Misdirection

"Misdirection, in its simplest form, refers to getting your audience to look one way while you conduct some magical activity the other way." How to Use Misdirection in Magic site

On April 23, 2009, President Obama (D) noting a lack of "clarity and transparency" in credit card operations, imperiously declared his determination to get a credit-card law that eliminates the tricky fine print, sudden rate increases, and late fees credit card companies charge consumers:

"'I trust that those in the industry who want to act responsibly will engage with us in a constructive fashion, and that we're going to get this done in short order,' Obama said, delivering a pointed message to leading executives of credit-card issuing companies after a closed-door White House meeting.

"Both the House and the Senate are pursuing bills to give consumers greater protections as an expansion of new rules slated to take effect next year. Obama said his economic advisers will examine the various proposals and work with Congress and the industry, but he made clear he wants to sign a bill into law.

"'The days of any time, any reason rate hikes, and late fee traps have to end.'"

People think about credit card companies about the same way as funeral parlors--businesses making money when the customer is in trouble. But credit card companies operate more like casinos. Casinos use misdirection: they ply you with cheap drinks and food. Machines by the doors--open to the street so you can hear bells ringing and whistles blowing--clamorously announce winners. Long-legged cocktail waitresses glide by in revealing attire, tempting you to stay and play until you've nothing left.

Credit card companies, like casinos, entice you in with offers of low APRs, interest-free balance transfers, or low introductory consolidation loans. Once you become a customer, just as in a casino, they try everything to get you to stay and spend. After you've spent your money, making a deal at one interest rate, they've included in their fine print that they can change the deal, usually after you carried a balance--that's when they bump the rate up to some exorbitant fee and you can't escape.

President Obama wants to change that and he outlined his requirements for any legislation:

"Protections so that consumers won't face sudden, surprising jumps in fees; requirements that companies publish their forms in plainspoken language, with no more fine print; the availability of customer-friendly comparison shopping on credit-card offers; and greater enforcement so that violators feel the full weight of the law."

Here's the crux though, you can choose not to get a credit card, and you can choose not to go to Las Vegas and gamble. But you can't choose not to pay for the federal government. Why doesn't he apply his "principles" instead to the IRS--a part of the federal government--something for which he actually has Constitutional authority?

Plainspoken language? No more fine print? The Internal Revenue code, Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations, is over 13,975 pages and a printed copy is available from the government printing office for $1039 as of April 2008.

Jumps in fees? President Obama is setting up a review group to overhaul the tax code in 2010, but the goal is to make sure non-federal government employees don't escape paying taxes, not to lower costs for citizens. The Obama administration estimates that they can collect $300 billion more annually of uncollected taxes. According to Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and the Budget:

"I do want to say $300 billion a year or more is a lot of money, and we are interested in being as aggressive as possible in trying to reduce that number."

Violators feeling the full weight of the law?

• What would become of former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D), President Obama's secretary of HHS, who didn't pay $7000 in taxes to the IRS?
• Or former undersecretary for international affairs at the Treasury Department in the Clinton administration, CFR member, former Director of the IMF Policy Development and Review Department, and former NY Federal Reserve Bank president TImothy Geithner (D), President Obama's secretary of the Treasury and now running our increasingly centrally-planned economy, for not paying $42,000 in income tax?
• Or Tom Daschle (D), President Obama's first secretary of HHS nominee, for not paying $128,000 in income tax?
• Or former assistant treasury secretary in the Clinton administration Nancy Killefer (D), and President Obama's nominee to be Chief Performance Officer, for not paying unemployment taxes in D.C. for a household employee?
• Or former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk (D), President Obama's Chief Trade Representative for not paying $10,000 to the IRS?

"Direct your eyes, conversation and body language to the opposite side of wherever you need the spectator to NOT look." How to Use Misdirection in Magic site

The Obama administration, like all others, relies on misdirection:

• A February 23, 2009 USA Today article describes President Obama's announcement of his plan to cut the deficit in half by 2013. The misdirection here is that the President had just signed into law a $787 billion stimulus bill that will make the deficit $1.3 trillion right now. The misdirection here is ignoring the stimulus bill that massively increased the deficit and ignoring the increased taxes the Obama administration wants to help pay for the stimulus and reduce the deficit.
• On March 11, 2009, President Obama signs a $410 billion spending bill while complaining about $12.8 billion, or 3 percent, of the money in the latest bill that went to earmarks. Earmarks allow lawmakers to specify what the money is spent on. The President, Congress, and the news media get the public worked up over $12.8 billion, while a number 32 times greater is authorized to be spent by nameless bureaucrats; that's misdirection.
• On March 16, 2009, President Obama and others in his administration criticized AIG for paying $165 million in executive bonuses with taxpayer money on one hand, while knowing in advance about the bonuses after the Fed and the US government paid $170 billion to AIG. Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) and Secretary of the Treasury Geithner tried to defuse the political fallout when it became public that the bailout money was paid while bureaucrats knew in advance about the bonuses. Despite the complaints, it was misdirection mission accomplished as citizens were mad at AIG about $165 million and not at the federal government about a sum 1,000 times greater.

"Do not abuse misdirection. The key to misdirection is subtlety, and it can become subconsciously annoying to spectators if heavily repeated." How to Use Misdirection in Magic site

The question is, "what will the annoyed spectators do?"

Real Change vs. "Change You Can Believe In"

"The United States has by far the world’s highest incarceration rate. With 5% of the world’s population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world’s reported prisoners. We currently incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the average worldwide of 158 for every 100,000. In addition, more than 5 million people who recently left jail remain under 'correctional supervision,' which includes parole, probation, and other community sanctions. All told, about one in every 31 adults in the United States is in prison, in jail, or on supervised release. This all comes at a very high price to taxpayers: Local, state, and federal spending on corrections adds up to about $68 billion a year." Parade Magazine article (pdf) by James Webb (D), US Senator, Virginia

James Webb (D), former marine, Secretary of the Navy during Reagan (R) administration, author, journalist, and now US Senator from Virginia wants to reform the prison system. In typical bureaucratic fashion, he wants a blue-ribbon commission to study the problem, but Webb at least realizes that there's a problem.

In his March 29th, 2009 Parade magazine article (pdf), Webb shows that the war on drugs is behind the problem in the prison system:

"Drug offenders, most of them passive users or minor dealers, are swamping our prisons. According to data supplied to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee, those imprisoned for drug offenses rose from 10% of the inmate population to approximately 33% between 1984 and 2002...

"Justice statistics also show that 47.5% of all the drug arrests in our country in 2007 were for marijuana offenses. Additionally, nearly 60% of the people in state prisons serving time for a drug offense had no history of violence or of any significant selling activity. Indeed, four out of five drug arrests were for possession of illegal substances, while only one out of five was for sales. Three-quarters of the drug offenders in our state prisons were there for nonviolent or purely drug offenses."

Webb acknowledges that drug laws in the US are in serious need of change and states that America can "discover better ways to deal with the problems of drugs and nonviolent criminal behavior while still minimizing violent crime and large-scale gang activity."

Growing the Economy

"The number of inmates in state and federal prisons has increased nearly seven-fold from less than 200,000 in 1970 to 1,540,805 by midyear 2008. An additional 785,556 are held in local jails, for a total of 2.3 million." Sentencing Project (pdf)

When many in the private sector are taking pay cuts or pink slips during these hard times, government jobs are on the increase. A large part of this growth is in spending on prisons and the number imprisoned. The powerful don't just lock up foreigners: according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) website, if present rates continue, the likelihood of an American serving prison time in the land of the free will be 1 in 15.

In addition to the growing incarceration rate, the DOJ reports that 1.9 million arrests for drug offenses occurred in 2006, 13% of all arrests for that year, most of these arrests are done by the states. To get people into prison in the land of the free, they also still have to be prosecuted. The DOJ reports that in 2004, drug prosecutions were 35% of all cases handled in federal courts.

A December 29, 2008 Washington Post article points out that Webb's call for reform isn't a popular position for him to advocate and keep his Senate seat in Virginia. Compare Webb's push for change with respect to drug laws and prison reform with President Obama's (D) joking response to a question about marijuana decriminalization as a way to grow the economy. Remember that decriminalization was something Obama supported in 2004:

"After taking questions lower on the list, Obama addressed the pot issue head-on, noting the huge number of questions about marijuana legalization and remarking with a chuckle, 'I don't know what that says about the online audience.'
" 'The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy,' he said, as the audience in the room applauded and joined him in a laugh."

The President is an admitted pot-smoker, and apparently operates under different rules than the rest of us. Or perhaps he thinks increasing the number of police and prison guards is an easier strategy to grow the economy?

Growing Prison Population Mostly Non-Violent

According to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy group, many inmates are sentenced for non-violent crimes, especially drug possession (pdf):

• 82% of those sentenced to state prisons in 2004 were convicted of non-violent crimes, including 34% for drug offenses, and 29% for property offenses.
• 1 in 4 jail inmates in 2002 was in jail for a drug offense, compared to 1 in 10 in 1983; drug offenders constituted 20% of state prison inmates and 55% of federal prison inmates in 2001.

The federal prison population is growing and is mostly non-violent, but DOJ officials distort the facts. The Sentencing Project explains (pdf):

"Recent testimony by the Department of Justice before the United States Sentencing Commission has stated that 'approximately two-thirds of all federal prisoners are in prison for violent crimes or had a prior criminal record before being incarcerated.' ...conflating those persons convicted of a violent crime – only 13% of federal prisoners – with those having a prior record, including low-level drug crimes, distorts the portrait of the current prison population and the implications for sentencing reform. Overall, nearly three-fourths (72.1%) of federal prisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence."

The DOJ shows approximately 1/4 of all prisoners across federal, state, and local jails are imprisoned for drug-related crimes. If even just marijuana was legalized or decriminalized, this number would decrease, as would the cost to taxpayers for the criminal justice system.

Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs?

Webb points out more negative consequences of the war on drugs for North Americans than the increase in prison costs:

"The Mexican drug cartels, whose combined profits are estimated at $25 billion a year, are known to employ many elite former soldiers who were trained in some of America’s most sophisticated military programs. Their brutal tactics took the lives of more than 6000 Mexicans last year alone, and the bloodshed has been spilling over the border into our own neighborhoods at a rapid pace. One terrible result is that Phoenix, Ariz., has become the kidnapping capital of the United States, with more than 370 cases in 2008. That is more incidents than in any other city in the world outside of Mexico City."

Hilary Clinton(D), US secretary of State, doesn't draw the same conclusions as Webb about the drug war when she hints that more gun regulations are necessary in the US because of the killings in Mexico. Her "solution" is more of what has not worked: more police, more regulation, and more prison.

A Mexican bureaucrat agrees with Clinton in this CBS news video about the drug war. Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora Icaza states in the video that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution wasn't intended to arm Mexican drug gangs, giving the impression that the Second Amendment rights of American citizens are part of the problem and erroneously implying that the RPGs, M203s, and hand grenades used by drug gangs are readily available for sale to American citizens.[1]

Icaza does admit that drug lords also "have tremendous economic power" to corrupt Mexican government officials, but apparently doesn't consider that legalization would limit the economic power of drug lords.

In the same video, a clue to perhaps why Icaza doesn't consider legalization is given when a drug lord is interviewed and explains how the drug war allows government types to supplement their income. Sandra Ávila Beltrán, a Mexican drug cartel leader asked while in prison whether the government can win the drug war responds: "I don't think so. You'd have to wipe out government," referring to the corruption of government officials with drug money.

Janet Napolitano (D), US secretary of Homeland Security, recently announced an amazing innovation that likely will strike a major blow in the drug war:

"The administration will spend $700 million this year and more in the future on a wide variety of bilateral security programs, including improving cross-border interdiction efforts, upgrading intelligence-gathering methods and establishing corruption-resistant police agencies and courts." (Italics added.)

"Corruption-resistant police agencies!" Now that's innovation!

Hidden Costs, Hidden Benefits

While Webb points out the costs and consequences of the drug war, it seems as if the federal government tries to hide the true cost of the drug war. For example, the federal drug control budget states:

"The drug budget now contains only those expenditures aimed at reducing drug use, rather than those associated with the consequences of drug use."

These costs are presumably drug interdiction and perhaps education expenses. Webb's article in Parade magazine (pdf) estimates total incarceration expenses of $68 Billion in the US. With drug offenders in state and federal prisons making up 1/4 to 1/2 of the prisoners, that at least doubles the cost of the war on drugs. The costs of courts, lawyers, and police aren't included. The Obama administration's recently announced border security program will spend more than $700 million this year.

By not making the true cost of the war on drugs readily accessible, it's as if the government doesn't want people to question the war on drugs as James Webb does. Admittedly there is a benefit to keeping certain substances illegal: fortunes are made with which future leaders can be financed. FDR's grandfather, Warren Delano, was an opium trafficker in China. He wasn't proud of it, but he made lots of money. Joe Kennedy Sr. ran booze during Prohibition and today the Kennedy's are still flirting with political power over 70 years later.

Government officials benefit from the illegality of drugs today, too. For example in Mexico, the former drug czar was detained on suspicion of receiving bribes of $450,000 a month from drug traffickers. But that would never happen in the US now, would it?

President Obama's appointees have proposed more police and more regulation in the continuing drug war. James Webb points out the need for real change for prisons and the drug laws in the US. Is President Obama, the candidate for change behind him?

Or is the opportunity to disarm American citizens and stifle dissent more compelling?

NOTES

[1] "Who is Arming the Mexican Drug Cartels?" Michael Gaddy, 29 March 2009, on the Internet: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy54.html.