I See Rich People

The top 3% or Americans continue to concentrate wealth and most pay a tax rate of 20%. This leads some people to ask, “Should the rich pay more?” The rich respond by saying to the States, try and get more money out of us and we’re moving to another State. How many of these rich folk actually move away? How much will a State benefit as far as revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthy?

          Two studies released last month from Stanford and Princeton addressed these questions. Turns out very few affluent folk actually move away. The studies analyzed the impact of a 2004 tax increase on top earners in New Jersey. Wealthy people threatened to move away. The studies found that the State lost $16.4 million from people actually moving away.  New Jersey increased its revenues by over a billion dollars because only a few actually made the move. You can argue with the policy and the ideology, but the results speak for themselves.

          Now I’m not advocating running out and taxing rich people. I advocate that any tax increases on the wealthy only occur at the State level. The wealthy should have the freedom and option to move and live in a State with lower (or no) income taxes. Changing the Federal tax code to increase revenue limits personal choice & the exercise of personal freedom.

When We're Number Two

When We’re Number Two

 

          I predict this will be a very unpopular and controversial post, as by definition the US must be number one. Oh no, is this going to be another lefty dissing American exceptionalism? Not really. The central message here is, quite optimistic concerning our national prosperity.

          The US and Europe are currently going through some tough times. Spirits are sagging. I guess everybody in the world is going through tough times, right?

          In spite of our current situation, the world is in great shape, when viewed macroscopically. The chance of international war between the major powers is the lowest since statistics were kept. There were fewer deaths in international conflicts now than ever before. The global poverty rate has been cut in half, and this decline is accelerating. Huge strides are being made in reducing global hunger and childhood & infectious disease rates, mainly through private/ public partnerships.  

          So where’s the growth? Pretty much everywhere, but Asia is the fastest growing economic block on the planet with 500 million people living in middle class standards. Within seven years, the Asian middle class is projected to be 1.75 billion, a 350% increase. This will be the greatest economic shift in human history. I guess that’s why Hank Kissinger is camping out in China.

          By 2020, it is likely that Asia will dominate global markets and relegate the US to number two status economically. Hey, it had to happen sometime. We can comfort ourselves that it took a bijillion Asians to take our title. In addition, we’ll probably always be the world’s biggest ass kicker and innovator.

          So how will we respond to these economic, political and social trends? Do we live in denial (USA #1 whoo!). Do we long for Mayberry and the good old days, which is kind of like living in denial? Do we try to block and contain these global changes to preserve our current status? It is important to conceive of an inevitable change in status in order to wisely respond to that change.

          I point out that in history, there is a season for all empires to decline and be eclipsed. There is a season to be another a player and not the spotlighted star of the team. We have been the star for so long we think that we’ll always be the star, that we’re entitled to be the star, that Jesus personally picked us to be the star.

          Athletes know that you become and stay the star by working your butt off, by working harder and smarter than all the other players who are driven to become stars. We don’t seem to be driven much as a nation these days other than to sit our fat butts on the couch, squabble and gaze lovingly at our trophies. We’re the star. People, have the Rocky movies taught you nothing?

          I am reminded of the medieval view of the cosmos in which all creation revolved around the earth, and thus around humans. We are the purpose of creation. Who are we if we’re not the center of the universe? Who are we if we just become another nation among other nations? We can still be a global leader and innovator. Our values and character can still be the light, inspiration and hope of the world. However, this requires us to get our lazy butts off the couch and back into the game…with a purpose.   

          It might be wise to begin NOW to craft a new world order where a dominating Asia can be leveraged and managed. This would involve creating foreign and domestic policies which enhance the lives of ordinary Americans down the road, rather than work for partisan interests of the next election cycle. We need to quit bemoaning how our nation is a victim to naughty globalization. Those bad foreign men took our jobs away. Now we can’t buy our stuff. No, we ALLOWED our jobs to be taken away and cut our corporations from the national tether so they could range far and wide, feeding on the krill of emerging markets. We might consider anew what it will take to take our jobs back, to innovate new undreamt of jobs, to become a world class competitor again, how to bring home some of the profits in the bloated multinational, former-US corporation bank accounts.

          Middle classes are consumer classes. They also tend towards democratic governance. These positive trends could be derailed as this new economic wine strains old political wine skins. Wise partnerships and leadership by the US could help steer emerging nations through unfamiliar waters. Wouldn’t authentic leadership be a great projection of strength? However, providing this leadership will require new global coalitions and institutions.

          I recommend reversing our trend of weakening multinational political organizations and instead leverage these alliances. For example, the present UN Security Council is predictably intractable. The Council could become more functional by adding seven additional seats. These seats would be guaranteed to emerging nations based on a four year rotation. Currently, minor powers spend millions of dollars and in-fight politically to obtain a seat and voice at the table. If emerging nations were guaranteed a seat every four years, this would enable new coalitions to be built. A reformed Security Council would be an equitable and functional win for the great powers and the smaller powers alike, and this arrangement breaks up the logjams of the current status quo.

          Another way we could address the ascent of the East is moving forward with the proposed free trade treaty with the EU. This agreement would immediately create the world’s most powerful commercial block, providing goods and services to tap into emerging mega-consumer markets.

          One major reason our economy is currently so weak is that global markets are soft. People aren’t buying our stuff. This changes as millions globally become consumers. A bigger pie is a better pie.

          Throughout the 20^th Century, the US was socially engineered to be the world’s leading consumer nation, as well as a dominant global producer of goods and services (we were all that was left standing after WWII). Emerging mega-markets would provide the opportunity for  the US to reinvent and repurpose itself as a dominant global export economy. Our extreme efficiency, innovation and automation would enable the US-EU to become a preeminent global competitor and really rake in the cash once again. Such repositioning would require domestic policy reforms to tax codes, corporate regulations and business entrepreneurial incentives. These won’t reform themselves….get off the couch!

          While economic and cultural power shifts towards the setting sun, the rise of the Asian middle class will be an amazing opportunity and an amazing time for the world as a whole. We can rethink and reposition ourselves as a vital part of an amazing whole. When we are number two, will the glass be half empty or half full?

Responsibility in the Land of Shadow

          Benghazi is much in the news these days. One legislator called the affair the worst cover-up in our nation’s history. This serves to demonstrate a profound ignorance of history.

 

Responsibility vs. Blame

          The Beltway is a land of blame, not a land of responsibility. Responsibility seeks out the decision makers and the facts for what actually transpired, what went wrong, and how to prevent a repeat performance. Blame is simply the intent to wound the political enemy. There are no solutions or progress in the land of blame.

          There are legitimate and important inquiries to be raised in the Benghazi affair. Was there a cover-up? Sure. Washington is filled with them….hundreds of them. Most of these you will never know.

          Could the Benghazi deaths have been prevented? Nope. Double the security….triple the guard…..against an estimated 100 attackers…..now you have 12 dead instead of four dead. Most Embassies have two security pros and a few Marines. They are not designed to withstand multiple assaults. Were requests for more security unheeded. Yes. If they were heeded would it matter?  No, other than someone was competently doing their job. Can we learn from the mistakes made that day and not make them again? Absolutely.

          On a political level, the Benghazi cover-up illustrates an ass-covering protective reaction in the land of blame. Most cover ups and behavior causing those cover ups usually stem from incompetence or selfish opportunism.

          In the land of responsibility, Benghazi illustrates a broken system. A broken system within the State Department, as well as a lack of leadership and accountability shared by all. A broken system within the Administration, who clumsily handed political opponents the building blocks of scandal. Benghazi revealed a failed system within the military, who had no field-able assets to protect the consulate. It illuminated a broken intelligence system, in which most of the “consulate” personnel turned out to be CIA agents. Benghazi pointed out the broken system within Congress, which denied the State Department security funding, and subsequent failure to be accountable for such choices.

 

A Larger Picture

          The Benghazi affair resonates with deep ideological national trends. Government is too large and intrusive. Government does not act in the interest of the People. Government is incompetent and dysfunctional. Popular belief in the perspectives is a major contributor to our national decline. Americans have historically been skeptical of Government intrusion, but until Watergate, over 70% of the People believed that Government was working towards the common good. Currently, only 19% of people believe this.

          This erosion of public trust and belief in the ability and efficacy of Government is underlying the intractable dysfunction we are currently seeing in poublic life. Government has lost social connection and context. Should this crisis of confidence continue, social isolation and factionalism is inevitable.

 

The Legacy of Watergate

          The turning point in breaking public trust was Watergate and Vietnam. A group whose sole purpose was to perform repeated criminal acts was housed in the White House. A President was forced to resign. Twenty nine of his top Administration officials faced criminal charges. It was a traumatic spectacle of regime change.

          The nation has never recovered from the trauma of these events. In many ways, we still run from the pain of Watergate. Watergate created a scandals culture in Washington, a way of settling policy differences by other means. Scandal became a template, a handy tool, a vicious weapon used to destroy the enemy and gain a political edge. Our media and public is now addicted to scandal. Scandals have devolved into acts of reverberant cynicism, largely devoid of underlying corruption.   

          It is important now more than ever for the President to demonstrate active leadership and attempt to restore public trust and faith that Government can work towards the common good. Government is like fire. It can do great good or great harm.

          It is up to the values, vision, integrity, and leadership of the men at the helm to demonstrate responsibility, to hold this Government accountable.  Many people now feel that our system impedes such leaders to participate on the public stage. Many Americans have lost hope.  

          This nation needs responsible leadership and is suffering from a lack thereof. Without vision, the people perish. Restoring public faith that collectively (which is what Government is) we can make things better is crucial to the future of our national prosperity.

          Obama falls short as a leader in many ways. Although he is an affable public speaker, Obama’s cool and detached leadership style is easily interpreted as aloof, uncaring or disconnected. He seems to work towards minimizing political damage rather than step up to accountability and inspiration….rather than aggressively respond to challenges by putting structures, policies and cultures in place to build and safeguard the public trust.

          Contrast Obama’s style to that of JFK. Kennedy hated the idea of invading Cuba. The Bay of Pigs invasion was Eisenhower’s plan, executed by the CIA. After this humiliating rout, Kennedy immediately took responsibility, since he was at the helm. He stated, “Victory has 100 fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”

          Public officials should remember that power corrupts and concentrated power promotes over-reach and abuse. To promote the common good, a disciplined culture of restraint is necessary. Restraint is evidently lacking in Washington’s current culture. Restraint was lacking in the Justice Departments over-reach in their AP News investigation. Restraint was absent in the IRS recent discrimination and over-reach which violated the public trust. Washington’s current climate is a failure of values. Benghazi is a symbolic failure of values.    

 

Reasons for a Cover Up

          Now let’s shift our thinking. Consider why would Obama, knowing immediately that the Benghazi assaults were an Al Qaeda affiliate attack, deny this or point things in another direction? Did he love Muslim “terrorists”? He had Bin Laden shot in the head. He’s proven himself to be no buddy of extremists, regardless of the views of persons drawing a paycheck at Fox News.

          Why would Obama deny an Al Qaeda affiliate attack? Political opponents contend the admission would hurt his re-election chances. He was making the case that Al Qaeda was no longer a national threat, and would be embarrassed by an attack. That’s why he intentionally removed references to the attack.     Factoid-  Al Qaeda Prime, as it’s known in the Company, is no longer a national threat. Four out of five of their top leaders….dead. The other is hiding too deep to be an operational threat, but remains in the cross-hairs if that groundhog sticks his head up to see his shadow. The top 20 senior leaders and innovators….all dead. Al Qaeda Prime are now ghostly images on the internet. What about their affiliates?

          There can be no reason to deny that Al Qaeda Lite (not what the Company calls them), the Dairy King opportunists of political vacuums and sectarian discontent, are very dangerous…if you camp out in their back yard and wave a flag. If you stick your hand in a hornets nest you might get stung. Obama has a strong anti-terrorist record and Al Qaeda affiliates not being dangerous are not a logic for a cover up.

          Was the US Embassy in Libya in Benghazi? Well, kind of. We had some buildings there. US diplomats live in Tripoli, not Benghazi. Benghazi was the dangerous Wild West of that country.

          This Benghazi compound was a “consulate” complex with a bunch of buildings, not a palatial edifice you might see in downtown New York. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi with such light security? A more pertinent question which sheds light on this affair is, “What was really going on in the compound?” Answer- An ongoing CIA operation.

 

The Real Story Behind Benghazi

          After 9/11, we tasked the CIA with assassination of Enemies of the State. The White House determines who is an Enemy of the State.” The CIA then sends killer drones in on covert operations all over the world. Bear in mind, fifteen years ago the President couldn’t tap a phone without a court getting involved. Man, is this slope slippery. You might be cool with such covert unaccountable killing. Bear in mind that these killings are done in your name.

          When you enter the shadow land of “national security”, cover up is the nature of the beast…..thousands of them. Most of these you will never know.  

          So let’s now enter the shadow land of “national security”, which appears to me to be at the heart of this affair. The scenario presented here may be disclosed, or it may not. Either way, it is another potential facet of complexity.  

          An ongoing covert agenda of this Administration is the overthrow of Assad in Syria. The CIA was tasked with this mission. This is reminiscent to the CIA mission during the 1950s and 1960s before the Church Commission.       Benghazi was a marketplace and hotbed for extremist fighters in Libya. Sucky place for an Embassy. Great place to recruit fighters. A great port to ship weapons bound for Syria.

          The Benghazi compound was a CIA operation, recruiting fighters, interrogating bad guys, and shipping Libyan weapons to Syria. This “Embassy” held prisoners who were being interrogated. This attack was an inside job, likely aided by some of the fighters we were recruiting to destabilize Iran and Syria. We hired them as “security” for the Embassy. These guys knew precisely the secret safe house everybody bugged out to. That may have been their target. The attackers released the prisoners, so these may have been their target. Bear in mind that the personnel killed in Benghazi were CIA, other than Stevens and his aides. This was a CIA operation that went south. These operations are still ongoing in the region.

          Why was Ambassador Stevens in this compound at that time? He was secretly brokering an arms deal, meeting with a Turkish diplomat in order to arrange Libyan arms shipments to Turkey bound for Syria. We’ve been shipping weapons and recruiting fighters for years through Gulf State countries, primarily to destabilize Iran. Do you think these chickens might eventually come home to roost?

          So the main reason, in my assessment, for the Presidential cover up was to obfuscate ongoing CIA counterinsurgency practices.  Are these legal? Probably not. Never stopped them before. I have lots of examples. The Company will carry out their mission, until that mission changes.

          Presidents should be willing to take political heat to preserve national security operations and secrets. After Sputnik, Eisenhower took massive political heat since it appeared the Russkies were ‘ahead”. He took the secret that we had satellite launch capability to his grave for the sake of national security.

          In the real world, situations are complex and interdependent. We once waged a Cold War. Now we wage a Shadow War. Things are not as they appear.

          There are many lessons to be drawn from Benghazi to improve our national security. These will be found in the land of responsibility…..or one could remain side-tracked in the land of blame.