Man. Is the class-warfare dragon in the States fanning its wings these days. Or what? Not only does it feed off the Bunko Artist-in-Chief’s proposal to “reform” the Social Security system—potentially the single greatest financial scam in American history. (Though I must admit: The Pentagon has got such a huge headstart over it, it’d take the Social Security scam quite a few years to catch up.) Or the proposal—vetted most recently and celebratedly by the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve—for a national sales tax to replace the income tax, two basic re-draftings of the social contract to be accompanied by the reinstitution of the thumb-screws, public floggings, and debtors’ prison, should push come to shove.
(Real fast aside. To repeat a question that Paul Krugman asked the very next morning: “Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan’s pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously?” Though to one-up Krugman: Why on earth would anyone ever have taken this pose seriously in the first place?)
But also, at the other end of the American food chain, the new bankruptcy law passed by a margin of 74-to-25 in the U.S. Senate yesterday (with 18 of the Senate’s 44 Democrats voting with the Republican block) to “keep debtors in bankruptcy for longer periods than in the past while allowing high-income earners to continue to shield such assets as trust funds and expensive homes in states with large homestead exemptions, such as Texas and Florida,” as the “芝加哥論壇報” 今天早上報導。
By all appearances, this one looks like beauty. A “victory for President Bush and credit card companies,” the 部落 called it. “If the measure becomes law as expected, many Americans who file for bankruptcy protection against their creditors will be unable to wipe out medical bills, credit card debt, automobile loans and other debt as they can do now….Critics said the bill would remove a safety net for many Americans who do not have significant savings and find themselves in bankruptcy court because they have lost their jobs or suddenly face a large medical bill.” Sounds like a plan to me. (See 美國式社會契約 I.)
Yet another “[r]apid-fire [victory] by Republicans on business-friendly legislation,” the “紐約時報” reported. “The banking, credit card and retail industries, which have pushed for the legislation for more than seven years, argue that changes to current law are needed to end abuse of the system by people who shirk their financial obligations when they could repay some of what they owe,” the “華盛頓郵報” explained. “The three industries gave more than $56 million to political parties and candidates in the 2004 elections, most of it going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics….” The 時 also reported that an effort by the senior Senator from Massachusetts to “rally members of his party around a series of amendments that would offer special protection for those whose bankruptcy was attributed to health care costs or other unexpected expenses” went 克普倫克. The whole disgraceful event prompted the Senator to quip: “This legislation makes the bankruptcy courts of the United States the collection agency for the credit-card industry.”
Debtors will now find it harder to protect themselves from astronomical medical bills—the U.S. alone in being without a national health care program, let us not forget, medical-related debt being a major component behind the bankruptcy phenomenon in the States. (See “疾病和受傷是導致破產的因素”,大衛·U·希梅爾斯坦 等., Health Affairs, posted February 2, 2005.—For the PDF版 同一篇文章。)
Best of all, though, was this quote from Illinois Senator Richard Durbin: “The worst element of the bill is that it is going to force a lot of people deeper into debt. Many won’t be discharged from debt under these payback plans because many of them have debts beyond their control. They will be burdened with these debts for years to come.”
Debt peonage, the most heavily incarcerated population of any in the entire world, wars of foreign aggression, and spreading freedom and democracy around the globe: It all makes for a very nice version of the social contract indeed.—
Once again: Sounds like a plan to me.
Maybe the regime in Washington can solve its all-volunteer military-personnel shortage by slipping legislation through Congress that offers a state-buyout of a person’s medical debts in return for some form of “national service,” the size of the buyout being directly proportional to the risks of the service involved? Thus, for example, at the low-end, dental work can be exchanged for replacing the divots on golf courses with brand new sod after insurance and credit card company executives finish a round of golf. At the mid-level, elective surgeries for driving American oil company executives around Baghdad. (Or Caracas, in case it’s ever liberated.) More serious and invasive procedures in return for helping the Americans manage their vast “rendition” gulag around the world. While at the extreme high-end, any life-saving procedure for serving as a human land-mine sniffer ahead of the troops before they invade the next outpost of tyranny.
“To what do the billionaires owe their good fortunes?” Thus ponders an essay introducing the 671 names to have made it onto 福布斯‘s All-Billionaires list 2005, a total of 215 more billionaires than made the 2003 list (a record 131 new billionaires this past year alone), accounting for some $800 billion more net worth this year than just two years ago. The co-authors then canvass a number of possible explanations. But they settle upon one above all: “old-fashioned entrepreneurialim.”
“The U.S. is now home to an astonishing 341 billionaires,” 福布斯 reminds us, “just shy of half the world’s billionaire population.”
“加強子孫後代的社會保障,」白宮新聞秘書辦公室(首頁)
“The Tax System: Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Before the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform”,3 年 2005 月 XNUMX 日“世界億萬富翁,” Luisa Kroll and Lea Goldman, 福布斯,發表於 10 年 2005 月 XNUMX 日
“Why So Many New Billionaires?” Luisa Kroll and Lea Goldman, 福布斯,發表於 10 年 2005 月 XNUMX 日American Bankruptcy Institute (Homepage—for all of you “busy insolvency professionals” out there)
“Deficits and Deceit”,保羅·克魯曼, “紐約時報”,3月4,2005
“Bankruptcy bill passes Senate,” Nicolas Brulliard, 亞特蘭大憲法報,3月11,2005
“Going broke may prove costlier than ever,” M. William Salganik, 巴爾的摩太陽報,3月11,2005
“Senate OKs tougher bankruptcy rules,” William Neikirk, “芝加哥論壇報”,3月11,2005
“Democrats Are Divided, As Some Back G.O.P. Bills”,卡爾·赫爾斯, “紐約時報”,3月11,2005
“Bracing for a Bankruptcy Rush,” Riva D. Atlas and Eric Dash, “紐約時報”,3月11,2005
“Bankruptcy Overhaul Gets Senate OK”,安·麥克費特斯, 匹茲堡郵報,3月11,2005
“Florida Door May Shut on Debtors,” Helen Huntley, 聖彼得堡時報,3月11,2005
“30% interest rates: Sound business or loan sharking?” 社論, 今日美國,3月11,2005
“Senate Passes Bill To Restrict Bankruptcy,” Kathleen Day, “華盛頓郵報”,3月11,2005“衛生經濟學101”,保羅·克魯曼, “紐約時報”,14 年 2005 月 XNUMX 日(發佈至 Truthout)
“對國家不利”,保羅·克魯曼, “紐約時報”,25 年 2005 月 XNUMX 日(發佈至 Truthout)
ZNetwork 的資金完全來自讀者的慷慨捐贈。
捐款