After the End - Super Novas and Super PACs

Of the Two Exploding Stars are the

 Easier to Understand

A happy outcome indeed because

we're all made of star dust.

Plus, they don't keep many secrets.

Photo Super NOVA 1987A

When the fusion cycle of an immense star reaches, ironically, its "carbon stage," the next fifteen seconds make, well, all the difference in the world. The thing has been dancing at the cliff's edge in a delicate balance between the massive force of its own gravity and the sheer, raw power of its massive nuclear fusion reaction for millions or billions of years. When the time finally arrives for it to "turn out the lights," it goes with a bang.

On its way "out" it typically implodes, then explodes and finally just collapses into a singularity ["black hole"] where most of the laws governing the rest of the universe are ignominiously "thrown out with the bath water."  During this violent transformation all manner of extremely useful "stuff" has been created, and much of it has been propelled during the explosion to begin its long journey across interstellar space to some destination such as the planet we are presently occupying.

Artist's Painting of 1987A [source - both images]

The "stuff" is a wonderful creation of elemental substances which, it turns out, are exactly the ones making life on Earth possible -- atoms of items such as calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and the other items we see in the "contents list" of our daily multiple vitamins.

Astrophysics-wise, this should do it.

However, this post begins its own "journey across interstellar space" with the very visible intention of comparing the fate of gigantic Super PAC "trust funds" accumulated by political candidates to the fate of the ending moments of these beautiful stars strewn about the heavens.

Democracy-wise, we should, of course, disabuse ourselves of the "heaven" part right away. Yes, we are once again discussing the enduring consequences of Citizens United.

Glaciers Just Calve Into Ice Burgs and Fall Into the Ocean

There's calving for glaciers, and then there's "calving" for dead Super PACs.

The "always eager" oligarchs controlling the Republicans literally slammed into this election cycle years in advance. The suspiciously obedient national media was commanded to start picking winners based on its rather shaky "football model." Instead of basing estimates for the likelihood of Super Bowl victory on the prowess of sturdy young quarterbacks, the "currency of the day" was to be calibrated almost exclusively on fund raising.

Other metrics which seemed to be relevant -- a candidate's likability, records for success or even simply good looks -- were set aside in an instant. The eight or nine digit totals for the corresponding Super PAC fund raising not only dominated the media coverage, but cast even a glimpse of a candidate's policy or platform proposals. Although theoretically a phase in the campaign process where voters were to be educated and, perhaps, persuaded, all eyes were coarsely directed at fund raising totals.

The message was crystal clear. If you wanted to know what the future held for the country, you must simply take a look at how much which billionaires had "donated" to which candidate. During this phase those who have now become yesterday's political "tragedies" littering the "counting room floor" were all appearing to be smug, unassailable, preordained, natural born, inevitable leaders-in-waiting. Hilariously, each one was constantly attempting to portray his own banal, disinterested visage of "the chosen one" a few days prior to actually "being chosen."

It turns out that "meteoric ascensions" are as difficult to steer as actual meteorites.

Preparing the list of the billionaires' specific "fallen heroes" isn't difficult at all. The Koch candidate, Scott Walker, and the Texas "petrogarch" candidate, Rick Perry, were both "in line" to raise tens of millions until GOP polling numbers revealed that voters wouldn't touch either one with a stick.

The super PAC backing Scott Walker was on pace to raise as much as $40 million by the end of the year and planned a series of as many as 10 advertisements in Iowa to showcase the Wisconsin governor’s record.

But hours before the second advertisement was set to debut today in the pivotal caucus state, Walker abruptly ended his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, largely because he was out of cash.

His withdrawal from the GOP primary ― like that of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry earlier this month ― highlights the limitations of the new strain of megadonor-subsidized presidential politics. Big-money outside groups devoted to the two failed candidates combined to raise more than $43 million through the end of June. But when they began looking for ways to spend the bounty to boost their respective candidates’ flagging poll numbers, their efforts were complicated by tricky election laws, quirky debate qualification rules and the unpredictable rise of Donald Trump as the GOP primary leader. When Walker and Perry bowed out, the big money groups supporting them were left with significant unspent reserves that they’re expected to return to donors.

“It’s sad to me, because I feel Scott Walker is eminently qualified to be president, but it’s healthy because super PACs alone should not keep candidates in the race if they can’t stay in by themselves,” former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer. “There is something democratic about grass-roots, widespread money support. There is something anti-democratic about one person propping up a candidate who can’t make it.”

[Excerpted. Read more: Walker-Perry SuperPACs POLITICO]

While the political catastrophe of Walker and Perry rose to the level of "somewhat news worthy" primarily because their political train wrecks materialized so quickly, there were still more nervous Republican "grey faces" inhabiting the crematory waiting room.

Just get rid of them. Drown the rich ones in their own money,
and sell the others as slaves or corpses. [image source]

There remain two "possible survivors" in this clutch of losers, but even they are careening toward the depths of "long shot" status. Jeb continues to enjoy the dark loyalty of the billionaire fascists still having looting wet dreams of "W the Second."

Rubio can continue to entertain the fantasy of being the lost boy "suddenly rediscovered" to stand in for the role of "emergency candidate still standing" among the political wreckage when the rest of the field finally immolates itself.

Carson is already on the GOP "endangered species" list because although he is plenty hateful and he may still be able to master the technique of political speech, he will continue to be black. Rand Paul is presently attempting to thread his way through his Kentuckian donors' fury at the transfer of his floundering Senate campaign war chest into his floundering Presidential campaign war chest.

The point here is that most these surviving "doomed campaigns" still have millions of dollars stashed away in their respective Super PAC money bins -- money which will remain quite "viable" even after the original candidate has become history.

If these campaigns were to follow the "super nova" pattern, these Super PAC millions could, conceivably, undergo some sort of atomic transformation which will convert them into something "useful" far away -- politically -- from where they "evaporated" as these campaigns self-destructed. There could be "another wave" of mischief created by the same money as it reappears in yet another form.

Citizen United Lights Up "The Ugly"

No longer even bothering to close the doors

for those "behind closed doors" meetings.

We have to wonder about the "strings" attached to the Super PAC campaign donations these billionaires were coughing up like hair balls a few months ago. There are several possibilities.

1. The cash is simply handed over without any particular conditions. While this may sound suspiciously reckless in terms of "billionaire behavior," this arrangement would provide campaigns with a free hand to spend PAC money to meet political necessities as they arose.

2. The cash might be supplied to the receiving Super PAC in "monthly installments." This arrangement would allow the billionaires to back out of the agreement if poll numbers began to show that a candidate was sliding off the cliff.

3. The cash transfer might require a candidate to undertake exhausting repetitions of "asking" his billionaire sponsor each time his Super PAC ran low on funds. Each desperate "request" would entail making even more promises for "special treatment" after the candidate's successful election.

4. The Super PAC funding could be issued as a "loan guarantee," making it possible for the candidate to borrow the money for his campaign from more traditional sources with repayment being conditional on the campaign's success.

All these issues would have probably been settled in the famous "donor meetings" where billionaires quizzed groups of possible candidates about exactly "what they were selling." Remember, billionaires don't care a whit about abortion, gun control, welfare reform, national health care or any of the other electoral "trigger issues" being masqueraded as "the burning question of the day" on their wholly owned networks.

So, now we are seeing the US electorate dismissing every candidate perceived to possess even the flimsiest connection to what might be considered the "establishment government." The rub surfaces when we also understand that the primary source of funds roaring into these Super PACs is precisely the same source of funds which "established" this now unpopular "establishment government."

The billionaires have made an understandable yet no less grievous mistake.

The first conclusion is that their money is now "locked up" by candidates who are, suddenly, astonishingly unpopular with the Republican base. 

The second conclusion is even more painful. The billionaires' political strategy was based on the premise that sufficient funds in these respective Super PACs would determine the popularity of the candidates they were purchasing.

If there is such a thing as "self-cannibalization" to be found beyond the high walls of asylums for the criminally insane, we are now watching the tea baggers snacking on their own quadriceps. Almost as an aside, they have already ghoulishly gobbled down more than a few of the nastiest banksters and plutocrats. Further, the baggers have not even needed to entice these "monetary monsters" to the financial bear traps through some elaborate scheme -- the carcasses currently trapped in those cold steel jaws rushed in to their demise driven by their own rapacious, insatiable greed.

What Can Happen Next?

Money doesn't like to just "lay dormant."

Really big, billionaire money likes it even less.

Are we to conclude that all these millions are simply "trapped" in Super PACS terminally connected to the "dead stars" which had been selected by the oligarchs? Have these "sparkling dynastic fortunes" simply been castrated by cruel twists of political fate, leaving them impotent and unable to continue to "serve their masters?"

Yes and no.

Believe it or not, there are still a few FEC [Federal Election Commission] rules on the books concerning the use of these Super PAC millions after their original candidates turn into "brown dwarfs." MeanMesa will include two articles describing what limits existing law should theoretically place on the use of these funds. [Please note: The first was published in June, 2015, and the second in November, 2012.]

New York Times

What Happens 
to Surplus Super PAC Money?

By ANNA NORTH JUNE 15, 2015

[Read the original article NYTIMES]

This is only the second presidential election in which super PACs, which can raise unlimited money as long as they don’t coordinate directly with candidates, will play a role. Jeb Bush’s super PAC, for instance, was expected to raise $100 million, though it now appears it won’t reach that number this month.

Much of whatever the group does raise will no doubt be spent on ads and the like. But if a super PAC finds itself with money left over when a campaign is done, what happens to that excess cash?

Mostly, it’s up to the super PAC. “Super PACs have fairly broad discretion on what they can do with excess funds,” says Robert Kelner, chair of the Election and Political Law Practice Group at the law firm Covington & Burling. They can transfer them to a charitable organization, use them for wind-down expenses like clearing out offices or filing reports, or pay consulting fees. The main thing they can’t use leftover money for is to make contributions to a candidate for federal office.

Depending on state law, though, they may be able to contribute to state-level candidates. So, in theory, a super PAC set up for a candidate’s presidential race could use leftover funds to back that candidate in a state election, or to support other candidates or causes.

Of course, this assumes a super PAC actually has leftover money to spend. “Any time you run a campaign and you leave money in the bank,” says Mr. Kelner, “it’s viewed as poor campaign management,” says Mr. Kelner. In general, super PACs will probably spend most of what they take in.

The possible exception, says Mr. Kelner, would be races in which a super PAC didn’t think its candidate had a real shot. “Where you see a lot of money left over in the super PAC after the candidate drops out, that will probably tell you something about how seriously the super PAC took the race to begin with.”

Does that mean someone could start a super PAC that’s ostensibly focused on one goal (a presidential campaign, for instance) but actually geared toward another (like a state race)? It’s possible — but, says Bob Biersack, a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics who spent many years at the Federal Election Committee, it wouldn’t necessarily make sense. If donors are willing to support a candidate’s presidential campaign at super-PAC levels, they’d presumably be willing to support him or her in other campaigns too — there’s no need to raise money for a sham presidential campaign when you could just raise money for whatever you really wanted to do.

The following article is from 2012. Although this was several years ago, it provides us with the advantage of accurate post election fund raising and spending analysis. As we review these figures, keep in mind that the Koch brothers alone have already announced that they intend to finance their candidate for the 2016 race with around $900 Million.

We have no way of knowing if they actually handed part of this to Scott Walker before he quit the campaign, although he had already been spending heavily in hopes of boosting his poll numbers. Be assured, there are many more of these "marriages made in heaven" between various billionaires and 2016 GOP candidates. [The jury is still out as to whether or not this also extends to a "certain" 2016 Democratic Party candidate...]

Christian Science Monitor

The election is over. 

What happens to all that campaign cash?

An estimated 5.8 billion was spent on the 2012 election. 

Where can candidates spend their leftover money? What is off limits?

By Brandon Ballenger, Contributor 

NOVEMBER 11, 2012

[Read the original article Business CSMONITOR]

The election is over. 

For now, no more attack ads, no more barrage of emails begging for money.

But speaking of cash, what about the money raked in by campaigns that was left unspent?

It’s a little too early to call the grand total of all 2012 election spending, but the Center for Responsive Politics estimates it will be above $5.8 billion, 7 percent higher than 2008. “But outside spending,” the group says, “is a wild card that makes predictions tricky.

Outside spending includes money from corporations, unions, individuals, and other political groups. Investigative journalism site ProPublica’s PAC Track is trying to do the math, and right now says prominent political action committees spent a total of $581 million. That includes “Super PACs,” which because of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling, opened the door for unlimited fundraising and spending.

As for the campaigns, The New York Times breaks it down pretty well, although they pair up the campaigns and their political parties’ spending with their biggest Super PAC supporters. (Super PACs can’t legally coordinate with the campaigns – you won’t hear Obama or Romney say “I approve this message” at the end, but the money is still supporting them.) That means there’s some overlap with the ProPublica numbers, but it gives us a ballpark idea: all told, somewhere above $2 billion between the two major parties. In 2008, Politico said it was unprecedented for that number to be more than $1 billion.

The NYT tallies include data through mid-October and may not match what’s finally reported to the Federal Election Commission, but here’s what we know so far…

OBAMA:    Raised $934.0 Million - Spent $852.9 Million = $134.7 Million
ROMNEY:  Raised $881.8 Million - Spent $752.3 Million = $193.3 Million

So what happens to that monster chunk of change remaining? We asked the Federal Election Commission, an independent agency that regulates campaign finance.

How leftover money can be spent

Here’s what an FEC spokesperson told us:

"Surplus funds may be used in connection with a future election. Funds may be transferred between authorized committees of the same candidate (for example, from a previous campaign committee to a current campaign committee) without limit as long as the committee making the transfer has no “net debts outstanding.” CFR 110.3(c) and 116.2(c)(2). Alternatively, a candidate may redesignate a former campaign committee as the principal campaign committee of his or her current campaign and use the excess funds of the previous campaign in the current campaign.

Pages 51-57 of the FEC’s Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf) discuss the permissible, personal and prohibited uses of campaign funds. Pages 117-121 discuss winding down activity."

This explains a few things. One, debts have to be paid first – and there isn’t always a surplus of funds to cover them. Hillary Clinton is still paying off her $25 million 2008 presidential campaign debt. (But she’s down to just $73,000 as of mid-October.) According to Politico, so are Rudy Giuliani and many 2012 Republican contenders: Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain. (Ron Paul, however, has a $2 million surplus.) Want to look up other candidates’ financial situations? Go crazy at the FEC disclosure page.

Second, the FEC’s statement tells us money can be used for future campaigns. President Obama can’t win a third term – but could he help Hillary Clinton pay off her campaign debt?

Chapter 8 of the FEC campaign guide, Expenditures and Other Uses of Campaign Funds, says money can be donated to charities and state and local candidates. It also allows “unlimited transfers to any national, state or local party committee.” But for national candidates, there’s a limit of $2,000. So that’s out.

Could those funds be passed on to Obama’s VP, Joe Biden? (On Election Day, he joked he might run for president again.) This is possible, but not directly – the money would have to go to the Democratic National Committee, which could spend it to support Biden.

The FEC guide also tells us the money could be refunded to donors, spent on gifts (or “donations of nominal value”) to non-family members, moving expenses after leaving office, home security for officeholders, and work-related “travel expenses for a federal officeholder and his or her accompanying spouse and children,” although a 2007 law puts some restrictions on that. (Interestingly, campaign cash can also be used prior to the election to pay candidates a salary – but not to incumbents, and it’s capped at the lesser of what they made last year or what the office they’re seeking pays.)

Forbidden uses of campaign cash

The big no-no, of course, is personal use of political contributions. Campaign cash can’t be spent on expenses that would exist even if the (former) candidate hadn’t run for office. That’s a broad definition, but the guide spells out some specific examples including college tuition, groceries, funeral expenses, clothes (excluding stuff like campaign T-shirts), mortgage or rent payments, leisure and entertainment, and gym and country club dues.

Just a couple of decades ago, former candidates could spend money on this stuff. Factcheck.org says, “Retiring federal lawmakers used to be able to pocket extra cash and use it for cars, vacations, clothes, pet grooming, whatever – but that changed in 1989 with the passage of the Ethics Reform Act.”

Citizens United "Comes Home to Roost"

We probably won't be able to sustain more than one or two more elections conducted in this chaotic environment. 

Vultures eating elephant carcass. Democracy's garbage collectors? [source WIKI]

Mitch McConnell's Heartbreak

When Plans for the Oligarchy Hit a Snag

SOMEBODY forgot to bribe the Federal Court

MeanMesa encountered this extremely well written article from PoliticusUSA and thought it would be a "bright spot" for ending July. Please take a moment to read through the entire thing. Apparently Senator Mitch "the Chin" McConnell was unable to deliver the goods to the Owners of the Republican Party as quickly as the Kochs ordered.

MeanMesa's compliments to Rmuse and PoliticusUSA.

Federal Appeals Court Dealt

McConnell And the Kochs A Bad Day

By: Rmuse

Thursday, July, 30th, 2015

[Links enabled. Visit site here - PoliticusUSA]

In America’s extremely divisive political atmosphere, one that informs there are really two separate Americas, it is remarkable indeed that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum agree on at least one very important issue. One segment of the population pants for, and avidly supports, theocratic government, widespread poverty, white racial purity, and perpetual war against everyone, and yet curiously, even the inhumane religious bigot voting bloc (Republicans) that retain power due to corporate money believes there is just too much money, especially corporate money, in politics. For Republican politicians though, and their funding machine the Koch brothers, there can never be enough money to buy control of state and federal government.

Subsequently, after at least two Supreme Court Justices commingled, conspired, and

Brazen Kentucky Corruption -
Selling Democracy for Cheap [image]

colluded with the Koch brothers and an entity (Citizens United) over how to get more corporate money in politics, the High Court ruled for the Koch brothers, Citizens United, and now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The now-infamous Citizens United ruling fundamentally put control of America’s government up for sale to the highest bidder and no human being in America, except maybe the Koch brothers, was happier than Mitch McConnell.

Earlier this month, the media was relatively silent about a ruling in Washington that was likely the second worst day of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s 35-year political life. Nearly a year ago at a ‘secret’ Koch brother strategy meeting for billionaires buying shares in the Koch venture to control of the United States government, McConnell complained mercilessly that he was forced to vote on foolish things like minimum wage and unemployment insurance, and to get retribution against Democrats and satisfy the Koch brothers he pledged to “go after” and abolish most of the federal government, if not “all of it.” Of course Mitch thanked the Koch brothers for their support because without it McConnell and Republicans could not complete the task at hand. McConnell also shared an intimate, poignant moment regarding a personal tragedy he said was the “worst day of his 35-year political life; the day George W. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation into law.”

Now, if that was the worst day of his political life, a unanimous (11-0) ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington must be a close second. The Appellate Court ruled that the ban on federal campaign contributions by individuals who contract with the government is constitutional. The takeaway from the ruling, besides putting a damper on McConnell’s political life, is that regardless the push by the Koch-Republicans and two horrendous rulings by Koch acolytes on the Supreme Court, 11 appellate judges firmly believe there is too much money in politics and that more “can be a very bad thing.” Mitch McConnell believes otherwise despite polling after polling revealing that an overwhelming 85 percent of Americans believe that political campaign financing needs at the very least “fundamental changes,” or better yet “a complete overhaul.” However, Republicans have an innate following the will of the people, or the Constitution for that matter, and in that spirit McConnell and Republicans are conniving to gut more from campaign finance laws to expedite the Koch brothers’ purchase and control of state and federal government.

After the 1974 Watergate scandal, Congress passed a law establishing limits on how much money people could give and how much politicians could spend on their campaigns; it also “mandated” disclosure to ensure that regular citizens could “follow the money.” The High Court eviscerated 1974 law immediately by eliminating campaign spending limits in Buckley v. Valeo; that ruling started the “fundraising arms race” the wealthy are winning and to ensure total victory, the Koch Supreme Court wiped out the rest of Buckley, and Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC allowed corporations to spend unlimited money directly and voided individual aggregate contribution limits; all in the name of “freedom of speech.” Apparently, the High Court’s Koch surrogates ruled according to the phrase “money talks,” and since the Kochs and corporations have lots of money, they get lots of “free speech” to buy government.

Despite the Koch Court wiping out campaign finance regulations, there was one particular rule that Mitch McConnell was unable to eliminate last year. McConnell waited until the eleventh hour of a must pass spending bill to insert a provision that “relaxed” campaign finance coordination between candidates and political parties. Having failed to enact a provision that would consolidate power within party committees that raise money for House and Senate candidates, McConnell snuck the same “campaign finance reform” in the completely unrelated fiscal 2016 Financial Services spending bill due by this Friday. McConnell, and the Koch brothers, lust to enact into law, abolish more campaign finance regulations before the 2016 general election season fully gets underway. Apparently the Kochs, who are rumored to have pledged upwards of a billion dollars to buy all three branches of government, want all campaign finance regulations abolished to buy the government in 2016 and end their costly crusade to own America. With an owned and operated acolyte like McConnell, who also wants campaign finance rules eliminated, the Kochs are closing in on their vision of America without campaign finance regulations to hasten achieving their bigger goal of abolishing the Federal Elections Commission along with free and fair elections. It is exactly what a fascist dictator would do and a means for the Koch brothers to repay Republican Mitch McConnell with the greatest day of his 35-year political life.

Although the Appellate Court’s ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court for the Koch brothers to overturn with extreme “free speech” prejudice, it was encouraging that eleven federal judges unanimously decided that there can be too much money in politics. However, that hopefulness has to be tempered with despair that the ruling did not, in any conceivable way, threaten Citizens United or the Kochs’ progress in buying government. It just temporarily kept in place the ban on federal campaign contributions “by individuals” who contract with the government; there is no ban on companies, corporations, the Koch brothers, oil industry, Wall Street, and defense industry, or Republicans would cease to exist as a political power and Mitch McConnell would know what “the worst day of his political life” really feels like.

Raising Taxes: Why It's Unthinkable

The "Artificial Image" of Higher Tax Revenue

American voters have not heard proposals to increase taxes for years.  Instead, they have heard a continuous stream of Stalinist horror stories vomited forth from right wing think tanks and public opinion "image managers."  Because of this, any sort of normal political discussion of the idea has been inundated long ago in a grisly soup of "job creators," "job killers," "global markets" and so forth.

Even the briefest dalliance with any consideration whatsoever dealing with increasing tax rates and revenue is dispatched as irrelevant folly thanks to this massive shield of talking points and propaganda.  There are no "water fountain" conversations meandering through policy question on this subject -- the equivalent of an "Emmy Award" for so thoroughly and successfully discharging even such a possibility from the minds of American tax voters.

Oh sure, it wasn't easy, but with billions of dollars and an intimidated, obedient net work media the propaganda onslaught has worked fairly well -- so far.

 The Strange History of Low Taxes on High Incomes

Ironically, around the same time that President Ronald Reagan was raising middle class taxes in the country nine times, the Republican Party somehow surgically implanted the idea that taxes must never be raised under any possible conditions, and by "never" this surgically implanted artificial policy "appliance" meant "not ever."  This, at least conceptually, left tax increase policy to the Democrats.

This began an era.  Reagan's Cadillac driving "welfare queens" and the already road weary Party maxim of "tax and spend Democrats" became the new metric for the obedient voters on the GOP side.  And, in fact, especially after LBJ's largess, some of the criticism had a certain kind of temporary traction.

But, MeanMesa emphasizes the term: "temporary."  

However, while this new "party line" left tax increase policy to the Democrats, it did not leave "debt increase" policy to the Democrats.  The following string of Republican administrations, after modifying the old Reagan phrase from "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend," went right to work exploding deficits and, consequently,  the accumulating the current atmospheric National Debt.

For visitors who have been to this site before, MeanMesa always looks for opportunities to present the following graph again.

[Data from Dept. of Treasury, office of National Debt]

If you have ever wondered just how the United States wound up with a $16 Tn National Debt, simply add up the red bars and blue bars and look at the total.  The chart's data ends in 2006, but the deficit totals, of course, continued to increase right through until today.  We haven't been paying back any of the borrowed money, and we have done absolutely nothing to mitigate the necessity to borrow even more.

However, there is "borrowing" and then there is "borrowing."  When the annual  "borrowing" is in $100's of billions, problems arise.  The first problem is that such "borrowing" is evidence of either drastic misfortune or infamously horrible governance. Because nothing particularly drastic kept occurring year after year during the administrations of Republican Presidents, that is, a country threatening drastic event such as a giant volcano, a sudden invasion across every border, a thermonuclear attack, a nationwide plague or so on, our national debt problem rests squarely amid the cash crazed clouds of the "infamously horrible governance" side of things.

Rich in a river of debt. (image)

After all, part of governing is collecting the money you are spending, and if not that, at least having something spectacular to show for all the borrowing and debt it took to get it.  There was nothing spectacular about the Bush W. tax cuts -- then or now.  They created nothing beyond the current huge federal debt and a new crop of nasty right wing billionaires.

If nothing spectacular has been purchased, the spending causing all that government debt can be, perhaps over-generously, characterized as simply day to day spending to pay the routine expenses of keeping the country running.  We know now that pretty much the only "spectacular thing" we purchased with the proceeds of all that "borrowing" is a "spectacular crop" of even fatter billionaires with equally fattened appetites for -- wait for it -- even more tax cuts.

We even know their names.

We also know that this "spectacular crop" of billionaires just keeps getting richer and richer every year because they don't pay taxes -- at least, they don't pay taxes at an actual rate anything similar to the rest of us.  With this conclusion, we will be almost immediately confronted by the wing nut talking point about tax rates.

"US tax rates are already some of the highest in the world -- that's what is keeping the economy on its knees even after we finished with the looting."

Well, at around 35%, the theoretical top US tax rate would in fact, be one of the highest -- if billionaires actually paid taxes at that rate.  They don't.  The IRS tax code contains that 35% figure for the "top marginal rate," but when you have 8,766 pages of deductions, tax expenditures, off shore profits, subsidies and other tax code gizmos on your tax return, the actual rate is much closer to zero.

Last year one of the most profitable corporations on the planet, EXXON/Mobile, actually got money back instead of paying taxes.  The corporation's tax rate wasn't just zero, it was negative. ["For all corporations, about two-thirds, or about 1.2 million, paid no federal income taxes in 2005. But many of those firms are quite small -- an owner and a couple of employees. For large U.S.-controlled corporations, those with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts, one out of four paid no taxes, as Sanders said. The total revenues for those large companies was about $1.08 trillion." source article]

The protestation is that "it simply isn't this simple."  MeanMesa agrees.  For every dime of taxes paid and also every dime of deductions deducted these boys can produce a platoon of salivating tax attorneys, more than enough to guarantee that, after a few days of 12 hour testimony,  nothing will be simple at all -- especially not the amicus brief filed with the Federal Court case.

Still, all Republican deficits in the that "National Debt" chart [above] came from somewhere.  With the dilapidated US infrastructure sitting with a $2.75 Tn repair bill, we certainly haven't been "over spending" on roads, bridges and schools. ["A report this week from the American Society of Civil Engineers shows just how bad the state of infrastructure in the United States is and how much spending is needed in the next decade to get it back up to par. According to the report, $2.75 trillion needs to be invested in America's infrastructure by 2020. The ASCE believes that the spending shortfall in this period will come to $1.1 trillion, and will have dire consequences: some $3.1 trillion in lost gross domestic product; about $3,100 annually lost in disposable income per household; some $1.1 trillion lost in total trade; about $2.4 trillion lost in consumer spending; and, worst of all, a loss of about 3.5 million jobs." marketwatch article here ]

We haven't been doing the US economy much good by this penny pinching, either.  The ASCE was addressing the failing infrastructure, but when MeanMesa adds some serious climate change mitigation expenses to that $2.75 Tn total, the "load" could easily grow from their $2-3 Tn to triple digits. [MeanMesa's post: Managing Global Warming Solutions has climate change mitigation cost estimates in the range  of $100's of Trillions -- moving Manhattan 100 miles inland isn't cheap...]

That leaves us with the immediate problems of both a country literally falling apart before our eyes and the worse, far larger, longer range problem of a planet doing essentially the same thing.  As a nation it is clear that we don't have anything close to the money required to solve the second part of that -- probably not even for ourselves.

All we have to work with is all this debt and all these billionaires we created.

Illegitimate Majority House Republicans
Gird for Battle to Defend the Castle

Republican House Speaker Boehner is an excellent example of gradually exposed loyalty to the oligarch's electoral "highest priority."  In 2010 Mr. Boehner could not so much as clear his throat without mouthing something about jobs, "Jobs, jobs, jobs."

However, the man's miraculous "transformation" into an austerity promoting talk-a-thon -- no doubt under direct orders from above -- changed the topic of his daily ranting to "Debt, debt, debt."

The big spending, big borrowing John Boehner of the Bush W. years was raising his hand for every piece of the autocrat's gigantic deficits.  The maudlin "totally concerned with high unemployment" John Boehner was fixated on a Democratic President's inability to suddenly replace the millions of US jobs lost as the house of cards collapsed in 2008.

But, of course, the miraculous "transformation" didn't end there.  With the unruly bigots of the gerrymandered tea party at his back, a reinvigorated John Boehner adopted the "blind hatchet job" of Republican austerity as his latest Holy Grail. 

Republican austerity's focus on cutting spending is only a cosmetic apparition.  At its heart, the austerity serves the oligarchs in charge as a means to further cut federal spending in order to protect the tax free billionaires now firmly in command of the US House of Representatives.  Given the $100's of millions it cost the oligarchs to take charge of the House, Boehner's orders from above fastidiously exclude any reference to the fact that his control of the House is founded on a minority of House votes in the 2010 election.

Okay, Where Do We Surrender?

Just wait by the tree where they tied up the noose.

Surrender might make sense if there were anyone to whom we could surrender.  There isn't, so we can't.

Those dismal prophecies above are painting a picture of a problem which won't be solved by a few "tweeks" to the US tax code, a tome already as large as a WWII battle wagon.   Yet, we have to face facts.  To "sustain" the incredibly low tax revenue as an on-going pattern for governance, we will need to drastically degrade the standard of living with which we have become accustomed here.

We will need a country which spends roughly what it takes in as revenue.  If the revenue is to remain in its current low level, the US will need to, well, adjust.  We are living in a country which is budgeting its expenditures based on a far greater tax revenue than it is currently able to collect.

"Able to collect?"

Yes, with the US tax code in its present condition, all the incredibly rich billionaires and corporations are not particularly breaking any laws when they dodge most or all of what their taxes might reasonably have been if they hadn't re-written the tax code.  They also have absolutely no interest in any "new form" of the tax code which might vary measurably from their very comfortable version.

The monied classes have patiently invested millions in the gradual development of this current code so suitable to their liking, but they have never quit complaining that even this dysfunctional, modern train wreck remains intolerably unfair to them.  These interests have never been frugal with their purchases of legislators to author additional travesties to the tax code year by year, but regardless of the latest authorship, they are still not quite satisfied.

After the impact of the 2009 Citizens United decision this flow of right wing dollars sky rocketed as the prospect of Republican "constituent loyalty" cratered.  The GOP Congressmen and Senators elected in this wave of corporate and billionaire money went to Washington with a single, highest priority: protect the tax law to keep it exactly as it is or worse.

The various media constructions since then have been a craven scheme to keep the uninformed masses angry enough to perpetuate the Republican base in the Party's very expensive, locally gerrymandered election districts.  Those district boundaries are considered to be "more or less stable" until the 2020 census possibly exposes them to more rational patterns.

This is not simply a "happy coincidence."  The right wing owners of the US tax code have paid plenty for this outcome.  The "return on their investment" has also been more than generous enough to entice them to continue at even higher  rates of cash for political interference.

Keep Your Dial Set At MeanMesa

Since "talking about" higher tax revenue is essentially a "forbidden zone," MeanMesa intends to rush right into the fray to post a series on this topic.  It's a long past due discussion.  We need to talk about national alternatives and national necessities -- what choices we have and what happens if we don't.

the 28th Amendment -- Death by Legacy

A Few General Ideas About the Psychology of Legacy

Any human who manages to elevate himself high enough will, apparently inevitably, come to a reflective moment when the finiteness of the years of his service -- or even the finiteness of the years of his life -- present the breathtaking instant when he indulges in a "true after thought."  

"What will all of this look like when I've once again descended to the lower atmospheres?"

"What quip or logo will come to define my great history when I am no longer here to add any more to the story which started it?"

Some humans bravely believe that their children will be their greatest chance for immortality.  Some believe that inventions they've made or businesses they've established will fill this purpose.  Public and political people are convinced that all their story will be amalgamated into some "household term" where they -- or, at least, their reputation -- will spend a secure eternity with a durable, comfortable flow of adulation and respect.

While power and glory remain a living, daily thing, it is only natural that certain human "delights" accompany them in a society filled with lesser folks.  After all, 2 million years ago our Zinjanthropus ancestors had already begun the society bending idea of the "big man."  In the fetid, dingy caves of Olduvai, the "big man" ate his fill first, traveled behind the young men in dangerous country and fathered all the little Zinjanthropae which would be allowed to survive as members of his tribe thanks to their "superior lineage."

Although this was just a start, the ambition for an ever extending longevity of this "big man" status grew in human society just like "little Topsy."  Half of the questionably sacred Old Testament is an account of one "divinely appreciated big man" after another.  

In the soul wrenching centuries of the early religionist period of Europe, tangible "big man-hood" had been relegated to the violent avarice of genetic nobility and the dark ambitions of the fear mongering priests, abbots, bishops, cardinals and popes.   Essentially a Dark Ages version based on the prehistoric Zinjanthropian idea, under this system all the rest of the tribe remained chattel.

Hopefully, all this admittedly incomplete, academic rambling is an adequate prelude to the primary theme of this post.  Let's jump a few centuries to modern America.

A Few Modern "Big Men"

Understandably, the Zinjanthropus "big man" naturally took his ambition for sexual profligacy as an accoutrement to his grand standing.  It was a only a couple of millennia later that this appetite matured to full out "war making."  The sex idea was still at the root of this new behavior, of course, but the expanded sexual opportunities of captured women and, later, of slaves and concubines traveled just one step behind the bleeding teen agers with the spears.

Considered as "war makers" even the most revered of our modern "big men" continued to naturally attach the increased sexual opportunities of their high office to a "little on the side."  Such "Rushmore sized" greats as Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton and others all felt that a little "in office dalliance" was not only Biblically merited, but also made "necessary," by the great burdens they bore for the larger common good.

However, the sexual proclivities, although perhaps enlightening as motivational foundations, were not the only modern manifestations of this desire to "not only have an extra good time -- better than anyone else -- while seated in power, but also to construct an eternal reputation for plenty of on-going adoration afterwards, too."  Once the thing had careened to this low point, the modern idea of legacy had been born.

Predictably, we can, from our own casual memories, prepare a list of modern legacies.  We extract these from unavoidable "household phrases," occasionally enhanced with a distant memory of Junior High American History classes.  The following list is not meant to be a thorough education of these "household phrases," but only to serve as a few examples.

 Washington founded the Republic

 Lincoln freed the slaves.

 Wilson started the United Nations.

 FDR saved the country from the Depression.

(and, started Social Security, led the fight in WWII and suffered from polio)

 Kennedy put us on the moon

 (and, stared down the Russians in Cuba, started civil rights for Blacks and got shot)

 Johnson started Medicare

 (and, obsessed with the slaughter in VietNam, began the Great Society and more for civil rights)

 Reagan initiated the fall of the Soviet Union

(and, raised taxes, brought the national debt to $ Tn for the first time, launched Sta Wars and broke organized labor)

 Clinton balanced the budget

(and, had a girl friend, survived impeachment and finished up with high approval ratings)

 Bush Jr. -- well, by this point, we can see the theme of the "household phrase."

Now, these were all Presidents.  They were chosen for the "examples" list because a casual knowledge of Presidential "big picture" legacies is common.  However, this posting about legacies is about another high office -- that of a Supreme Court Chief Justice.  Of course, although historical Supreme Courts are historically labeled by the Chief Justices presiding over them, all the members have also lent a hand to what happened.

Rather than dredge out a similar list of examples of the legacies of previous Supreme Court Chief Justices, let's just focus on what's happening right now.

Further, let's just pick up from the last "example" on the "examples" list.  And, rather than launch into some ill tempered geriatric tirade, let's take that look from what might be appearing on the pages of a history book fifty years from now.

A MeanMesa "Future History"

 of the 21st Century Supreme Court

Condensed Version

8th Edition, 2062

The first centuries of the United States were marked by a constant conflict between what were called oligarchs and the rest of the country.  The main population in the democracy wanted the country to develop in ways which improved living conditions while the oligarch class constantly vied for control of the country's Treasury.

In the beginning, the nature of this conflict was defined by the country's Constitution.  As the national wealth grew to large surpluses in the late 20th Century, the portion taken by the oligarchs was able to grow without materially influencing living conditions for the remainder of the population.  However, in the early years of the 21st Century oligarchic power reached new heights, and the extraction of wealth from the larger economy also measurably increased.

The resulting class conflict would have been expected, historically, to precipitate a violent "revolutionary correction" earlier if the nation had not enjoyed such previous prosperity.  This predictable conflict arose later in this case because living conditions had been sustained through various artificial methods during the last, most aggressive periods of wealth redistribution.

Two other factors delayed the "correction."

First, the national memory of better times in the past had faded through the passing of time.  Likewise, the educational level of the nation's population had also diminished.  The social-cultural knowledge base of citizens had fallen low enough that the early evidence of the oligarchic "take over attempt" went unnoticed.                                                

Second, the nation's Constitution had been continually cited as making the growth of the oligarchs legitimate.  The lower class of citizens had been groomed to believe that the increasing oligarchic wealth was fundamentally protected by the concepts in the US Constitution.  Much of the earlier wealth redistribution into oligarchic hands had, more or less, conformed to contemporary interpretations of Constitutional principles.

The mechanism employed to defend this gradual transformation of the nation to oligarchic control, that is, to continually validate the "necessity" and "acceptability" of constantly declining wealth and lower living conditions in the lower classes, was the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.  No matter what the still legislatively empowered lower class attempted in efforts to rectify the effects of the ever increasing oligarchic power, the effort was defeated by the Supreme Court which ruled that each such attempt was "unconstitutional."

The oligarch class had long coveted the legislative "purse strings" originally placed in the hands of the electorate by the Constitution.  As oligarchic "penetration" and "control" of the nation's Congress grew, coupled in the early 21st Century with control of the Supreme Court, the various legislative schemes for additional wealth redistribution grew even more aggressive.

Sensing the advantage of this continuing development of power, what is now called the OORP, Oligarchic Over Reach Period, began in earnest, but, as history now shows, still prematurely.  Modern experts agree that the oligarchic ambitions might have been realized if the slow, gradual development had continued at its previous pace for another decade or so.

When the surpluses which had previously masked the oligarchic take over were depleted in the early 21st Century, the lower classes, although by then quite uneducated and confused, were rapidly cast into even significantly lower and lower living conditions.  Interestingly, this depletion of national wealth through oligarchic wealth redistribution had been orchestrated by a certain, even smaller, even more aggressive, minority class of oligarchs just before the OORP began.

This earliest class of oligarchic predators had "gotten to the cash first."  Of course, the larger class of more cautious oligarchs were still quite anxious to consume whatever remained, and for that, they would rely on the Supreme Court to provide Constitutional interpretations which would protect their efforts.

 The Legacy of the Roberts Court

Chief Justice Roberts (image source)

The 28th Amendment (image source)

The 28th Amendment to the Constitution

concerning the formation of Supreme Courts

from MeanMesa's "Future History" Series

For the lower class the first visible signs of the take over plan came from the very Court which the oligarchs had relied upon so heavily to execute it.  Three Court rulings in close succession effectively eliminated the traditional respect for the institution's reliability, as it turns out, permanently undermining the previous structure of the Court.  The dream of the Roberts Court was to finally deliver the nation into oligarchic servitude, but the reality was, instead, the destruction of the Supreme Court and the dissemination of what had, by then, been realized to be its historically grotesque power.

In the first of the three exceptional rulings, the Court had over turned the traditional power of voters to elect national executives.  The 21st Century tyrant [see Sulla, tyrant of early Roman Republic/Wiki/] George W. Bush was appointed by the Court to a disastrous -- and premature -- oligarchic Presidency.

The second of the rulings was the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision which attempted to permanently eliminate what had previously been democratic elections.

The third of the rulings was the Court's decision to legally undermine the purchase of affordable health insurance in favor of a continuation of the existing oligarchic arrangement which was obscenely profitable at the time. 

This third decision actually reflected a second conflict among the oligarch class.  [The first was the exploitation of early opportunities by one part of the oligarch class at the expense of the remainder during the early "looting" period.]  This third decision was a gambit by one class of oligarchs -- those who controlled the Supreme Court -- to wrest power from another class -- those who controlled the Congress.

The Supreme Court had done a good number of outrageous things prior to this, but the rapid succession of the insults of the Roberts Court in the early 21st Century had turned the historical tide in an interesting way.  The voting public, mainly because these decisions had such a similar flavor and because they were reached in such a short time, dismissed the previous idea that the Court was "untouchable," that is, a powerful Constitutional force which functioned in a way not only oblivious to popular opinion but even oblivious to critical popular needs.

By this time the "spell" had been broken.

Even the least informed among the electorate realized that in decision after decision, their interests in Supreme Court cases consistently lost, each instance being explained by the same justification:  "It violates the Constitution."

Even the least informed among the electorate also realized that a certain, almost invisible class of Americans consistently "won" in these same decisions.

Finally, the "legacy" of the Roberts Court was realized in the 28th Amendment which, once proposed, rapidly cleared state election after state election on its path to full ratification.  The old structure of the Supreme Court had become something which was to be simply discarded as being essentially unusable.  Faced with the unavoidable fact that the Court, as designed in the original Constitution, was inescapably too vulnerable to being dominated by special interests, the citizens of the United States "cleaned house." 

The 28th Amendment created six Supreme Courts, each one with nine Justices nominated and installed by the same process as before.  Spread across the country in newly constructed Supreme Court buildings, the new Courts were able to hear many more cases and make rulings much more rapidly.

One interesting feature of the new system was the process in which cases were referred to trial in the new Courts.  The assignments were made by a lottery.  There remained no means for any case to "select" the particular Supreme Court which would hear it other than to "draw a token from the bag," a process usually done on national television is a short ceremony.  After that, the Court chosen for the case would proceed through the traditional steps to decide if it were to be heard.

As before, decisions made by such Courts were final.

There were, after the Amendment's ratification, "conservative Courts" and "liberal Courts," but never exclusively one or the other.  Corporate and oligarchic efforts to sway decisions became a thing of the past simply because control of any particular Court among the six became a judicial "crap shoot."  The new theme of the Supreme Court function was also made more dynamic by the fifteen year term limit of any seated Justice.

A Few Thoughts in Conclusion

We may be thinking that a solution to the present dilemma we face at the hand of a Court owned by oligarchs is to be found in the simple, gradual replacement of some Justices as they naturally change over during the passing of time.  Many Americans, very reasonably, are still infatuated with the "bar fight."  If we can only elect progressive politicians to Congress and the White House, opportunities to change the complexion of the Court will inevitably occur.

Yes, this might solve the problems we face today, but we can be certain that the oligarch class will re-introduce the same problems as quickly as possible after that.  The fact is very clear.  The two centuries old structure of the Supreme Court has out lived its utility, and very interestingly, arrogantly demonstrated this obsolescence repeatedly.  No effort on the part of the maxima judicia has been made to accommodate modern needs.

In a conversation suspiciously reminiscent of other oligarchic propaganda, we have told over and over that the situation is hopeless, that nothing can be done.  This is a lie.

Much can be done.  The Constitution is not a suicide note.

Just something to think about.