Rest Assured

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Ronald Reagan (R)

In his July 18, 2009 weekly address to the nation to support a House bill to create national health insurance and increase government regulation of private health insurance, President Obama (D) vowed:

“I want to be very clear, I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade. And by helping improve quality and efficiency, the reforms we make will help bring our deficits under control in the long term.”

A Congressional Budget Office letter (pdf) to Congress estimated that HR3200 would increase the deficit in the next 10 years by another $239 billion. The President disagreed:

“The same folks who controlled the White House and Congress for the past eight years as we ran up record deficits will argue — believe it or not — that health reform will lead to record deficits. That’s simply not true.”

What President Obama didn't add is that since his administration ushered in a "new era of responsibility" (pdf) on February 26, 2009 with his 2010 budget proposals, it has already set a record for budget deficits projected to reach $2 trillion this year, even without his health care "reform."

Isn't this reminiscent of former President Clinton (D) caught in a lie and then rationalizing by asking what the meaning of the word 'is' is? Or President Bush (R) and his WMD (Youtube) lies?

President Obama explained that his proposals wouldn't cost more, but instead would cut “hundreds of billions of dollars” in unnecessary spending and change incentives so health providers “will give patients the best care, not just the most expensive care.” This is the same approach the President used in February, talking about a $2 trillion deficit reduction, while announcing a $3.55 trillion budget for 2010 and increasing 2009 spending to $3.94 trillion.

Rest assured, things might not look so good with a $2 trillion deficit this year, but the president has promised a "new era of responsibility" and he's here to help. Everyday Americans should be terrified.

Tea Parties

Many angry Americans spent the 4th of July at tea parties protesting massive increases in federal spending and taxes in the US. These Americans want change in America: change from a government that steals their earnings by taxation and devaluation of their money; change from a government that relieves investment bankers of $2 trillion in debt liabilities while everyday people lose their jobs and their homes; change from a government where US senators travel to Paris and stay in hotels at taxpayer expense with room rates starting at $460 a night, while everyday American taxpayers fall deeper into debt.

Tax protestors don't get a lot of media coverage. Their cause might seem hopeless considering most Americans wave a government flag to celebrate the July 4th holiday that commemorates secession from England after Americans closed down an oppressive government. One can hardly blame the flag wavers since four score and five years after the Declaration of Independence was written, the federal government provoked a bloody war to preserve the union. We've been conditioned ever since to believe that secession is a bad word.

The original December 16, 1773 Boston Tea Party, for which this year's July 4th tax protests were named, occurred when Americans took direct action to protest a tiny tax on tea of 3 pence per pound weight of tea: equivalent to less than 25 cents today for tea in the store.[1] The Boston Tea Party culminated a resistance movement throughout the colonies against the May 1773 Tea Act passed by the British Parliament. In Boston, Massachusetts Colony's Royal Governor, Thomas Hutchinson, refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He didn't imagine that the protestors would destroy the tea rather than submit to the authority of the crown. Could any US government official today imagine Americans taking such direct action?

Mercy Otis Warren, who wrote a history of the American revolution that she had lived through, described the Boston Tea Party protesters calmly walking to the wharves in Boston as "innumerable spectators" watched the quiet parade. Most watching knew what they were about to do and supported them. The group boarded the ships and destroyed the tea, throwing it into Boston Harbor.[2] They did this because their government wasn't listening to them. Are the tea parties of today a first step to direct action by everyday Americans of the 21st century?

Warren described the polarized attitudes of her contemporaries towards the brewing dispute (pun intended) between citizens and their central government:

"Others, the true disciples of passive obedience, had real scruples of conscience with regard to any resistance to the powers that be; these, whether actuated by affection or fear, by principle or interest, formed a close combination with the colonial governors, custom-house officers, and all in subordinate departments, who hung on the court for subsistence. By the tenor of the writings of some of these, and the insolent behaviour of others, they became equally obnoxious in the eyes of the people, with the officers of the crown, and the danglers for place; who, disappointed of their prey by the repeal of the stamp-act, and restless for some new project that might enable them to rise into importance, on the spoils of America, were continually whispering malicious insinuations into the ears of the financiers and ministers of colonial departments."[3]

The "true disciples of passive obedience" of Warren's time are the same politicians, well-connected lobbyists, and government contractors of today who live off federal largesse at the expense of the American people. These "true disciples of passive obedience" can't imagine life without Uncle Sam--they have too much invested in the system. The continued existence of the federal government is vital to their way of life.

Warren also wrote of the initial reluctance of everyday people to oppose the powers that oppress them, and how gradually colonial Americans decided to oppose their rulers:

"...there is a certain supineness which generally overspreads the multitude, and disposes mankind to submit quietly to any form of government, rather than to be at the expense and hazard of resistance. They become attached to ancient modes by habits of obedience, though the reins of authority are sometimes held by the most rigorous hand. Thus we have seen in all ages the many become the slaves of the few; preferring the wretched tranquillity of inglorious ease, they patiently yield to despotic masters, until awakened by multiplied wrongs to the feelings of human nature; which when once aroused to a consciousness of the native freedom and equal rights of man, ever revolts at the idea of servitude."[4]

The British government tightened "the reins of authority" on Americans and responded to the Boston Tea Party with five even harsher measures the next year. For example, The Massachusetts Government Act of 1774:

• replaced the elected assembly with a council of clerks appointed by the Governor
• empowered the Governor to appoint/dismiss all law officers
• forbade Town Meetings without royal assent
• ended election of juries by the freeholders.

Colonists labeled the new British laws "The Intolerable Acts." And revolting "at the idea of servitude," everyday colonial Americans didn't tolerate them. So many protesters in Worcester, Massachusetts armed themselves that there were gunpowder shortages.[5] By September 1774, Worcester protesters had boarded up the courthouse and forced crown-approved officials to resign. Everyday Americans ended British authority in Worcester, Massachusetts.[6] No weapons were fired in the process; they didn't need George Washington to lead them in battle to do it.

By October 1774, protestors had seized all authority outside of Boston:

"In the late summer and early fall of 1774, patriots did not simply protest government, they overthrew it."[7]

On October 4, 1774, everyday people in Worcester declared their independence from Britain.[8] This came a full 21 months before the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.

Today the federal government conditions us to believe its existence is crucial to our well-being. It insinuates itself into all aspects of our lives: regulating schools, healthcare, public transportation, the environment, welfare, retirement, and the money supply. And it taxes us to support its incursions. The talking head news media do their best to make sure everyday Americans are all sufficiently awed and cowed by the people "behind the Washington beltway" who thrive on the backs of those in the private sector. Most Americans today still "patiently yield to despotic masters" wondering:

• How would we ever survive without the federal government?
• How would we be free if federal soldiers hadn't died for our freedom to submit to federal authority?
• How can we guarantee a just society for all if the IRS, our present day "custom-house officers," didn't regularly tip us upside down and shake out money to give to modern day "danglers for place"?

Everyday colonial Americans initially submitted "quietly to any form of government," as Warren wrote. When they disagreed with their government, they tried to fix things through their local officials. Once everyday colonial Americans believed there was a systematic plan to enslave them, they wouldn't allow it. They took direct action: they armed themselves, they refused to pay the tea tax, and they refused to be subject to a government they no longer recognized.

British General Gage and former British Governor of Massachusetts called revolutionary war Americans, particularly Bostonians, "bullies" because they wouldn't tolerate being pushed around and stood up after their "habits of obedience" had failed. Everyday people do have the power to stop abuse by their government.

How much longer will everyday Americans of the 21st century tolerate being pushed around by their government before they take direct action?

Are the July 4th, 2009 tea parties a first step?

_____________________________________

[1] Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution 2 vols 1805. p. 57 of online pdf version.

Warren states 3 pence per pound was a "small duty." For an estimate of 3 pence in 1774, compare the price of a commodity still in use today: a bushel of wheat. 12 pence made a shilling. A bushel of wheat has ranged in price from $7 to $20 since 2007. From a 1984 paper (pdf), "Money and Inflation in Colonial Massachusetts," by Bruce D. Smith, an Economist in the Research Department of Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, a bushel of wheat in 1770 cost 5.39s Massachusetts (shillings) with an exchange rate of 1.26 to 1 in favor of British shillings. 5.39s/1.26 = 4.27s British. So 4.27s British in 1770 purchased what $15 does today, if we assume a price of $15 for a bushel of wheat.

So 4.27s x (12d per s) = 51d bought what $15 does today.

$15/51d = 29 cents/d

The tea tax was 3d (pence) per pound of tea, so it was about the equivalent of slightly less than $1 per pound of tea ($0.87) or 5.5 cents/ounce.

[2] Warren, p. 61 of online pdf version.

[3] Warren, p.24. of online pdf version.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ray Raphael, Founders, N.Y., 2009, p.139.

[6] Raphael, p. 143-4.

[7] Raphael, p.150.

[8] Kenneth J. Moynihan, A History of Worcester 1674-1848, 2007, p.80.

How it Starts

"We are excited. I can't tell you how excited we are about the president's commitment to lead us to the future." IBM CEO Sam Palmisano

R types will tell you President Obama (D) is rapidly moving America to fascism as he makes GM into Government Motors. They're correct, but they usually neglect to acknowledge that their candidates move America down the same road. Rs warning of D-invoked fascism is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Lest they forget, the TARP bailout enacted less than a year ago was championed by the Bush (R) administration and supported by Rs and Ds alike. Bush administration Treasury secretary Paulsen forced out AIG CEO Robert Willumstad just as President Obama has now forced GM CEO Wagoner to resign. But because car manufacturers produce something more tangible than insurance, the government takeover of GM is a more blatant example of a state-controlled enterprise.

So how do government and corporations get tangled up in the first place? Usually in times of "crisis" under the guise of solving some pressing problem, and always for the "common good"--whatever that is.

A recent example occurred in response to the imploding economy, when on January 28, 2009, Honeywell CEO Dave Cote and IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano fawned over the new President as they shilled for his eventual $787 billion (CBO estimate pdf) stimulus package.

Palmisano started the performance, blathering about the honor of being led by the President in creating jobs with taxpayer money:

"We are excited. I can't tell you how excited we are about the president's commitment to lead us to the future.

"And the support for health I.T., the support in the area of smart grids, the support in the area of education and broadband, all those things are essential. They're essential in the short term, because in the research we've done, working with the transition teams, we know that $30 billion could create a million jobs in the next 12 months. But it's also every bit as important, because we touch so many factors in the ecosystem that'll create jobs for decades to come.

"So we're honored to be here. I'm honored to be speaking on behalf of the business community. And I would just say that it's an imperative that business and government come together, we help the president get the package through, and we get to work. And we have a lot of work ahead of us."

Palmisano's words belied recent IBM layoffs which didn't create new jobs, but eliminated thousands of IBM jobs in North America. According to a January 30, 2009 Times-Herald article:

"In 2007, 121,000 of IBM’s 387,000 workers were in the U.S., down slightly from 2006. Meanwhile, staffing in India jumped from 9,000 workers in 2003 to 74,000 workers in 2007.

"But for $30 billion, Palmisano promises a million jobs will come to America."

Apparently Palmisano prefers that US taxpayers subsidize job creation in America.

Next at the podium, Dave Cote, Honeywell CEO and a member of board of directors of JPMorgan Chase introduced the President (video) and warned "the situation is dire":

"We very much appreciate an aggressive approach here, and think it makes a lot of sense. Getting money out fast to people who will spend it, and getting the velocity of the spend. And then the reinvestment, investment in the future of the country, whether it's infrastructure, energy efficiency, math and science, which is particularly important to us. All these things need to happen."

In his introduction, Cote started a theme he has since repeated at the London School of Economics and Political Science this June about climate change, where he spoke about the desirability of government mandates for energy saving products, products which, coincidentally, Honeywell happens to manufacture.

"You look at energy efficiency, there are great strides that we can make in this country in energy efficiency. There are a number of solutions out there that are possible. And we just need to encourage people to do it. It improves our energy security. It just -- just makes sense."

Cote nearly outdid Palmisano's hypocrisy about creating technology jobs in America saying:

"We have to make math and science cool again in the U.S. It has to become cool. We need this-- we have a desperate need for engineers. That's all math- and science-based. We need to make that cool again, it's one of the best investments we can make."

Cote was alluding to the tired refrain that Honeywell and other technology companies are forced to hire foreign workers because there just aren't enough qualified Americans to hire. Cote has since bragged about spending $50 million to open a second research and development center in Bangalore, India and about the growth of Honeywell employment in India from 1,000 employees in 2002 to 10,000 today--the opposite direction of Honeywell jobs in the US. Honeywell and Cote's attempts to make engineering "cool again" in the US entailed systematically cutting jobs in the US and moving them overseas:

• September 2001: Before Cote is CEO, Honeywell announces 7600 layoffs, the majority in aerospace.
• October 2002: Cote announces 5000 layoffs across all divisions in a conference call .
• July 2005: Honeywell announces 2000 US layoffs in its aerospace division, first denying it was part of an outsourcing strategy, and then acknowledging plans for an increase in foreign hiring by 5000 workers.
• February 2008: Honeywell announces 420 jobs to be eliminated in aerospace manufacturing moving the jobs to Indonesia and Malaysia.
• November 2008: Honeywell aerospace announces 700 manufacturing jobs to be moved to Mexico and the Czech Republic.

By "cool again," at least for American engineers, Cote must mean a pink slip and an updated resume.

Like Palmisano and IBM, Cote wants US taxpayers to subsidize Honeywell engineering jobs in the US while Honeywell uses its own money to create jobs elsewhere in the world. Despite what Cote says about making "engineering cool again," he's really looking for government assistance in the form of more government contracts and laws mandating Honeywell products.

While economists debate the merits of outsourcing in general, to find the answer to whether it's good or bad for a particular company just let that individual company succeed or fail without government intervention. Unfortunately, corporate leaders, as exemplified by Palmisano and Cote, under the guise of helping in a crisis, really just smell cash handouts for themselves and their corporations. They gladly let taxpayers bear the financial burden while they reap the financial rewards, all while pretending government intervention in the market is for the "common good." As a member of the JPMorgan Chase board of directors, Cote has already seen the benefits of a public-private partnership between business and government as part of the TARP bailout.

The next time you hear that the government is forming a partnership with an industry for the common good or you read that an executive at a failed institution is now a high-ranking government appointee. . . that's how it starts.

Economy of Scale

You're cutting back: you can't afford to go out to eat, or you can't pay your utility or grocery bill. Maybe your pay has been cut, or you've been furloughed, or laid off. Skip that doctor visit, you don't have the money. Times are tough, so you tighten your belt: you have to be responsible.

Times are tough all over.

"Well, we are out of money now,"

stated the chief executive of a failed organization that's more than $11.3 trillion in debt. Yes that's right, those are President Obama's (D) own words in an interview on May 23, 2009. But that didn't stop him from taking a night out on the town in another state eight days later. The New York Post reported that the President, and his wife and their entourage, used a Gulfstream 500 and two helicopters to fly to New York City to take in a Broadway play and dinner. While the Obama administration wouldn't reveal the total bill for the American taxpayer, the cost for the transportation and security is estimated by the Daily Mail to be at least $70,000 (at current conversion rates). The President paid for the theater tickets and the meal himself.

What's next, a trip to Paris? Yes. Michelle, the President's wife, will join him for dinner in Paris reports a May 29, 2009 NY Times blog.

What's the difference between you and the President? When you're President of the United States and a modern day emperor, the taxpayers subsidize your entertainment. Not only do the taxpayers subsidize your entertainment, they're giddy at the prospect.

Sycophantic Andre Holland, an actor in the Broadway play that the Obamas attended, accurately stated:

"It's like in Shakespearean times, when the king would come to the show."

Before the show, slavish diners were thrilled to be frisked like untrustworthy royal subjects before dining near the emperor.

According to another wealthy spendthrift politician, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, dropping such a pittance for a night out on the town is "just pro forma," and Bloomberg was "ecstatic" that the Obamas spent taxpayer money in NYC.

Spending $70,000 of taxpayer money for a night out might sound like a lot, but what about when its $30 billion? Because that's what the President pledged to GM just a few days after his night out. Seventy thousand pales by comparison.

Will the proles be so giddy when they realize that that the US government is so deeply in debt that the average obligation per household in America is over $500,000?

The More Things Change...

Rs and Ds in America, like beer-swilling face-painted football fans, cheer their team on as they fight for control of the state. The winners (Youtube "I won") get to inflict their vision of perfection on all Americans until the next election.

Victorious in the last political Super Bowl because candidate Obama promised change from the Bush (R) administration, the Obama (D) administration in its first 100 days has busied itself "delivering on change" to improve the lives of "all Americans" by funneling vast amounts of money to failed bankers and car makers, deciding which big businesses succeed and which fail, and increasing taxes to pay for its vision of how Americans should live.

While the banker and car maker recipients of federal government largesse have undoubtedly had their lives improved, most Americans are facing pay cuts, possible unemployment, or have already joined the ranks of the unemployed. The workingman is now not only cutting back on superfluous spending, but sweating how to pay for gasoline, medical bills, utility bills, and groceries. In its first 100 days the Obama administration, just like the Bush administration, championed giving taxpayer money to failed bankers and car manufacturers. The main change is the Obama administration gives even more taxpayer money to failed businesses.

But Obamaphiles love the President and trust he'll ultimately change things for the better. Surely his well-meaning actions won't result in the evils of the Bush (R) administration as evidenced by Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, invading other countries, and maintaining concentration camps in Guantanamo.

To maintain such optimism, Obama supporters ignore the salient fact that those evil Bush policies continue under President Obama. The Obama administration continued the Bush administration policy of skirting restrictions on torture by sending prisoners to countries with no such restrictions, upholding the Bush administration detainee policy in Afghanistan, initiating drone attacks in Pakistan, and now keeping the military tribunals for Guantanamo prisoners that candidate Obama had promised to eliminate under an Obama administration.

How can anyone believe that simply changing from one person in an office to another will make things better? It's takes more than one person changing in the office and more than the administration changing to make a difference. The American people have to change and take responsibility.

Did the Bush administration force Americans to support the invasion of other countries? Most Americans were glad soldiers went overseas to invade another nation because they meekly believed what they were told about weapons of mass destruction. They ignored the fact that 9-11 was mostly the handiwork of Saudis, or that Congress violated the law by abdicating the requirement that it alone has the power to declare wars.

Did the Bush administration force Americans to support their troops when U.S. soldiers tortured prisoners or killed civilians? Once again, most Americans, meekly believed what they were told: that it saved American lives. Did it save American lives? Should we be in Iraq to begin with? How many Americans asked themselves those questions?

Did a small cabal of evildoers somehow deceive the vast majority of the American people and Congress as Nancy Pelosi, leader of the D opposition at the time is pretending?

Those who think that changing the President will solve our problems, ignore the fact that ultimately individuals act, not the President. They ignore the moral responsibility of individuals, as does President Obama, who doesn't want to prosecute those in the CIA who carried out torture interrogations.

The evils of the Bush administration occurred when Americans gave up their individual responsibilities for decisions about their economic well-being and sense of security to the state. The Obama administration continues the Bush administration move away from individual responsibility. It bails out failed businesses, continues the same foreign policy, and increases taxes on the few to pay for the many.

The real solution to the evil of what this nation has done lies with change in each of us to be responsible for our own decisions instead of singing pathetic paeans to our leader (pathetic Youtube video).

"A movement whose main promise is the relief from responsibility cannot but be anti-moral in its effect, however lofty the ideals to which it owes its birth." Hayek: The Road to Serfdom

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.