In the wake of the Tea Party, the Occupy movement, and a dozen or more episodes of real rebellion on the streets, in the legislatures of cities and towns, and in state and federal courthouses, this presidential race now feels like a banal bureaucratic sideshow to the real event – the real event being a looming confrontation between huge masses of disaffected citizens on both sides of the aisle, and a corrupt and increasingly ideologically bankrupt political establishment, represented in large part by the two parties dominating this race. Let’s put it this way. What feels more like a real news story – Newt Gingrich calling Mitt Romney a liar for the ten millionth time, or this sizzling item that just hit the wires by way of the Montana Supreme Court.
Taibbi points to an astonishing statistic brought to the public attention by Dylan Ratigan: "94% of the time the candidate who raises the most money wins. That's not a democracy. That's an auction."
Here is an MSNBC feature on locksmiths who cheat people who call them in emergencies when they are locked out of their homes. This news piece follows a tried and true formula for creating a good memorable story: It vividly exposes an unscrupulous practice, and then turns the camera on the perpetrators as they try to slink away. To tell the complete story, the producers included the fact that there are honest people in the trade (in this case, honest locksmiths); locksmiths can make a living while giving people a fair shake.
Why, then, don't networks treat all of those who lie, cheat and steal with comparable scrutiny? What I have in mind are Wall Street Banks, telecoms, fossil fuel industries, healthcare insurers, the defense industries and other powerful entities who have purchased Congress and then made certain that industry reform is impossible. These industries have driven out competition and/or figured out how to freely feed out of the public trough. They've been gouging consumers, directly and indirectly, in ways that make the crooked fees charged by locksmiths look like chump change. Consider this recent article by Matt Taibbi, illustrating how big banks are cheating taxpayers.
Consider also how Barack Obama's promise of an expanded industry of energy conservation and sustainable energy production would be a centerpiece of his Administration. Though he has done some good things, has also opened up large tracts of Western lands to coal mining and providing much more funding to nuclear and fossil fuel than to green alternatives. This is one of many of Obama's broken promises-- somehow, indefinite warmongering against undefined enemies is somehow much more important that having a sustainable economy back home. And even after "health care reform," people who had health insurance are struggling mightily to pay uncovered medical bills, many of them tipping over into bankruptcy. Payday lenders run rampant across the country. A few months ago, telecoms almost succeeded in destroying what is left of net neutrality.
These sorts of thing don't just happen; powerful people are consciously making these terrible decisions, and they (including most of our politicians) are motivated by money, not public service.
I fear that one of the main reasons we are cleaning up these industries is that too many Americans are math challenged -- they suffer from innumeracy. And most Americans would flunk a basic test on American civics and history. Foxes run rampant in the American hen house. One would need to spend some serious time thinking about the effects of lack of competition in order to appreciate how much the public is being fleeced, but Americans are highly distracted with TV and other forms of entertainment. Another hurdle is that big media is owned by big companies and serves big industries by selling them commercials. Thus, we don't see constant aggressive journalism illustrating how the public is being ripped off by many (by no means all) big businesses.
Don't expect the journalism to get better, especially for the reasons outlined by John Nichols of Free Press. Expect things to get worse, in light of the fact that this week the FCC proposed a new set of rules that would unleash a wave of media consolidation across the country. If the agency's proposal sounds familiar, that’s because it’s nearly identical to rules the FCC proposed during the Bush administration. This proposal is especially scandalous for the reasons stated here.
An additional hurdle to getting these stories out is to make them simple and memorable stories, but this is quite a challenge. These industries have successfully complexified themselves--it now takes "experts" (including teams of lawyers) to understand how these industries function. Ordinary people don't have much of a chance of even articulating how and why they are getting ripped off, much less understanding what can be done to fix the problems. Complexity is not an accident--it is a tactic. Consolidating the mass media isn't simply happening--it is a tactic of big business to maintain control, as are recent attempts to give private businesses the power to shut down internet domains without a court order.
There is no incentive for the mass media to excoriate those behind any of these proposals. There is little to no incentive for big media to descend on those behind these movements as though they were crooked locksmiths. If only.
At LA Weekly, Paul Teetor interviews Jack Abramoff, who has recently released his memoirs, titled Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist.
I focused on these parts of the interview:
Politicians have to beg constantly for money, but you say that's not the primary problem. What is the primary problem?
Power. The primary problem is them wanting to stay in power. It's not just campaign contributions; it's also people giving each other meals, taking them on trips. Anytime a gratuity is given to a public servant, that is a bribe.
You say the best way to get control of a congressman's office is to offer a future job to the chief of staff. How does that work?
I would say, "I would like to talk to you about working for me." The minute that conversation started, I had basically bribed them. From that point forward, I found, they were basically working for us.
Is that part of your reform recommendations? Members and their chiefs of staff cannot become lobbyists?
I would include every member of their staff.
These are the conclusions of a man who manipulated the system for decades. Although he attributes much of the corruption in Washington, D.C. to the lust for power, all methods of playing the system involve the exchange of money and other things of value. Politicians should be making their decisions solely on the merits of the legislation being considered.
The solution is to pay our representatives well but take all other money and other things of value, direct and indirect, out of the equation. No junkets, no special book deals, no lecture money, no special consideration for jobs for relatives and friends. I would also pass a constitutional amendment to undo the damage of Citizen's United. I would offer meaningful public funding for political campaigns. Although I don't agree with everything Abramoff now says, I think he is right that corruption often starts with the little things and builds up. Therefore, I would agree to ban all of the little things too: no dinners, no small gifts and nothing at all of value.
In the aggregate, these things constitute the only approach for freeing up the consciences of politicians so that they can make decisions based only on what is best for their constituents.
During the deepest, darkest period of the financial cataclysm, the CEOs of major banks maintained in statements to the public, to the market at large, and to their own shareholders that the banks were in good financial shape, didn’t want to take TARP funds, and that the regulatory framework governing our banking system should not be altered. Trust us, they said. Yet, unknown to the public and the Congress, these same banks had been borrowing massive amounts from the government to remain afloat. The total numbers are staggering: $7.7 trillion of credit—one-half of the GDP of the entire nation. $460 billion was lent to J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley alone—without anybody other than a few select officials at the Fed and the Treasury knowing. This was perhaps the single most massive allocation of capital from public to private hands in our history, and nobody was told. This was not TARP: This was secret Fed lending.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
