Update no.739

Update from the Heartland

No.739

8.2.16 – 14.2.16

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

            As is my nature, I shall proffer my observations of this week’s political offerings.

            From the PBS News Hour Democratic Candidates Debate at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, Helen Bader Concert Hall, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin:

-- It is most unfortunate the Republican debates have been so deeply contaminated by insult politics.  They are making the Democrats brighten by the very word.

-- Bernie Sanders espouses some very good and appropriate things.  Unfortunately, he does not get to dictate his ideas to the citizens of this Grand Republic.  He has given us no idea or proposal on how he intends to gain passage of his ideas through a divided Congress.  Bernie’s idealism is attractive especially to young citizens and seems to point toward a validation of the observation of Alexander Fraser Tytler (sometimes attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville):

 “A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”

Further, and related to the above, Chief Justice John Marshall:

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

We must find balance between taxation and spending to avoid the cycle of government illuminated by Tytler.

-- I do agree with Bernie.  The corrupting influence of campaign financing was bad enough.  After Citizens United, it has become obscene and a recipe for corruption and the intrusion of international individuals and even nation-states injecting themselves into the election process.  I also agree with Bernie that the fact that no executives from Wall Street banks have been prosecuted or have gone to jail is an insult to the American people who suffered and sacrificed during the Great Recession.

-- Clinton used the term “women’s work” many times.  It struck me as rather odd.  It could be the product of an editor’s red pen – a condensation of words to make a point.  However, it strikes me in a particularly sexist manner.  “Women’s work” sounds distinctly like work traditionally done by women, e.g., housework – cleaning, cooking, raising children, and tending to the needs of the household lord and master.  I doubt that Clinton meant or intended her word choice, but that is how her choice struck me.

            From the CBS News Republican debate at the Peace Center in Greenville, South Carolina:

-- The broadest general impression is actually the contrast of comparison.  The Republican debate more closely resembled the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome.  The audience seemed to be screaming for blood.  And, what is worse, the candidates did not disappoint.  Again, I am drawn to another quotation of wisdom from the past:

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
 -- Socrates

-- Another one of those standout statements came from the front-runner, who said, “George W. Bush made a mistake.  We can make mistakes.”  Well . . . except for Trump.  He NEVER makes a mistake, and thus never has to apologize.  The audacity of the man is boundless, which takes on rather scary dimensions when we notionally attach the power of the presidency.

-- Lastly, I am still struggling with the incessantly chanted mantra – “Make America great again!”  I suppose my confusion boils down to definitions.  What defines ‘great’?  Is being a schoolyard bully great?  Is carpet-bombing everyone we do not agree with great?  I would like to know what the Republican front-runner defines as ‘great’ and how exactly he intends to do what his slogan suggests.

            Saudi Arabia is flooding the market with oil in an apparent attempt to break the U.S. oil production increases and the lessening of international demand by the United States.  While consumers are the beneficiaries of low oil prices, the short-term impact on the world’s economies is taking on broader negative dimensions.  Artificially flooding the market is not significantly different from manipulating currency valuation.  They both disturb the economic balance and ultimately adversely affect us all.  They are economic weapons.

            Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States of America was found dead Saturday morning at a private residence in the Big Bend area of Southwest Texas.  I have written countless times about my admiration for his judicial writings, regardless of whether I agreed with his rationale.  He referred to himself as a constitutionalist or a strict constructionist – prima facie, a laudable position.

            Where I got crosswise with the former Antonin the Impaler (a moniker for him that I coined to reflect his incisive writing) occurred when he insisted that if it was not written in the Constitution, then it was not within the jurisdiction or domain of the Supreme Court, and thus not a constitutional question.  I found the notion extraordinarily narrow and not reflective of the broader view of the Constitution.  For example, the Constitution mentions not one word of fundamental rights, and yet the Declaration prominently features “certain unalienable Rights” endowed to all men by their Creator, meaning above any law enacted by men, e.g., privacy of the individual.  I will truly and genuinely miss his writing.  While I appreciate his logic, I am unable to reconcile his reasoning with the founding documents.  The Founders provided for amendment of the Constitution, and yet they made the process extraordinarily difficult – not easy or effortless.  They expected the Constitution to endure.  Their wisdom has prevailed for nearly 230 years.

            As Governor John Kasich of Ohio so properly said, injecting politics into his passing before his body was even cold was disgusting.  At least President Obama’s statement was dignified, respectful and appropriate.  Republicans vowed to reject or stop any replacement nomination put forward by the President of the United States of America fully in accordance with his duties explicitly stated in the Constitution of the United States of America.  Senator Cruz has vowed to filibuster any nominee presented by President Obama.  The Republican front-runner encouraged the Senate to “delay, delay, delay!”  While this silly season has been the most bizarre in my lifetime, we have entered what is about to become a very, very nasty and ugly phase of political history for this Grand Republic.

            News from the economic front:

-- Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen testified before House and Senate committees, and pointed to risks to the economic outlook in this country and consequently internationally.  She represented mounting caution regarding the central bank's plans for raising short-term interest rates.  She also illuminated that stresses in China and other foreign economies could weigh further on the United States.

-- Morgan Stanley will reportedly pay US$3.2B to resolve civil charges that it misled investors about the quality of mortgage bonds it sold in the run-up to the 2008 financial collapse and the Great Recession.

-- EuroStat reported that the European Union's economy grew at a rate of 0.3% in 4Q2015 – Germany’s strength compensating for weaker-than-expected growth in France and Italy.  They also echoed the Fed’s concern for the darkening global outlook and severe financial market turmoil.

            London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) Debacle [552]:

-- The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the British Financial Conduct Authority are reportedly working on civil charges against several banks for alleged manipulation of LIBOR, affecting trillions of dollars of financial contracts worldwide.  The firms apparently being targeted include Citigroup, HSBC, and J.P. Morgan Chase.  Civil charges are better than nothing, but they should be criminal charges and executives with supervisory responsibility should be tried, convicted and imprisoned for what they did.  As least, the seven-year global probe into interest-rate rigging is still on going.

-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved, international banks are:

• ·      Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550, 701]; Singapore sanctions [600]; three charged {Johnson, Mathew, Contogoulas} [636]
• ·      Bank of America [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      BTMU [Japan] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Citigroup [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600] [701]
• ·      Credit Suisse [Switzerland] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Deutsche Bank [Germany] – US$654M LIBOR profit [578]; set aside €500M (US$641M) for LIBOR liability [589]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Lloyds TSB [UK] – fined US$370M [659]
• ·      HSBC [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      HBOS [UK]
• ·      JPMorgan Chase [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600][701]
• ·      Norinchuckin [Japan]
• ·      Rabobank [Netherlands] – fined €774M (£663M, US$1.06B); CEO resigned; 30 others censured [620]; three charged {Robson, Thompson, Motomura} [631]
• ·      RBC [Canada]
• ·      RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in fines, 21 employees involved [582, 701]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged {Hayes [712], Darin} [575, 701]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      West LB [Germany]

Added to the list by the Monetary Authority of Singapore [600]:

• ·      ING [Netherlands] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      BNP Paribas [France] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Crédit Agricole [France] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      DBS [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Standard Chartered [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      United Overseas Bank [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [Australia] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Macquarie [Australia] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Commerzbank [Germany] – Singapore sanctions [600]

Others involved:

• ·      R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd. [UK] – two charged {Farr, Gilmour} [583]
• ·      ICAP [UK] – fined US$87M + three executives charged {Read, Wilkinson, Goodman} [615]

I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have done.  Lest we forget!

            Comments and contributions from Update no.738:

“Is your current ‘election fervour’ even more volatile than others in my memory? Why do such ‘intelligent’ members of society stand vilifying each other? That very action alone indicates they would never ever make good international diplomats. Speaking as an outsider your Republican forerunner’s appearance on, even our TV worries me. I cannot ever see your fine nation electing such a character. One could see serious consequences having such an argumentative and over confident individual as your head of state.  I’ll tell you what my friend, and I have to agree with you here, Obama comes across very well over here another term for him wouldn’t do any harm should that have been possible. We certainly agree his stand against gun ownership-not withstanding your second amendment.

“(Question Cap, Conserberal?)”

My reply:

            Re: “Is your current ‘election fervour’ even more volatile than others in my memory?”  Well, U.S. presidential elections tend to be rather raucous affairs.  Yet, I must say, this is the most bizarre exhibition I have experienced in my lifetime, in no small part and perhaps even singularly due to one man with a grotesquely inflated opinion of himself.

            Re: “Why do such ‘intelligent’ members of society stand vilifying each other?”  If I knew the answer, I would be president.  I do not think I have seen such hardened calcification and unwillingness to compromise and find solutions to real problems.  Far too many on both extremes of the political spectrum appear to be quite content to bludgeon the other into submission.  Negotiation becomes enormously more difficult, if not impossible, in such conditions.

            Re: “would never ever make good international diplomats”  Quite so.  Diplomacy requires negotiation and compromise to find solutions.  My way or the highway is not a tenable position in any relationship, between individuals or nations.

            Re: “Republican forerunner”  You are not alone in that impression.  I would like to say I have faith in the citizenry of this Grand Republic.  I remain perhaps naively optimistic reason shall prevail in the end, but my faith has been shaken by the calcification noted above.

            Re: “Obama . . . another term.”  The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a third term.  Despite the opinion of some in this forum, I am not defending President Obama.  I am only seeking a more balanced assessment rather than the highly filtered perspective of the political intransigence noted above.

            Re: “Conserberal?”  A friend and contributor coined the term.  My recollection or perhaps the memory image I have is, combination of conservative and liberal beliefs.  I find affinity to the term.  I think of my political views as an odd combination of fiscal conservative and socially liberal views.  It is why I have a hard time identifying with any one political party.  The creator of the term will read my words and correct my inaccurate or inarticulate rendition.

Another contribution:

“My comments this week in response to a few of your statements:

            “Lastly, the bumper-sticker campaign slogans are really becoming quite the irritant for me.

-- Take America Back . . . really?  Back from whom?  Where did it go?

-- Make America Great Again . . . as I have said before, the statement implies we are no longer great.  I cannot agree with such pessimism.

-- We don’t win anymore . . . really?  Perhaps, this is the root of the problem.  I know what is right.  I am always right.  I am never wrong.  I never have anything to apologize for, because I am never wrong.  And, if you do not choose me, you are stupid, wrong, and of course, a loser.  I am the only winner.

I just do not have such a pessimistic view of this Grand Republic or such a negative view of our citizens.  ‘Nuf said!”

To help answer the first question from your first point above I offer the following graphics, possibly irritants to you, but which speak volumes to me.

[11 poster graphic images inserted,
too much for this humble forum]

“To help answer the question from your second point I offer your third point.”

My reply:

            Sorry, posters just do not cut it.  From my perspective, the posters did not answer my question.

. . . a follow-up comment:

“Too bad.  A picture is worth a thousand words as the saying goes.  The masses are speaking.  Some people just don’t want to hear or acknowledge.  Your third point illustrates this.”

 . . . along with my follow-up reply:

            Re: pix.  Quite so.  No argument.

            Re: “The masses are speaking.”  Again, quite so.  There is no doubt “the masses” are angry.  As a citizen, I am angry as well.  Apparently, I am the one swimming against the swift flow.  The actual primary voting has begun.  We shall soon know whether emotion or rationality prevails.

            Re: “Some people just don’t want to hear or acknowledge. ”  Long term subscribers of this humble forum know quite well that I have encouraged dissenting opinions.  I truly believe vigorous public debate is essential to a viable democracy.  I may disagree with you from time to time, but I still love you, my friend.

            Re: “Your third point illustrates this.”  I offer my most humble apologies for being so thick.  I am still not connecting the dots to understand your objection or comment.

Comment to the Blog:

“The United States news media carries our election process. That will continue. The outlets conducting the debates limit the number of candidates, the time allowed, and format, if only to prevent extreme boredom. I read Internet reports and watch broadcast network news stories about them, but I cannot sit through all the verbiage separating interesting moments. Even as engaged in politics as I am, I dread the media bombardment involved in reaching Election Day. One thing I hope to see if we can reform elections is briefer campaigns, more like the most of the world.

“Cap, I agree with your position, but it's ‘eminent’ domain.

“On the discussion of minimum wages, I fail to understand how a self-proclaimed ‘student of history’ could fall for the marketing against raising the U.S. minimum wage. The history of minimum wage increases here involves zero serious price inflation. None. That includes the recent local raises in Seattle and other areas. The price of a cheap burger might rise from $5.00 to $5.25, but not much more. Also, it's true that the minimum wage was not originally intended to continue for a lifetime, but times have changed. Entire fields, such as mining, manufacturing, clerical work, and agriculture, have eliminated millions of jobs via automation. Only minimum wage work remains for many.

“We have fought wars over commerce. That does not mean we favor unlimited ‘free trade.’ Again, even a brief study of our history (or the Constitution) refutes that.

“I am also an independent. I have become less and less inclined to either of the two major U.S. parties. At some point, I went back to my studies of the Founders of this country. I discovered that they feared ‘factionalism,’ pretty much unanimously, but the Constitution they wrote includes nothing at all about political parties. Their fears have materialized. When I turn my focus to more advanced societies (see below), all of them use multi-party systems. Our two parties for over 150 years have prevented others' participation, divided the ‘spoils’ of government, and lost their motivation to serve the people. The few exceptions are outstanding individuals who rose enough to exercise power personally over their party mechanisms.

“The United States still has the biggest military, but we have ‘tumbled.’ We have lost the leadership in income equality and in health care, destroyed our once-envied public education system and our diplomacy is ‘free trade’ disasters. We spy on our own citizens and continue with a divided, racist society. We imprison more of our population than any other nation, even those with political prisoners. Travel anywhere outside the U.S. or read anything originating outside the U.S. on those subjects to verify our fall in status.

“After World Wars I and II, the United States was the ‘last man standing’ in the developed world, due to our physical isolation and late entry into both of those wars. It made sense for us to use our power to help others rebuild. That was not only in a ‘policing’ sense, but also with economic and civil structures until others again had independent governments and economies. World War II ended over 70 years ago. Japan, Germany, and rest of the developed world achieved self-care by the 1970s. Their economies and governments often work better than ours. Yet we cling to the power we took in 1945. We have made messes all over the world and at home seeking out or creating enemies to fight to justify our continuing domination. It's not working. Even with our enormous military, other nations no longer respect us. They fear our force, but that's not respect.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: election.  Interesting perspective.  Election reform . . . I shall join you in that perspective; however, I doubt that will be possible without overcoming the damage of Citizens United.  Money is just too powerful; money is our royalty and divine right of kings.

            Re: “eminent domain.”  Quite so.  Good catch.  My bad.

            Re: “minimum wage.”  Like the labor abuses that led to unionization, I agree there is wage abuse.  I only seek some reasonable balance.

            Re: “commerce.”  Again, quite so.  Unlimited free trade is not far from the Wild Wild West and survival of the quickest gun.

            Re: two party system.  Yes, there are detractors.

            Re: United States.  I have traveled outside the United States.  I have lived and worked outside the United States.  There are things we can learn from the success of others.  I cannot agree with your rather dark assessment.

            Re: “power we took in 1945.”  I cannot agree with your choice of words.  We tried to avoid war.  From my perspective, the decision-makers of the day sought to maintain power to avoid the sacrifices of war.  We made more than a few bad choices in the name of commerce, but that is water under the bridge.  I give President Obama credit for softening the image of the United States in the international community.

 . . . Round two:

“The point about 1945 is that it was long ago. Whether we ‘took’ power (I debated with myself about that word) or were asked for leadership, the conditions that brought about our leadership and ‘world's policeman’ status have changed. We have made inappropriate and harmful choices to maintain our position in a world that no longer needs it in the way it did 70 years ago. If we still want to lead, we must find another way than the military to do it.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            In doing research for my To So Few series of historical novels, I have read extensively about Roosevelt and Churchill, and to a lesser extent Stalin and Hitler.  It is certainly my opinion that Churchill applied enormous, consistent and persistent pressure over several years on Roosevelt to draw the United States into the war.  He knew that it would be a long war without the United States, and Great Britain did not have the economic and industrial capacity to defeat Germany in some reasonable time.  Even after the United States was in the war, Churchill continued to apply considerable pressure to keep the U.S. focused on a “Germany First” war strategy.

            Re: “inappropriate and harmful choices”  A good example = Operation PLUTO (1961).  Another good example = our direct support for the Shah of Iran.  Yet, in both examples, context and perspective color our opinions.

. . . Round three:

“I would be surprised and disappointed in Churchill had he not applied pressure to the U.S. and others to gain their participation in the war.  He was saving his nation, and he succeeded.

“That, however, is still not the point. Once the conditions Churchill and FDR encountered changed, our actions and policies should have changed to meet the new conditions. They did not, hence Operation PLUTO and many others. The perhaps-unintended consequences of earlier ones still kill many people in the Middle East. We have not moved to less combative and manipulative operations. Why? Speculation could go on at length. My best guess is that pressure from the aerospace industry, Halliburton, and many others exceeds that from Churchill. In other words, Eisenhower's feared military-industrial complex lives and continues in charge. That is made possible by money in politics and supported by the two-party system.”

. . . my response to round three:

            Good observations; no argument.  I was offering examples to support your point; thus, I agree.

Another contribution:

“As always an enjoyable update, I have to agree with you on the criticisms Bush Jr. and Obama get, the criticisms are worse than the actions of both.

“Both are very decent men trying to get the right thing done as they have best interpreted the situation and needs.

“It’s interesting to go back and look at some of the criticisms FDR got in the 30’s including a true communist with his governmental support programs to train and put people back to work.  My dad was a trainee and trainer for the CCC later soil conservation service and he managed to get through.”

My reply:

           I have a long history of trying to find balance with divergent, non-intersecting, political positions.  As a moderate, I am attacked from both sides.

            Re: FDR.  You are quite correct.  I remember my father railing against FDR’s socialism.  His opinion was all I heard for many years.  School history classes gave me very little to contradict his opinion.  Yet, as learned from a wide variety of sources, I see his actions in a much different light today.  I see a strong, confident man who was not afraid to try many different actions in an effort to raise the nation out of the Great Depression.  Likewise, I do not agree with everything he did or his decisions leading up and during wartime, but he was a flawed, good man who tried mightily to do the best thing.  History sees his actions favorably, much better than my father was willing to give him.

A different contribution:

“I need to bolster my position in criticism of President Obama and of your unusually insistent but admirably consistent defense of his presidency, which I sent in response to 737 and which you acknowledged.

“Please review just a few of Obama's revealing unconstitutional efforts listed on pages 706 to 712 and beyond in Senator Cruz's  "A Time for Truth."  These are well documented and are consistent with my characterizations of Obama over a period of time.  They seem to undermine your support of the merits of Obama's actions and motivations as President.  I know you are aware of these and many other criticisms leveled at the POTUS by Cruz in his book, but I'd like to hear your defense of Obama in each case, at least those in which he was rebuked by the Supreme Court.  By the way, the comparisons with the numbers and content of Executive Orders, etc., of other presidents, so as to minimize the importance of Obama's habitual defiance of his constitutional duty, is a diversion enjoyed by the liberal press.  I was dismayed to see, as I seem to recall, your participation in this recently.  What do you see wrong with Cruz's analysis? Previous president's mistaken orders may be used to illustrate their mistakes but not to excuse Obama, in my opinion.

“This query is not intended to convey the impression that I am a fan of Cruz's current campaign, by the way.”

My response:

            I have been unable to find a library copy of the Cruz book, as yet . . . even out here on the right of center Great Plains of Kansas.

            Cruz is an accomplished lawyer, so I am fairly certain he offered a compelling argument to support his political ideology.  With equal certainty, I imagine his arguments do not reflect a balanced perspective; in fact, it would be quite uncharacteristic for him to do so.  Nonetheless, I am unable to offer my assessment of his book.

            That said, I still listen to his rhetoric in an effort to solidify my opinion of his political position(s). 

 . . . a follow-up comment:

“I'll try to send you some of the case citations, in which even the liberal justices agreed his acts were unconstitutional.

“BTW, it's an entertaining, informative, and footnoted autobiography, revealing a man who does not mind being unpopular with RINOs and other ‘establishment’ politicians in either party.  I've noted several pages, including those mentioned, but I thought those particular pages would be most informative for you.

“I hate that it looks as though his campaign staff tried a dirty trick to siphon votes from Carson and Cruz's apology lacks credibility.  To me, he still looks like the best bet, especially if he straightens things out with Dr. Carson and chooses him as his running mate.  I don't think Trump can beat Hillary.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Obstinate intransigence offends me in more than a few ways, not least of which is the arrogance necessary to believe his position is the only viable, worthy or acceptable position.  To me, Cruz’s stance is not fundamentally different from the front-runner’s “I am never wrong” attitude.  Life, relationships, marriage require negotiation and compromise.  As soon as one party takes a unilateral inviolate position, the relationship becomes unbalanced and corrosive.  It is no different in Congress or the whole of the USG.  Our system of governance was predicated on debate, negotiation and compromise.  I cannot see the front-runner or Cruz being successful for that reason alone.

One last contribution for this week:

“Re the ‘TrusTed’ motto- a ‘trus’ is a rectal probe used in cancer screenings.  Somebody didn’t check that out, but it seems appropriate!  Also his logo with the C a figure in the center- it looks like a Russian onion dome.  Again, testing fail.”

My reply:

            I am aware of that little factoid.  Such is life.  Chose not to use it.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)