer, or opinion, was acutely irrelevant, so in early voting, I put a check mark next to Obama/Biden.

I would have been pissed had President Obama lost, as I feel that Romney represents a lot of beliefs that I don’t share (and could have wreaked a lot of havoc through potential Supreme Court nominees), but my feelings are less of euphoria—as in 2008 when I celebrated in Grant Park on Election Night—and more of wary relief.

If one believes, as I used to and would like to again, that Democrats are “better” than Republicans in terms of facilitating effective legislation on behalf of the common good—and not just the wealthiest among us, to whom most politicians are often beholden—than this election was rather uplifting, well beyond Obama’s victory.

In retaining control of the U.S. Senate, the Dems saw some rather progressive candidates elected (or re-elected) including Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin (the first openly gay politician elected to the Senate), Chris Murphy of Connecticut (who overcame Linda McMahon spending the most on a Senate race in history), Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (who beat incumbent Scott Brown), Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Bernie Sanders, the stalwart Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democratic Party.

Additionally, the two Republican Senate candidates who said asinine things about rape—Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana—were properly trounced. As did other such candidates, as shown at left.

Two Democratic House candidates triumphed in Chicago’s long red western suburbs—Tammy Duckworth and Bill Foster—and as a blow to the intolerant influence of the Christian right, gay marriage was legalized in both Maryland and Maine, and also essentially "approved" in Minnesota. And a record 20 women will now serve in the U.S. Senate.

So those of us firmly on the left—or who simply believe that one’s class, race, gender and sexual orientation should in no way restrict his or her pursuit of happiness (and that receiving a helping hand needn’t be begrudged)—there are theoretically many reasons to by excited by the election results.

But until more is actually done to help more people—including those who have seen their homes foreclosed or become an underwater burden, individuals who can’t find proper employment and soldiers who give life & limb to conflicts of questionable upside—the current Democratic (with or without a capital “D”) paradigm is merely window dressing.

Much has and will be written by political pundits much smarter and better informed than I about what Obama’s substantive but "not a mandate" victory will mean for the direction of his presidency. So far, I have heard it suggested that he must become more centrist and do a better job of seeking bi-partisan cooperation in Congress.

I say no.

While I truly wish our legislators would work cooperatively and collaboratively to create laws for the common good—from the richest to the poorest—this kind of thinking is why Obama got nothing done in his first two years and lost control of the House. He thought he would influence both parties to play nice and work together to enact his agenda.

Didn’t work. And logic says it won’t. While I understand that political realities will always dictate some give and take, I believe the President has to be progressive in pushing for laws that most benefit the most people while harming the least. In other words, he has to push his agenda through despite oppositional resistance, if at all legislatively possible.

Whatever needs to be done so that 1 of 6 Americans don’t go to bed hungry needs to be done, even if it means a few billionaires pay a good bit more in taxes.

Whatever it takes to get the economy moving and get 23 million unemployed people back to work—in good jobs—needs to happen.

Because you know what, although Wall Street seemingly dislikes Obama (the Dow dropped over 300 points on Wednesday), a robust economy is good for the 1% too.

So I’m not suggesting actions that merely ostracize and punish the “corporatocracy,” but rather that encourage it to spread the wealth in the name of universal progress—by hiring more employees, loosening the credit market for small businesses, etc.

Yes, we must rid Wall Street of fraudulent practices that rip a hole through the entire world, and yes we much ensure the financially fortunate pay their fair share in taxes. We also must curtail the undue influence of corporations and the uber-wealthy in politics, and I think we need to genuinely explore reducing our military spending.

I won’t continue to rail about policymaking admittedly over my head, but my point is that rather than simply saying it—with his phenomenal oratorical skills—President Obama must do more to fight for the fairness he (I hope) believes in. Fairness that virtually everyone, regardless of who they voted for, will support.

It’s easy to perceive that people vote based on their “values,” with minorities supporting Democrats and white Christians supporting Republicans, by and large. But look at Ohio. The bailout of GM shifted the balance, with enough Caucasians supporting the President to give him another 4 years.

If you make people’s lives acutely better, they’ll stop voting as much based on religious beliefs. And except for possibly the top 10% of the top 1%, most Americans really have more in common than our polarized political maps would have you believe. Give people safety, security, dignity and a steady paycheck and the rest is all details.

So in being glad Barack Obama will lead the United States for the next four years, I want him to step up and do what he knows is right. For everyone. Stop being a Wall Street apologist, start listening to guys like Paul Krugman more than Tim Geithner, and really enact change.

Even if it’s difficult. Even if it’s “unpopular.” Even if the “Right” hates it. Even if some of the “Left” hates it. Making a difference never goes hand in hand with being universally beloved.

Mr. Obama, you've been ratified to remain the leader of the free world for the next four years; the stage is still set for you to do great things. I gave you my vote with the hope that you do but one thing:

Truly lead.

Withdrawal in Disgust is Not the Same as Apathy

Last night I watched President Obama speak at the Democratic National Convention. For about 5 minutes. It was the only time I spent with either of the political puppet shows.

While the President remains an amazing orator, I couldn't help but see the veracity of my friend Ken's analogy between presidential politics and professional wrestling.

In an exuberant charade, both sides boast about their righteous vision, emphasizing their differences on social issues while in truth drinking from same trough.

Because all politicians get their campaign money from the corporatocracy, no one--including, most notably, President Obama--has done much to curb Wall Street fraud, push for substantive regulation as it pertains to the financial sector and political influence, equitably tax the uber-wealthy and corporations, nor reallocate any military spending. In short, I haven't seen any change I can believe in, save for a little more lip service in the name of social justice.

Not to mention that the economy, for most of us, remains completely devastated while both candidates do a dance any time the unemployment rate goes up or down a tenth of a point.

Thus, while I will not vote for Mitt Romney, I also don't feel that Barack Obama has earned my vote.

Now, I know that many people I respect will recoil at that statement, but let me ask you this: If John McCain had been in the White House for the last 4 years and things stood exactly as they do now, would you be insisting that he be re-elected?

So perhaps on November 6, I'll exercise my right to abstain.

I certainly don't say this lightly, as I firmly believe, at least in principle, that all Americans have a responsibility to actively participate in our democracy.

As flawed as our republic may be, and as skewed as our electoral, representational and governmental systems may seem, the freedoms that allow people of all colors and creeds to vote--and otherwise express their opinions--without fear or recrimination (theoretically), shouldn’t be underestimated.

I will have turned 44 by the time Election Day rolls around on November 6, meaning that I have now been eligible to vote since 1986.

I don’t recall if I cast a ballot in the congressional elections of that year, but I have never failed to vote in a presidential election. In addition to voting in most congressional and local elections as well as many primaries, over the past decade I have worked on a handful of political campaigns and for awhile was substantively involved in a grass roots political organization.

The votes that I have cast and the candidates & causes I have worked for have almost exclusively been Democratic. My ideals and values align much more closely with the tenets that have typically distinguished the Democrats from the Republicans: concern for the common good, abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, the environment, social justice, tax equity and the open embrace of all goodhearted people, regardless of skin color, wealth, religion or any other differentiators.

Especially in this age of hyper-polarization and lock-step dogma, I have found that the principles in which I believe have put me solidly on the left and largely at odds with the “right.” Still, over the years, I have resisted—largely just in my mind—any knee-jerk identification with the Democrats. I have good friends who are Republicans, have encountered many a Democrat that turns my stomach and generally believe that the answer—to almost anything—lies somewhere between two extremes.

If we’re unavoidably stuck with a 2-party system, discourse and debate between those with differing perspectives and opinions but similar goals and open minds should be the epitome of legislative government, not the vitriolic rigidity that now seems to define party politics.

And somebody in power—if not everybody—should first and foremost fight for the interests, welfare and dignity of all American citizens. Not for Wall Street. Not for corporations. Not for the ultra wealthy. Not for the military industrial complex. Not for their own financial gain. Not to ensure the likelihood of re-election. But for you and me.

Having seen what’s happened in recent years to the U.S. and world economy, how it’s affected my career, home value and many in my community, and having ingested many books, articles, documentaries and opinions about the causes, culprits and casualties—and lack of corrective action—at this point I am rather exhaustively disillusioned and disenchanted by the Democratic Party and President Obama.

This doesn’t mean I want Mitt Romney to become president or will vote for him or support the GOP in any way. He certainly doesn’t seem to represent my interests, and from tax codes to Supreme Court nominees, I suspect a Romney-Ryan White House could make things substantially worse.

But while I once staunchly supported and championed Barack Obama, and celebrated with him (not personally) in Grant Park on Election Night 2008, and truly anticipated that he would bring surpassing vision, verve and vigor to the presidency, I now feel that he has failed in his promise to bring about “change we can believe in.”

Even worse, I perceive his failure as not simply a matter of results—which apologists will ascribe to the obstinance of the Republican-controlled House, ignoring that the GOP plurality came about as a rebuke of Obama’s first 2 years—but as one of principles.

This isn’t to say that he’s a terrible person or hasn’t had some nice accomplishments as President. Yes, he bailed out General Motors, oversaw the extinction of Bin Laden, brought troops home from Iraq and got legislation passed—albeit rather flawed—in the name of providing universal health care and curbing Wall Street corruption. And while I certainly wasn’t thrilled with the number of jobless weeks I experienced during his first term, I am grateful that the President and other Democrats repeatedly saw that the provision of unemployment benefits was extended.

I understand that the President's job is inordinately challenging and complicated and that he undoubtedly is responsible for much that the public never notices but would likely appreciate. I also realize that the system in which he and other politicians exist is terribly corrupted. Without even delving into labyrinthian plots, it’s easy to see how those who serve—even with the best intent—get caught in a stranglehold by the corporatocracy.

If you want to run for office, at any level, you need money, lots of it. Those who have lots of money to give you are rich people and even richer corporations. If you don’t take their money, they give it to your opponent and you lose the race. If you take their money, you’ll either feel obliged to pander to them, or even if you have the gumption to try to raise their taxes or curb their excesses, you won’t get much done in a freshman term—among more seasoned pols who have happily sold out—and everything under the sun will be done by the Koch brothers and other arch-conservative billionaires to ensure you don’t get re-elected.

If this sounds cynical, take a look at OpenSecrets.org, which lists the top contributors to every member of Congress. Even a guy like Sen. Dick Durbin, who is a solidly liberal Democratic senator from Illinois, has gotten most of his campaign money from lawyers, the financial sector, real estate interests and lobbyists.

And in 2008, three of President Obama’s top donors were Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup.

Now, while it may be tempting to believe that Obama inherited a bad hand from Bush or that his hands were tied due to the way the system is structured, not only has he done virtually nothing to improve the economy, bolster housing prices, stem foreclosures or reduce unemployment, he has—as Michael Moore points out (in the latest issue of Rolling Stone)—frittered away a “10 million vote mandate” to substantially curb malfeasance of the financial sector.

And if you think that griping about Wall Street corruption simply equates to whining about the wealthy, you’re missing the point. Beyond the obvious—rampant unemployment, diminished home values—virtually everything in your life—from the quality of your children’s schools to gas prices to your grocery bill—is substantially and detrimentally affected by how the financial services sector operates, and its enormous fraud and failures.

I certainly am no expert on this stuff and take nothing, in itself, as gospel, but I have tried to educate myself about the subprime mortgage crisis, 2008 Wall Street collapse, government bailout and TARP programs, derivatives trading, etc., and pretty much all the sources I’ve referenced—from Matt Taibbi to Paul Krugman to Charles Ferguson to Michael Moore, and more (full list at bottom)—have suggested that President Obama has been impotent, or worse, in trying to reverse the damage and curb the corruption that continues to be wreaked by “Wall Street.” Despite the reformer, activist rhetoric that helped him get elected, as this recent Atlantic article details, President Obama has failed to do what he said he would in promising to "challenge the system."

It might sound unfair to disparage the President—given his vast realm of responsibility, and also his restrictions—for not being a better SEC watchdog. But between the billions (trillions?) the government has not collected from banks, corporations and tycoons who pay a relative pittance in taxes to the way the corporatocracy has tightened its grip on the political process due to the Citizens United case that enabled companies to contribute far more to candidates, I don’t know of anything that can benefit the masses in more ways than holding the fatcats’ feet to the fire. 

From the flaccidness of the Dodd-Frank bill that supposedly added some financial regulations but really did little to change Wall Street’s ways, to the fact that Obama’s economic braintrust—Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Timothy Geithner—came from leadership roles on Wall Street and were heavily involved in pushing for deregulation that has been debilitating, his actions seem to convey that the President has been acutely disinterested in doing anything substantive that may distress the top 10% of the top 1%, but significantly benefit 99.9% of the country.

Also, without being naïve that when it comes to foreign policy and homeland security, being ethical and being effective don’t always co-exist, I also find myself somewhat distressed over the President's choices in these areas. From his “Kill Lists” through which proactive murder has become policy to his not shuttering Guantanamo Bay despite campaign promises to do so to the fact that we are still at war in Afghanistan, I have serious qualms with his record. And despite this study that indicated 75% of Americans would elect to reduce the 2013 Defense Budget, "including two-thirds of Republicans and 9 in 10 Democrats," neither the Presidents nor any Democrats I'm aware of seem to express that downsizing the military is something we should explore. 

His environmental initiatives have also been tepid at best, doing nothing to curb fracking and seemingly nothing of substance to confront global warming. And while it was bold that he came out in support of gay marriage a few months ago, it seemed way too tardy, opportunist and devoid of any actual advocacy to change law.

Anyway, by now you should get my point, though I don't mean this with disrespect to the President nor anyone who supports him.

Believe me, I want to believe. And I understand the alternative is worse. But sometimes, the emperor really isn't wearing any clothes.

---
I have found the following sources beneficial to my understanding of what has taken place in America and why I've been disillusioned by democracy inaction:

Matt Taibbi - Articles in Rolling Stone and the book Griftopia
Paul Krugman - New York Times and Stop This Depression Now
Michael Lewis - The Big Short and Boomerang
Charles Ferguson - The documentary Inside Job and the book Predator Nation
Michael Moore - The documentary Capitalism: A Love Story and his website
Andrew Bacevich - Washington Rules
Alex Gibney - The documentary Captain Jack and the United States of Money
Joseph Stiglitz - The Price of Inequality
Andrew Ross Sorkin - Too Big to Fail (Note: I haven't read this one but have heard good things; there's also an HBO Movie based on it)
Russ Feingold - The Progressives United organization
Christopher Hayes - Twitter
Chris Hedges - TruthDig
Charles Pierce - Esquire
Tom Morello - Twitter
Glenn Greenwald - The Guardian
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Bruce Springsteen

---
Note: The headline of this post refers to a lyric from R.E.M.'s "What's The Frequency, Kenneth?" that actually goes, "Richard said, "Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy."" Richard is a reference to filmmaker Richard Linklater, who included the line--though actually with "Withdrawing" being the first word--as text on a card seen in the film Slacker.

Senator Russ Feingold Preaches to the Faithful, but Finds Some Ideological Dissension Among The Congregation at Northbrook's Beth Shalom

Lecture Recap

Russ Feingold
U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, 1993-2011
Congregation Beth Shalom, Northbrook, IL
September 22, 2011

Although I have been somewhat politically active for the past several years, and have heard many progressive friends champion the efforts of ex-Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, I have had relatively little direct knowledge of his beliefs, activities or senatorial voting record.

To my recollection, I had also never heard him speak, not even on C-SPAN.

So while I didn't know exactly what he stood for, everything that had filtered through suggested that he was one of the "good guys" in a political system run amok, perhaps all the more so because he had been voted out of it.

Although she didn't give me much forewarning nor exactly invite me, this past Tuesday my mom mentioned that she was going to hear Senator Feingold speak at a synagogue in Northbrook on Thursday. While I have become somewhat cynical about what anyone in either party is going to do to wrest America back from the corporatocracy, I felt it would be worthwhile to hear what he had to say.

The event, part of the Distinguished Speakers Program at Congregation Beth Shalom, was open to the public, but my sense was that the packed sanctuary was comprised primarily of the temple's constituents and others in the community with some sort of connection. In other words, it was a roomful of mostly older Jews.

Feingold himself is Jewish and beyond opening his speech by referencing his northward allegiance for Sunday's Bears-Packers game--while admitting to being a White Sox fan--he mentioned that his uncle had been a noted Rabbi in the Chicagoland area (the crowd seemed to recognize the name) and that his sister Dena Feingold has been a Rabbi in Kenosha for more than 25 years after becoming the first female Rabbi in Wisconsin.

But though the topic of Palestinean statehood was clearly the elephant in the room that got unleashed during the Q&A at the end of his speech, the primary focus of Feingold's lecture did not revolve around religion.

Rather, the senator addressed "three dangerous trends in our country that are weakening our democracy and security." With apologies for some misplaced notes--mine, not his--and therefore a good bit of paraphrasing, these were:

1) The State of Wisconsin Politics - Feingold did not reference his loss last fall to Republican Ron Johnson, but began his remarks by explaining that politics in Wisconsin had previously been rather genteel, especially compared to what goes on in Illinois, and that this relative civility had long reached across party lines. While sharing kind words about former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, a Republican, Feingold noted that Thompson had "never pulled a stunt like happened this year."

With that, Feingold went into a blistering explanation of current Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's actions earlier this year to decertify the public employee unions, observing that the resulting protests were far larger and more fervid than the Vietnam War protests he'd seen in his youth. I can't cite his exact words, but Feingold was not tepid in expressing a hope that Walker will eventually be recalled, while suggesting that a scandal might speed up the process.

2) The Rising Dominance of Corporate Money - I wasn't really planning to ask the senator a question, but if I had, it would have been about how we can ever untether our political system from corporate campaign contributions in hopes of a government that serves the interests of 99% of the public rather than a few Wall Street tycoons.

With his scathing remarks about the influence of special interests, which has been further exacerbated by the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case essentially allowing corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions (largely negating 2002's McCain-Feingold campaign reform act), Senator Feingold effectively broached the topic most on my mind.

Noting that to undo the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling will require changing the makeup of the court, Feingold stressed the importance of re-electing President Obama, even if one differs with him on many issues. While his acknowledgement of the vice-like stranglehold of Wall Street was disconcerting, as is the fact that he was in large part a victim of his "common good" beliefs, it was at least nice to know that somebody somewhat "gets it."

In February, Feingold formed Progressives United, "a movement whose mission is to: Empower Americans to stand up against the exploding corporate influence in Washington, especially since the Citizens United decision; Hold our representatives accountable to every constituent, regardless of economic class or insider access; and support national, state, and local candidates who stand up for our progressive ideals."

3) Failure to Stay Focused on Foreign Policy and Fighting Terrorism - Promoting his forthcoming book, While America Sleeps--which was in part inspired by similar writings of Winston Churchill and John F. Kennedy and deals with "failures of government domestically and abroad since the 9/11 attacks"--Feingold expressed concerns about the considerable security risks the United States continues to face.

Saying he supported our initial actions in Afghanistan while decrying the Iraq War--as well as our failure to divorce our troops from either quagmire--Feingold suggested that "trivializing foreign policy" is part of the Republican and Tea Party campaign strategies.

According to the ex-senator, in its bid to drive Obama from office, the GOP is focusing very narrowly--and stringently--on the economy.

"The Republicans have stopped talking about social issues--guns, gays, God--and also about foreign policy," he stated.

"After we got Osama Bin Laden, they act like it's over. I don't think it's over."

Feingold also told the congregation that whenever President Obama says something like, "We need to better understand the Islamic world," the opposition retorts, "There he goes, apologizing for America," and also likes to spew the sound bite suggestion that "Obama wants to take us into socialism."

"It's a dumbing down of our process," offered Feingold about the hyper-polarized political climate, which one elderly audience member suggested was worse than any he'd ever seen.

From the Midwest to the Middle East, Questions Without Easy Answers

Fielding several questions from the audience, some a bit cantankerous, Feingold stated that he has supported Palestinean statehood since the '70s, but feels it folly to let Palestine become a country while it refuses to recognize Israel as one. Though he differs from some of Obama's stated views on Israel-Palestine and in general, he strongly supports the president and said "I believe Obama is a strong supporter of Israel and won't do anything to harm it."

While some, if not many, in the room likely disavow any advocacy for Palestinean statehood, Senator Feingold made a convincing argument--at least to me--that to continue with the current state of perpetual strife is not a viable solution for Israel's lasting security.

And if there was an overarching theme to Feingold's 75-minute appearance at Congregation Beth Shalom, it was that highly complex issues aren't going to lend them to simple, sound bite solutions. If we want to move forward as a country--and as a planet--we need to get away from knee-jerk dissension & venom, "re-unify" our sense of shared responsibility, return to a seemingly progressive notion of respectful discourse and work together through challenges occasionally demanding unpopular decisions.

Amen.

A Truly Devastating Account of How America Got Taken For (Nearly) All Its Worth -- Book Review: Griftopia by Matt Taibbi

Book Review

Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America
by Matt Taibbi
Non-Fiction; published by Spiegel & Grau in November 2010
@@@@@

This Wednesday, I imagine at least 25 million people will watch the season premiere of "American Idol." Nothing wrong with that, even if I won't be among the huddled masses, but I can't help but think that if, at most, one-third of domestic American Idol viewers--or roughly the 8.45 million who watched the season debut of "Jersey Shore"--also chose to read Matt Taibbi's 250-page book, Griftopia, there would most likely be a revolution in the United States.

That's how powerful and precise Taibbi--who regularly writes incredibly incisive pieces on similar subjects for Rolling Stone--is in explaining, in as close-to-layman's terms such esoteric information can get, the root causes of the financial collapse of 2008 and the complicit culprits who continue to swindle the American public.

Matt Taibbi

His skewer is surprisingly non-partisan and impales both Republicans and Democrats (including Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel) and not simply the obvious targets such as the Wall Street investment banks--particularly Goldman Sachs--and subprime mortgage brokers (although the depths of their duplicity is descriptively detailed). The caustic but never churlish Taibbi also rips Alan Greenspan a new asshole (or more accurately, calls him one) in a remarkably revelatory chapter that debunks any notion of the former Federal Reserve chief as some sort of economic oracle. With in-depth research, much historical context and numerous substantiating sources, Taibbi shows how continuously and catastrophically wrong Greenspan has been about most economic forecasts and decisions.

As a Chicagoan--actually a suburbanite--it was also interesting to read Taibbi's take on Mayor Daley's decision to sell the city's parking meters, for, as it turns out, a fraction of their true worth and to a consortium comprised largely of Arab wealth funds. You'll also be stupefied by the real reasons behind skyrocketing gas prices.

And though at odds with what I would like to believe, Taibbi's arduous accounting of the manipulative reality behind President Obama's health care bill--mainly that it was concocted by Emanuel as a deal to give insurance companies oodles more cash in exchange for a few election cycles' worth of campaign contributions--really helped me see the ever-dimming light about the American political power structure.

In sum, Griftopia further and more comprehensively clarifies what a variety of other sources--including the books The Big Short and The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown and documentaries Inside Job, Capitalism: A Love Story and Casino Jack and the United States of Money--have already put into my head. Namely that A) Unless you are a member of the top levels of government, the Wall Street investment banks or their co-conspirators, you have been directly screwed by them in ways you can't even imagine, and B) the 2008 financial collapse (and resulting recession) was not caused by everyday citizens buying homes beyond their means and being unable to pay their mortgages when home values dropped.

This is what the powers that be want the American Idol-worshipping public to believe, but as Taibbi does a great job in explaining--as did Michael Lewis in the more mortgage meltdown-specific The Big Short--outright criminality was at play, not merely misfortune or consumer overreach. (I tried explaining what happened a bit more in this piece, but you really owe it to yourself to read Taibbi's and Lewis' user-friendly expositions.)

I have never been much of a conspiracy theorist and I am not an anti-capitalist. But having lost my job amid the fallout from the financial collapse of September 2008--and Taibbi reveals how it may have been avoided, not just by redressing years of deregulation, collusion and avarice, but had Goldman Sachs not pulled an unnecessary, cohorts-in-the-Treasury-aided power play to push AIG over the precipice--I've felt obligated to investigate the root causes a bit further than the mainstream media has presented. (Taibbi, who has only been on the financial beat for a couple years, embarrasses most of the press by revealing so much that the general public has never known, but should have.) And though in my case, Griftopia was a tremendous complement to other coverage I'd read and seen, I recommend it as strongly as possible to anyone as a place to start in deciphering what has brought us to where we still are today.

It won't be easy, throwaway reading, but Taibbi artfully keeps it from becoming too dense, with considerable humor to mitigate the detailed explanations of complex matters (like financial derivatives). And while Taibbi never advocates specific actions that us Main Streeters should take, he includes more than enough fodder for anyone looking for a reason to take to the streets.

I don't want to give away too many of Taibbi's numerous great tidbits, but this was one that especially made me cringe:

In 2008, the year by which the routinely immoral actions of Goldman Sachs, among others, would wipe out roughly 40% of the world’s wealth, the investment bank paid out $10 billion in compensation and bonuses—including $42.9 million to CEO Lloyd Blankfein—and made a $2 billion profit, they paid just $14 million in taxes. Ruin the world, get bailed out by the American taxpayer and give back less than what a superstar athlete makes in a year.

Where's my pitchfork?

---
Next up, from the Skokie Public Library, I will be reading Washington Rules by Andrew Bacevich, about how Congress is in bed with the military-industrial complex, and Travel as a Political Act, by my favorite travel writer, Rick Steves.

Farewell to a True Blue Friend as DuPage Democratic Activist Amy Tauchman Departs for Denver (on "Inauguration Day")

“I think I’m gonna be sad, I think it’s today
The girl that’s driving me mad is going away
She’s got a ticket to ride, she’s got a ticket to ride, she’s got a ticket to ride
But she don’t care”
The Beatles, “Ticket To Ride”

Ever since I thought about writing an appreciation of Amy Tauchman as she prepares to leave her longtime home in Glen Ellyn, Illinois for the wide open possibilities offered by Denver, Colorado, the above stanza has been in my head as the way to open such a piece.

And yet, virtually nothing about it is particularly accurate or apt. Yes, I am “gonna be sad” because Amy is going away, but I’m also happy for her to be making a new start. Rather than a girl that’s driving me mad, she’s a woman who’s been one of my best friends over the past five years. Instead of having a ticket to ride, she’ll be driving her own car as she goes on her Rocky Mountain way.

And more than almost anyone I’ve ever known, Amy very much does care.

So I hope some of what I write conveys just how passionate she has been about many things of great import, and how impressively she has inspired change as a result.

“Sometimes we move with no choice /
To the call of wild crazy voices”
BoDeans, “Dreams”

I met Amy Tauchman almost exactly five years ago. We lived a half-mile from each other in Glen Ellyn for more than 10 previous years, but never had reason to interact until we both made our initial forays into the world of campaign politics. After meeting Christine Cegelis at a candidate debate in January 2006—she was making her second run for the U.S. House seat in Illinois District 6—I volunteered to do some office work and Amy was Christine’s Office Manager and de facto Volunteer Coordinator.

I enjoyed working for Christine and with Amy; both warmly welcomed some proactive marketing concepts I shared, though it was too late in the campaign for them to be implemented. Although Christine had done better against longtime incumbent Henry Hyde in the 2004 general election than any previous challenger (as far as I’m aware), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee— headed at the time by Rahm Emanuel—decided to enlist wounded Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth as a primary challenger. Tammy won a tough battle in March 2006—by less than 1% in a race where a third candidate, Lindy Scott, earned 16.5%—before losing to Peter Roskam in November.

Although I had made some friendly acquaintances on the Cegelis campaign, including Amy, this was before Facebook had become a ubiquitous way to further fledgling relationships and Amy & I never even exchanged phone numbers or email addresses. But soon thereafter, through the power of Google, I discovered that she was the co-leader and co-founder of DAWN (DuPage Against War Now). Given the political climate at the time, especially in DuPage County, where every elected official was a Republican (and most still are), I was somewhat surprised to find Amy’s phone number listed on DAWN’s website.

Even Amy’s compatriot in the formation and leadership of DAWN, Kathy Slovick (who continues to run the organization), says, “I felt that she was pretty courageous to allow her phone number to be published in the paper and on our website. I still remember some of the confrontational phone calls she would get from people.”

But as I soon came to know, even beyond the tenacity she brought to the Cegelis campaign, Amy Tauchman has never been one to let popular sentiment keep her from demonstrably championing her beliefs. 

“I won’t take all that they hand me down /
And make out a smile though I wear a frown”
The Kinks, “I’m Not Like Everybody Else”

In 1994, as a suburban mother and housewife—albeit one who had ruffled feathers on the local PTA by surveying the entire biography section of her children’s school library and insisting that it expand to better reflect the cultural diversity of the community—Amy Tauchman dyed her hair purple.

And kept it that way for the better part of two years.

For most of us, doing something sure to engender such attention, incredulity and derision would be merely a ‘pigment of our imagination.’ (Amy loves my puns;-) But in finding her surroundings far too homogenized—in practice if not in truth—she felt obliged to shake things up a bit while advocating for a greater sense of inclusion and acceptance among citizens outside the Caucasian Christian commonality.

The YWCA of DuPage would recognize Amy’s efforts to raise cultural awareness at the Parkview School and beyond by giving her their “Racial Justice Award” for Outstanding Women Leaders in 1998. 

So although Amy wouldn’t truly “get political” until 2006 or become an avowed peace activist until 2002, her social stridency was readily apparent long before DAWN. In fact, prior to starting a family, her first job out of college (at the University of Illinois) was as a social worker at a battered women’s shelter in Pilsen.

The Seth Saith "Our World's Gone Amiss" Manifesto, Volume 1: Awaking to the Further Disunited State of Democracy Inaction as Wall Street Continues to Laugh All the Way to the Bank

Volume 1 (the first in a sporadic series)

Election Day 2010 didn't exactly go the way I would have liked--or for the most part, the way I voted, although in Illinois the existing ineffectual Democratic Governor Pat Quinn holds a slight lead over Bill Brady, who may have earned my vote if he wasn't so far right on social issues--but hewed pretty closely to what I expected.

I have long had an intrinsic preference for what the Democrats supposedly stand for (at least comparatively) and a strong distaste for the intolerance often espoused by Republicans and their mouthpieces. I also firmly believe that in large part "the mess we're in" is due to choices made between 2001-2008 and that the "Change" President Obama promised was never likely to manifest itself immediately.

But as someone who has been out of work for most of Obama's time in office and remains so as part of an official unemployment rate of 9.6% and a real unemployment rate--including individuals who have quit looking or are working part-time not as a preference--closer to 20%, I understand the rancor that resulted in the Republicans picking up at least 60 House seats to take control of it, as well as the GOP's considerable gains in the Senate and governorships.

While I remain skeptical of the policies Republicans might wish to enact and their priorities--which seem to begin and end with driving Obama out of office in 2012--in troubled times Americans often vote more to replace the incumbents than as affirmation of their challengers, and I'm sorry to say that I can't take much umbrage. It's a shame that a progressive and daring legislator like Wisconsin's Russ Feingold had to go down (to a first-time candidate nonetheless) and some bit of consolation that Tea Party miscalculations kept the GOP from overthrowing Harry Reid and taking control of the Senate. And whatever the reason or eventual result, it was interesting to see the GOP and its voters become more inclusive, with non-white Republicans winning several key races, including new Florida senator Marco Rubio.

But even with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, albeit with a fair amount of obstruction from the other side, President Obama--a man I greatly admire and who I still believe has sufficient vision and skill for the task at hand--has not in any readily apparent way made the country, or my life, significantly better. The economy remains in tatters, our foreign policy remains suspect and his major accomplishment, the health care bill, was far too watered down to really suit those of us who want universal coverage, seems to be despised by most of the country and is likely to be repealed or overhauled before it has much effect.

Other than clogging the streets of Skokie--and I'd imagine many other places--with seemingly unnecessary road construction for the past 8 months, I also haven't seen much effect from the stimulus package. And the Wall Street reform bill Obama signed into law in July seemingly has no real teeth, based on the opinions of those who know much more about it than I, including Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone.

In fact, beyond the likely truth that the new political power structure will cause even more legislative gridlock--and thus, few significant new bills will pass in the next 2 years--it is primarily because of Washington's ongoing bi-partisan kow-towing to Wall Street, despite the calamity it caused through intentional malfeasance, that I am pessimistic about the future for ordinary Americans.

According to the wonderfully insightful movie, Inside Job, written, produced and directed by a multi-millionaire named Charles Ferguson (his company created the website design software FrontPage before being sold to Microsoft), the top 1% of Americans have more net worth than the bottom 95% combined. And not only did the Wall Street banks--Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, etc.--and their accomplices, from subprime lenders like Countrywide to the insurance giant AIG, intentionally wreak havoc on the American financial system and cause "the mess we're in," their leaders and many employees continue to get exorbitantly wealthy off the same type of unethical maneuvering.

Like I imagine many of you, when Wall Street melted down in September 2008, required a bailout for its survival, put us in our ongoing recession and eventually cost many of us--including me--their jobs, I assumed that the collective "we" were to blame. Too many of us were buying homes and cars we couldn't afford and getting into debt over our heads.

But while anyone who bought a $500,000 home with household income under $40,000 and loads of bad credit to their name shouldn't absolve themselves of stupidity, the truth is that subprime mortgage lenders--such as Countrywide or New Century--purposely preyed on less affluent people and gave them mortgages they knew would be most likely be defaulted on.

As explained by Ferguson in Inside Job, in greater depth by Michael Lewis in his outstanding book, The Big Short, Rolling Stone's Taibbi in a string of deeply-researched articles such as this one about Goldman Sachs (his piece on how Wall Street made a mockery of the bailout is also essential reading and his new book Griftopia promises to be as well) and the rightfully acerbic Michael Moore in Capitalism: A Love Story...

Mortgage lenders purposely made bad loans because they didn't care if they ever got paid back.

Silly as this sounds, it's because the mortgages were sold to the investment banks (like Goldman Sachs, etc.) and packaged as subprime mortgage bonds, which were piled on top of each other into an investment product called a CDO (collateralized debt obligation), most of which were given AAA ratings by Moody's and S&P through a combination of collusion & stupidity, and sold to pension funds and other investors (or held by the banks themselves). As if this wasn't bad, or confusing enough, the investment banks also sold something called a Credit Default Swap (CDS) to anyone who wanted to put up a 2% bet--i.e. $2 million to get back $100 million--that any given CDO would go bad, which could happen if only 8% of the subprime mortgages defaulted.

As many of these adjustable rate mortgages (often requiring no money down and little or no documentation of income) featured a two-year low interest teaser rate that jumped after that term, you can see why there were so many defaults starting around 2007--and the situation got exponentially worse as home prices began to decrease. According to Wikipedia, subprime mortgages, which were more lucrative to lenders, especially when they didn't take the hit on defaults, rose to 18-21% of all originations between 2004-2006 from less than 10% in 2001-2003. By 2007, there were approximately $1.3 trillion in American subprime mortgages.

The investment banks actively facilitated the expansion of subprime lending in order to more economically comprise CDOs (towers of mortgage bonds) that would be fictitiously sold as AAA-rated investments, thanks to complicit ratings firms. And in casino parlance--which  seems quite apt--AIG started acting as the house on billions of dollars of Credit Default Swaps, including over $20 billion to Goldman Sachs, which, sold CDOs that it knew were crap to investors, while at the same time betting against them (see this video for more info). Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch took losses in the hundreds of billions on CDOs they owned (and consequently either went under or got sold off) and AIG went under--but was saved by the taxpayers at 100 cents to the dollar--because it couldn't pay off its "losing bets" to Goldman Sachs.

If the last three paragraphs seem impossible to understand, A) that's the way Wall Street wants it and B) if nothing else, you should at least see that the financial collapse involved a great deal of fraud and shenanigans, not just misfortune or consumer excess. 

And if it seems like Credit Default Swaps (CDS, one of the instruments known as "derivatives") are just gambling, so far removed from anything doing any good for society or even investments in companies that might be, well, that's why Ferguson, Taibbi, Moore and others all point to deregulation of the Financial Services industry--which began in 1981 when President Reagan made Donald Regan, the former head of Merrill Lynch, the Secretary of the Treasury--as the root cause of the catastrophic messes caused by the S&L scandals, junk bond era, tech stock boom/crash and subprime mortgage meltdown.

And Washington, even under Obama, is doing nothing to stop Wall Street from (still) running wild...and ruining America (and the rest of the world as well).

As I said above, there was a Wall Street Reform bill signed into law by President Obama in July. Seemingly this fulfills his campaign promise to curb Wall Street. But according to Taibbi and many others (1, 2, 3), after the bill was watered down by members of both parties--which along with key appointees in various administrations, including Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson, all with very direct ties to Wall Street, are both culpable for the country-crippling deregulations--it basically changes nothing in the way Wall Street does business.

In this piece, Ferguson goes even further in blaming Obama for failing to stunt the non-sensical, short-term risks by which Wall Street makes itself rich and for which the rest of us pay the price.

Anyway, for things to really change in America--and don't think this esoteric crap that happens on "Wall Street" doesn't directly impact all of us--something needs to be done. And no matter who's in charge, it doesn't appear that anything soon will be. Especially with 3,000 Wall Street lobbyists at work in Washington and billions of dollars in campaign contributions going to Republican and Democratic candidates.

So I might have preferred one fool, you might have preferred another. But let's not fool ourselves about who's really in power. And no, Rich Whitney, it's not that "Green" party.