Does the following sound familiar? It's from a play-book by those debt crisis Republican tax cutters:
You think we have a debt crisis now? You should have seen the one Canada had in 1993!!! And just like this one, it was phony, designed to scare people into cutting and privatizing government so the rich can get even richer. The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein, Pages 324-326. Published before the financial collapse and subsequent "debt crisis."
In February 1993, Canada was in the midst of financial catastrophe, or so one would have concluded by reading the newspapers and watching TV. “Debt Crisis Looms,” screamed a banner front-page headline in … the Globe and Mail. The only solution was to radically cut spending on such programs as unemployment insurance and health care. The governing Liberal Party did just that.
Two years after the deficit hysteria peaked, the investigative journalist Linda McQuaig definitively exposed that a sense of crisis had been carefully stoked and manipulated by a handful of think tanks funded by the largest banks and corporations in Canada; C. D. Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute (which Milton Friedman strongly supported). Canada did have a deficit problem, but it wasn’t caused by spending on unemployment insurance and other social programs … it was caused by high interest rates, which exploded the worth of the debt.
McQuaig went to Moody’s Wall Street head office and spoke with Vincent Truglia, the senior analyst in charge of issuing Canada’s credit rating. He told her something remarkable: that he had come under constant pressure from Canadian corporate executives and bankers to issue damning reports about the country’s finances, something he refused to do because he considered Canada an excellent, stable investment … for the Canadian financial community, the “deficit crisis” was a critical weapon in a pitched political battle … a major campaign was afoot to push the government to lower taxes by cutting spending on social programs such as health and education. Since these programs are supported by an overwhelming majority of Canadians, the only way the cuts could be justified was if the alternative was national economic collapse – a full blown crisis.
Truglia got so fed up he issu(ed) a “special commentary” clarifying that Canada’s spending was “not out of control,” … when he put out the commentary, “one Canadian… from a very large financial institution in Canada called me up literally screaming at me. That was unique.” By the time Canadians learned that the “deficit crisis” had been grossly manipulated by the corporate-funded think tanks, it hardly mattered – the budget cuts had already been made and locked in. As a direct result, social programs for the country’s unemployed were radically eroded and have never recovered, despite many subsequent surplus budgets.
In September 1995, a video was leaked to the Canadian press of John Snobelen, Ontario’s minister of education, telling a closed-door meeting of civil servants that before cuts to education and other unpopular reforms could be announced, a climate of panic needed to be created by leaking information that painted a more dire picture than he “would be inclined to talk about”. He called it “creating a useful crisis.”
There are two parts here: Rachel Maddow sets up the premise of the Shock Doctrine, disaster capitalism, with examples from Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan. Part 2 features author Naomi Klein's breakdown and suggested offense to the attack by big business and government authoritarian conservatives taking advantage of our dire economic times.
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, a book by author Naomi Klein, describes what the Republican/tea party plan for America is in detail. Oddly, Klein’s observation is rarely mentioned by anyone. In a nutshell: The bigger the disaster, the easier it is to seize control of society, while the public is distracted by their narrower focus to simply survive.
With that in mind, take a look at the seeds of chaos sewn in the following cuts proposed by Republicans in the name of “freedom.” (information sourced from an ABC News article)
Reverse a proposed Obama administration rule that seeks to crack down of for-profit colleges and vocational schools … strip the EPA of its authority to issue regulations and block the implement the year-old health care law … turned back funding for the SEC and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to pay for federal financial regulations … block Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal monies for a variety of women's health services (like) much-needed access to contraception, medical exams and counseling to women … block the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing new rules that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic on their networks.
Can you imagine being FOR internet providers interfering with your freedom to surf the internet? Government regulations would preserve your freedom. But that concept does not compute for anti-government, anti-regulation freedom fighters who would welcome those restrictions and increased rates based on your time surfing. That’s freedom?
Here's Naomi Klein with her interpretation of the Walker protest and huge number of citizens who are trying to be heard:
The conservative disaster capitalist agenda is clearly visible when you look at the list of cuts that failed:
Grants to local police and fire departments, special education and economic development grants.
Does any of this create “certainty” for Americans? Since Republicans have talked so much about business uncertainty and its drag on the economic recovery, isn't it obvious by now, that American uncertainty is not on their radar?
If anything will holdup consumer spending, a frightened, uncertain struggling public would be the driving force.
The following article makes it clear just who really won the election in November. Business.
You’ll also notice that the Republican plan for economic recovery doesn’t really improve the demand side of the equation, or encourage job creation. For freedom loving conservatives, take notice, you’ll soon see how limited your freedom will be in the unaccountable free market.
AP-Republicans (are) preparing to take over statehouses around the country are proposing to cut corporate taxes, weaken union clout and rewrite laws on discrimination, whistle-blowers and injured workers to the benefit of employers. In short, they intend to push through a business lobbyist's wish list.
"It's going to be a good year for businesses," said Missouri Sen. Brad Lager, the commerce committee chairman … Republicans will hold a majority of governorships and their greatest number of state legislative seats since 1928
But those pro-business policies are in some cases theories - not yet clearly proven to create jobs. And if they do work … each new business tax break enacted could add to what the National Conference of State Legislatures forecasts to be an $83 billion shortfall for the upcoming budget year in about two-thirds of the states.
One of the first places to test the new pro-business push will be Wisconsin, where Republican Gov.-elect Scott Walker … wants to lower taxes on businesses with fewer than 50 employees (and) impose new business-friendly limits on liability lawsuits … In Michigan, voters elected the former chief operating officer of Gateway Inc. … Republican Gov.-elect Rick Snyder wants to eliminate the Michigan Business Tax, which generates about $2.2 billion annually, and replace it with a lower corporate income tax projected to produce about $700 million for the state.
The theory behind cutting corporate tax rates is that businesses will be more likely to locate or expand in a state if they can keep more of their profits. But the Congressional Budget Office has cast doubt … A January 2008 report said "increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create an incentive for them to spend more on labor or to produce more," because decisions on whether to increase production depends on their ability to sell the product.
Such cuts haven't helped yet in California, where … Schwarzenegger forced Democrats two years ago to accept corporate tax cuts that cost the state an estimated $2.5 billion a year in revenue. So far, there is little evidence the cuts created jobs - unemployment has remained a steady 12 percent since the summer of 2009 - or boosted revenue.
The new “goverbusiness model” will also include a few “race to the bottom” changes as well:
The pro-business efforts extend beyond policies that will affect a state's budget. In Oklahoma, where incoming leaders such as Gov.-elect Mary Fallin want to lower workers' compensation costs for businesses and overhaul the civil justice system to reduce liability insurance costs for doctors and businesses.
Little did we know the idea of preserving this nation’s freedom and liberty only applied to business, and conversely limited an individual’s rights and freedoms?
Just about anyone paying attention knows how the BP $20 billion fund is going to be administered. Anyone that is, except Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise. It's very simple:
According to BP: Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP. The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg, who oversaw the 9/11 victims compensation fund.
The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims. Any money left in the fund once all legitimate claims have been resolved and paid will revert to BP.
But on Hardball, Scalise unleashed the great GOBP straw man ploy, where the most improbable "what ifs" are offered up as if they were sane possibilities. Scalise is not embarrassed by appearing completely removed from the available information out there when he asked, "Where's that money going to go, how is it going to be spent." Scalise wildly imagines this: "I don't think people want to see it wasted on government bureaucracy here in Washington." Chris Matthews calls this one right when he accuses Scalise of "pure partisan politics."
Vilifying the fund by attaching to it fantastical evil intentions, on the backs of the victims of the Gulf oil spill, is standard operating procedure for these bottom feeders. This is red meat for the base, which says a lot about the low information fire breathers worried about the end of our constitutional democracy.
Scalise too is afraid of ruffling Rush Limbaugh's feathers, siding with him, and not his party leadership.
