He is (not) The One

David Axelrod's soothing words and the desire of the media for a horse race notwithstanding, I don't see how President Hoover can win re-election. He won't win Scott Walker's Wisconsin, nor destitute-crazy Ohio, nor "I got mine" geezer Florida that elected Marco Rubio and Rick Scott. Pennsylvania is rightly styled as Alabama sandwiched between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, so do the math. Virginia and North Carolina? Forget it.

As I have written before, Barack Obama does not deserve a second term. Two-term presidencies should be rare, not the rule. The wasted and toxic second terms of Bill Clinton (repealing Glass-Steagall, for example) and George W. Bush are instructive. And while Mr. Obama was a gifted orator, his election the first time was also a vote against Bush, against the recklessness of a John McCain who would put Sarah Palin on a national ticket, and, in a fleeting moment of clarity, against the GOP, The Party That Wrecked America. It won't happen again.

Crazy is an easier default setting for an ignorant empire in decline. So we must begin to consider the Republican field.

The candidates the Republican Party once generally fielded could easily defeat Mr. Obama. Ronald Reagan benefited from an anti-Jimmy Carter wave, but he proved to be an able strategist and tactician, as would befit a two-term governor of the nation's most populous state, and he was a sophisticated political thinker notwithstanding the left's effort to portray him as an amiable dunce. Now Reagan couldn't win a school-board primary. As he would say, he didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left him.

But let's not forget who funded the Tea Party and actually controls the modern Republican Party. It's not Russell Pearce or Joe Arpaio. It's the corporate and financial oligarchs. They see, and are working hard to enhance, Mr. Obama's weakness. Their balancing act is to maintain the theater of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, while not allowing their useful idiots in the grassroots to actually make any of the candidacies a reality. At the end of the day, we'll have Mitt Romney with, perhaps, Herman Cain as wingman.

Romney seems a smart and decent fellow. His father was a genuine moderate Republican who would have made a much better president than Richard Nixon. At Bain Capital, Mitt was responsible for deals that destroyed thousands of jobs, but don't expect that to penetrate the addled pate of the average American voter, especially the independents (read: Low-information voters). He was a moderate and effective governor of Massachusetts, rolling out the model that became Obamacare. Somehow the puppetmasters have to get the evangelicals past the whole Mormon thing. The megachurchers sure aren't going to vote for that (black) Man in the White House (who probably isn't even a citizen).

The problem with a Romney presidency is that it will bring the entire circus of anti-science, kookocratic and financial swindlers of the right in tow. There's much of America yet to loot. He's over on the east side of Seattle today bashing China as a currency manipulator (true), but you can just hear the aroused breathing of the Military-Industrial Complex. Unlike Mr. Obama, President Romney will face a disorganized, demoralized opposition that doesn't know what the hell it believes in. Yet he will also confront the same issues of contraction, imperial overstretch and a beseiged middle class. The game of sustaining the unsustainable will be up and good.

Rick Perry? Rogue's Page One Editor is squarely in the Texas governor's camp, believing "the worse, the better" might finally shock America into getting its act together. "Rick for Riots," is his bumper sticker. So far, Perry has proved to be an oaf, and the intelligent thing he did do, providing in-state tuition for the illegals who help prop up the Texas economy, has made him anathema to the kooks. So maybe second banana, but there will be no President Perry.

We face difficult days ahead. Our flight from reality and corporate-sponsored fairy tales will not save us. In 2016, Hillary Clinton will be a young sixty-nine.

 

Comments

[soleri]

"Rick for Riots" is not a bad idea. But by the time Perry's first term would be done, so would the country. Of course, the same probably pertains to the saner and smarter Romney, whose term would be a bacchanal of corporate/plutocrat-friendly policy. Romney, however, would understand a second term would be contingent on doing something for the economy other than another round of voodoo on crack. He would have to find a way to spend enough to lift the economy out of its depression. Would the Tea Party bless such an outrage? Only if they were given Uncle Sam suits to wear at picnics where Hank Williams, Jr sang ballads about whites being victimized by minorities.

The awful truth now is that this empire can only be governed by and for its vampire-squid economic sectors. Racialized class warfare starts to lose its effectiveness if too many people (read: formerly middle-class whites) are impoverished. The Republicans have peddled Dogpatch Dope for 40 some years now, but its pharmacological effect entails either an eventual civil war or a collapse of national identity. I'm suspecting the latter is our fate, but not in any apocalyptic sense. Rather, it's more a matter of people opting out from civic life for their pain relief of choice. Look for a marked uptick in alcoholism.

Next year's election will ignite with righteous fury an empire's damaged soul, pitting a centrist man of color against a right-wing archangel. The urban vs rural/exurban divide will occupy the center stage of this passion play where good battles evil. I don't know who will win (Romney if economic anxiety overwhelms reason, Obama if enough Ohioans and Pennsylvanians understand that the oligarchy's triumph is their ruin). Regardless, there is no recovery in 2013 or 2015 or even 2019. We crossed that line 10 years ago and we don't unring that bell. Elections have consequences and one consequence is that we got what we deserve.

[koreyel]

Mr. Talton:
"In 2016, Hillary Clinton will be a young sixty-nine."

Ah yes Hillary...
Quoted just yesterday in the NYT:

-----
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hailed the deals Wednesday as an important victory for American foreign policy. And she said she expected that the South Korea pact alone would create 70,000 American jobs. “By opening new markets to American exports and attracting new investments to American communities, our economic statecraft is creating jobs and spurring growth here at home."
-----

Bless the NYT for continuing on with this:

-----
"But the United States International Trade Commission ... predicted that American farmers would benefit most, because of increased demand for dairy products and beef, pork and poultry. Conversely, it predicted that the pacts would eliminate some manufacturing jobs, particularly in the textile industry ...

Opponents, including textile companies, said that the deals would harm the economy by undermining the nation’s industrial base. They argued that South Korean companies would benefit much more than American companies because they were gaining access to a much larger market."
-----

Wow. The one thing the oligarch's DC puppets could agree on, and pass without a filibuster or a presidential veto?

Sending manufacturing jobs overseas...

Yes Mr. Obama doesn't deserve another term.
But Mr. Romney, Ms. Hillary, etc.?
They are of the oligarchy and for the oligarchy.
None deserve so much as a first term.

There is a great and growing unrest in the country. A pressure cooker of anger on the front burner. Rick for Riots? True, but not true enough: We are fast-tracking towards riots no matter who the oligarchs put in power.

The question is, who is going to throw the first brick?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/business/trade-bills-near-final-chapter.html

[Petro]

Yikes! This is a feast of despair here today! Sadly, I can't disagree...

@soleri - that is one fine piece of prose poetry you have posted, IMO.

[azrebel]

I realize that we are just "conversationalizing" here, however, I thought Bush and Obama would have taught all of you by now that:

1. The position of President of the U.S. is inconsequential.

2. The party of the POTUS is inconsequential.

The real rulers of this country, MIC & bankers, place advisors next to the President and they don't whisper in his ear, they hold a gun to his back and they TELL him how it's going to be.

It's always enjoyable to converse, however, as soleri and Koreyel imply, the discussion is over.

And as Mick would say, time for some ACTION.

[Superlurker]

Very concise and insightful posts today. To bring the mood down a bit more, I heard from my sister today, who lives in rural Show Low, AZ, that she came upon a loaded shopping cart during her daily walk in the woods that adjoins her modest forested neighborhood. Loaded with someone's possessions, not groceries. This is something she hasn't experienced in the past 10+ years that she has lived there. Her dogs' newest favorite pastime is standing at the rear of her fenced property, barking. That, along with the mysterious strangers that are bathing in my parents neighbor's pools at night in a fairly upscale section of Mesa leads me to think that we are in for some interesting times here in Arizona.

[Emil Pulsifer]

Soleri wrote: "The awful truth now is that this empire can only be governed by and for its vampire-squid economic sectors."

Simon Johnson, former Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund, actually seems to agree with you. In 2009 he wrote a piece for The Atlantic called The Quiet Coup. The editor-written introductory blurb nicely encapsulates the message:

"The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time."

But the text of the article itself (and the accompanying graphs) contains some shocking specifics:

"From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007."

In fact, as the graph shows, with the exception of a single blip the financial industry profits as a share of U.S. business profits stayed at or well below 16 percent from 1948 to 1985. (Try enlarging and magnifying if resolution is poor.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/?single_page=true

[Dawgzy]

Having held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils since HHH in '68, once again faced with the evil of two lessers. At this point am looking at the poutus '12 ballot as Scotus instead.

[cal Lash]

Not much has changed since the Quest for Fire. Since we decided acquisition of more was where it's at?
Vote for HH. I haven't voted for anyone who admits to belonging to organized religion or says God bless since IKE.
Makes for a quick ballot marking.

[jmav]

Romney as the presidential candidate cannot choose Herman Cain as his running mate. The White People's Party (AKA Republican Party) will need to have a religious Tea Party breathing running mate to energize the grass roots party members with Romney on the ticket.

Obama will likely carry Wisconsin and probably Pennsylvania even if Romney is his opponent. I don't understand Ohio but the Republicans will take Virginia and North Carolina.

The corporate elite will be very happy with either Romney or Obama. Obama provides wonderful cover against discontent from people of color who believe he represents their stake in governing America. Romney will help quell dissent from disaffected whites. In any event, business as usual.

The erosion of the safety net, the lowering of upper tax rates while broadening taxes on the middle class, and continued robust military spending will remain.

A government for the corporations, by the corporations.

[cal lash]

I agree.
Herman Krupp

[Emil Pulsifer]

Mr. Talton wrote:

"But let's not forget who funded the Tea Party and actually controls the modern Republican Party. It's not Russell Pearce or Joe Arpaio. It's the corporate and financial oligarchs."

Here's a new twist: ever wonder why Republicans in so many states are rushing to move up their primaries?

It turns out that the billionaires funding the super PACs have figured out a way to avoid reporting requirements until AFTER the results are determined:

"The reshuffling raises the possibility that super PACs can avoid having to report donors to the FEC until after the January contests - even if they take part in those races by spending money on ads. Because many of the groups are new, it would mean that voters would have no idea who was paying to influence the primaries until after the dust settled.

"There are two narrow ways to make this happen, experts said. First, a super PAC can confine its spending to the 19 days before the primary, which is outside the "pre-primary" disclosure cutoff under FEC rules. The second way to delay disclosure would be to switch to a monthly reporting schedule, which would eliminate the requirement for a report before the primary.

"Brett Kappel, a campaign-finance lawyer at Arent Fox, noted that the 2010 midterms featured several super PACs that were effectively funded by one or two wealthy donors. With careful juggling of the schedule, he said, determined funders could keep their names out of the headlines until after the major primary contests.

" 'You could see an extremely wealthy person trying to game the system in this way,' Kappel said."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/10/09/20111009influence1009.html

[Emil Pulsifer]

"jmav" wrote: "A government for the corporations, by the corporations."

Many politicians, like bank-robbers, go where the money is.

According to recent data from the U.S. Commerce Department, as reported by The New York Times in early August, "the new figures indicate that corporate profits accounted for 14 percent of the total national income in 2010, the highest proportion ever recorded. The previous peak, of 13.6 percent, was set in 1942 when the need for war materials filled the order books of companies at the same time as the government imposed wage and price controls, holding down the costs companies had to pay.

...The latest figures indicate the smaller businesses' share of national income fell to a 17-year low of 7.7 percent in 2009, but recovered to 8.3 percent in 2010 and in the first quarter of this year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/workers-wages-chasing-corporate-profits-off-the-charts.html

So, corporate profits have nearly double the share of national income that proprietors' income has. Small businesses aren't typically hiring in the current circumstance of low consumer demand, whereas many large corporations have foreign markets to boost demand and hire to the extent that they require domestic labor to exploit this.

The graphic (charts) accompanying this story are definitely worth looking at also, particularly the nosedive that workers' wage and salary income has taken as a share of national income, since 1973 or so.

Current economic problems stem in no small part from the high level of income and wealth concentration, which results in lowered disposable income among households that would otherwise use it for consumption, and thus low consumer demand.

Consumers no longer have the luxury of buying on credit or using their homes as cash cows (whether flipping them or borrowing against them). Healthcare inflation, as well as higher gas and food costs, also eat into consumers' disposable income. As the Baby Boomers retire from full-time jobs to fixed income, and perhaps find themselves or their relatives faced with health problems, this too will decrease consumer disposable income.

Businesses won't hire and give raises until consumers spend more, and consumers won't spend more until businesses hire and give raises. The only way to avoid a future of chronic high unemployment (and all the associated fiscal costs) is to ameliorate income and wealth concentration; money must be taken from those with excess cash who use it for financial speculation, and given to working-class households who will use it to fulfill unmet consumer needs. The resulting economic stimulus will be permanent rather than temporary, if done via targeted taxation and distributed via an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit.

[azrebel]

Just finished Ben Franklin's autobiography and am now reading Teddy Roosevelt's biography.

Teddy complains of undue corporate influence on the congress during his time. Says lobbyists used to walk out on the floor of the house and senate to hand cash to sway votes.

I don't have an exact date, but I would venture to guess that our "democracy" was sold to the highest bidders around 1850 plus or minus 25 years. The "democracy" was on life support for about 100 years after that, however, it has been dead for the last 50 years. The reason the last fifty years of politics has stunk to the high heavens is because we have been living with the corpse of our "democracy" and we just didn't know it.

No wonder it doesn't really matter which maggot we elect to stand at the top of the heap.

[azrebel]

Emil, I've always like the word "ameliorate", so you get a gold star for using it in a sentence.

I don't know what it means, but I would hope that it means - "to compare ones-self to the exploits of Amelia Earhart." I hope it means that because I really do like the word. I hope to use it in a sentence one day.

[koreyel]

Regarding Emil's link to the 2009 Atlantic essay by Simon Johnson:

It is a good read for many reasons. Primarily though because we are almost to 2012, and Johnson's two predictions at article's end can be tested.

His first prediction seems to be spot on.
Here are his meatiest grafs:

~~~~
"In my view, the U.S. faces two plausible scenarios. The first involves complicated bank-by-bank deals and a continual drumbeat of (repeated) bailouts, like the ones we saw in February with Citigroup and AIG. The administration will try to muddle through, and confusion will reign.

Boris Fyodorov, the late finance minister of Russia, struggled for much of the past 20 years against oligarchs, corruption, and abuse of authority in all its forms. He liked to say that confusion and chaos were very much in the interests of the powerful—letting them take things, legally and illegally, with impunity. When inflation is high, who can say what a piece of property is really worth? When the credit system is supported by byzantine government arrangements and backroom deals, how do you know that you aren’t being fleeced?

Our future could be one in which continued tumult feeds the looting of the financial system, and we talk more and more about exactly how our oligarchs became bandits and how the economy just can’t seem to get into gear. "
~~~~

Save for the OWS movment, all that is accurate to the letter. And like Mr. Talton has suggested on numerous times, Johnson too suggest there is yet more loot to be looted.

As for his second scenario? Go read. As there could very well be a blend of it in the future too...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/?single_page=true

[Mick]

It is time for some action!!!

It really is.

Let's all find an AK-47. They are rugged and dependable and it's easy to find ammunition.

[Mick]

The Republicans are not going to stop until Americans are slaves who live on one bowl of gruel every day. The Republicans are turning the US into a giant plantation with slave labor, just like the old South in the 1830's.

In Florida, we have former middle class people eating out of dumpsters. We have people living under bridges. There are no jobs. The Republicans have killed this state. No one can get a job.

We desperately need a revolution in the United States. The Republicans are going to murder us all.

[cal lash]

Did u all c Bill Shovers blistering attack on gov Brewer in yesterdsys Republic?

[azrebel]

cal.

Brewer, "Because my sons are scalpers".

Funny, 150 years ago, Geronimo said the same thing.

[azrebel]

Mick, just out of curiosity, who we gonna shoot?

[cal lash]

Twitter is the best gun made.
"A great writer is like a second governnent."

[Emil Pulsifer]

I came across an abstract of an Urban Institute / Brookings Institution (jointly: Tax Policy Center) report, "Income Tax Paid at Each Tax Rate, 1958–2009". Take a look at Chart 1 to see the taxable income from the wealthy we're not collecting today compared to 1958:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/901456-Tax-Paid-Each-Rate.pdf

Perhaps I should say "potentially missing today" because of the possibility of tax shelters and so forth.

A bit of a mystery (to me anyway) is revealed by Chart 2, "Percentage of Returns by the Highest Applicable Statutory Marginal Tax Rate".

Yes, that's a mouthful, but what it boils down to is this: before 1987 the highest marginal rate applicable to most returns was 16 to 28 percent; since 1987 the highest marginal rate applicable to most returns has been 1 to 15 percent; and that has been true even though marginal rates have been raised since 1987 (e.g., Clinton era).

The difference seems to involve the Tax Reform Act of 1986; apparently some change in statutory law which has survived all subsequent changes to tax law, including changes in brackets and marginal rates. Does anyone know the explanation for this? It appears that a substantial amount of tax revenue has been lost since 1987 because of this.

[Emil Pulsifer]

"azrebel" wrote: "I don't have an exact date, but I would venture to guess that our "democracy" was sold to the highest bidders around 1850 plus or minus 25 years."

I'm not sure that we've ever really had a democracy. The country was founded as a republic, to be ruled primarily by the owner class. Women and racial minorities were explicitly excluded from the vote, and states were allowed to individual pass laws (many did) excluding white adult males from the vote if they didn't own property (real estate) or didn't have assets above a certain amount.

Even after the states got rid of the landed-gentry voter laws, we still had a Senate which was selected by state legislatures and not by voters: this continued until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. The Senate was traditionally the means by which "levelers" (think of them as the olden days version of populists or socialists) who might get into the popularly elected House of Representatives, would be thwarted. They were a buffer against popular (read: democratic) values.

The President of the United States is still not popularly elected, but determined by the Electoral College. In the 2000 presidential race, Al Gore won a majority of the popular vote, but George Bush received the majority of the Electoral College vote.

The two main tools of moneyed interests in recent years have been: (1) inordinate influence in campaign finance; (2) ownership of the mass media.

After all, you can't get elected unless you can get your message out, effectively, to a majority of voters on a regular basis throughout the length of a campaign.

Even if you raise the money to do that, if what voters primarily hear about you are the "analyses" of talking heads in radio and television and newspaper op-eds, your radio and TV ads may not do you much good because their "meaning" is constantly being deconstructed by your political enemies.

The third tool of moneyed interests is control over party leadership. This too is derived from (1) above, but it's consideraby more subtle and insidious.

Individual congressmen may oppose moneyed interests, but the party leadership determines who gets influentual committee assignments (including committee chairs), and without these you can't even get your bills heard by the general congressional assembly: they just die in committee without ever being voted on by the general body.

Party leadership also determines how the considerable coffers of the party itself are spent during elections: don't forget, it isn't just the campaign funds of individual runners that count, it's also the funds of the party itself supporting them separately -- or not. Candidates without party support had better have deep pockets.

Finally, but equally importantly, presidents and congressmen don't make decisions from their own personal expertise as a general rule. There is just too much to know and too much specialization. They have advisers: assistants, lawyers, and lobbyists, who explain issues to them and help them formulate detailed positions and bills. The party leadership generally provides these or recommends them.

So, wealthy interests generally want to control the party leadership as a lever of power: that way they don't have to buy off everyone (and some can't be bought). The Democratic Party leadership has moved to the right considerably in recent decades.

[cal lash]

Not much has changed in 3000 years. He who has the goats rules.

[azrebel]

Thank you Emil,

It was very nice and very educational for you to ameliorate my comments.

[Rogue Columnist]

A martini ameliorated the stress of finishing the new novel.

[soleri]

Emil writes: "the Democratic Party leadership has moved to the right considerably in recent decades".

There are several stories here that help explain this shift. One involves a Republican Party that in the 1970s began to systematically organize business groups for political leverage. William Brock, who was RNC chief at the time, was the man responsible for taking a demoralized post-Watergate party and giving it enormous financial and organizational advantages. One illustration: in 1976 there were 922 business PACs. A decade level, 2,182. By contrast, labor PACs in 1976 numbered 224, and a decade later only 261. Republicans were outspending Democrats about 3 to 1 by 1980. Democrats were so impoverished that in 1981, they were still paying off debt from 1968!

You can see where this is headed. The mother's milk of politics is money. It underwrites ever other consideration, impulse, and policy concern. Democrats couldn't match the resources of Republicans unless they also trolled for the same campaign funds, which are conveniently located in and among those people and corporations that want a pro-business agenda enacted. Labor, already a declining power in the US, was in no position to compete with the right.

In the 1980s, we saw the rise of the postmaterial Democratic Party, one where lifestyle issues took precedence over economics. Emily's List is one example of this power shift, HRC is another. It's also the time the neo-liberal DLC became the preeminent power among Democratic Party insiders. Our own Bruce Babbitt was a charter member. Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore were active in it.

The Democratic Party veered right not because people were clamoring for tax cuts for the rich or a deregulated financial sector but because the rich disproportionately finance political campaigns, therefore their concerns dominate to the exclusion of the working and middle class. This is still true today. And it explains why Obama could mesmerize so many of us in 2008 while never straying far from the DLC game plan. Although Obama raised a huge amount of money from small donors, the lion's share still came from wealthy donors, particularly on Wall Street.

Ultimately, big money is the issue and it's not one we're going to solve in this post-Citizens United era. The right is heavily financed by plutocrats and powerful economic sectors. Democrats can stay in the game only by promising to trim their policy sails to the same people.

[cal lash]

Good post Soleri, maybe just maybe the push by the 99 percenters will have a positive impact. I am calling Phoenix police chief Joe Yarner about the huge waste of tax monies to send all those evil empire looking robot cops out to clear Cesar Chavez park of wall street protesters. As a retired (soft) police negoitator i seriously object to the current militaristic robo cop mentality. I could have cleared that park with two cops in Levis an T-shirts and no guns.
Jon, no more martinis until your next book is at the printing press.
Sent from my phone with no spell check.

[azrebel]

as always good posts from Emil and soleri. Thank you.

Now with the new Uganda excursion and the new Iran plot, I feel like I am witnessing a giant game of RISK, (remember the board game?)

Leaving Iraq, wanting to leave Afghanistan, tempting Pakistan to start a fight with us, now Iran and Africa. Give me the dice, I'll take care of this.

I spoke with my cousin Amelio's sister yesterday. She said he had seen the new movie Green Lantern. I asked his sister, "so, how did Amelio rate the movie?" She said he like it.

[Petro]

Really liked the lucidity of Emil's and soleri's last two posts.

And, in a bid to assist in ameliorating some of the despair 'round these parts, here is a link to a cheery article in The Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/14/how-occupy-wall-street-can-avoid-cooptation.html

[azrebel]

I would like to take a moment to thank all of you who post here with suggested articles to read, books to read and those of you who write books.

Last week cal gave me four books to read which I devoured in three days.

My Kindle is plumb full of books suggested by all of you.

Thank you all, very much.

[Emil Pulsifer]

Great comment, Soleri -- I saved the whole thing for future reference.

"One illustration: in 1976 there were 922 business PACs. A decade level, 2,182. By contrast, labor PACs in 1976 numbered 224, and a decade later only 261."

According to OpenSecrets.org, for the 2012 election cycle just 54 labor PACs have made contributions to federal candidates. (This is based on Federal Election Committee data released September 26 of this year.) You can find them listed by type of labor union along with percentage contributed to Democrats and Republicans, along with amounts contributed, here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?txt=P01

They splits the business PACs into sectors, but here are the number of business PACs per sector:

Agribusiness 72

Communications/electronics 8

Construction 24

Defense 12

Energy 68

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 462

Health 93

Lawyers & Lobbyists 120

Transportation 39

Misc Business 29

Total Business (my tally): 927

Even if you assume some overlap between PACs in these sectors and the labor PACs (though labor is listed separately from them) there can't be less than 927 - 54 = 873 business PACs, compared to labor's 54.

There are also leadership PACs, Super-PACs, and others. Sorting out all of the details would be a project but the website is very well organized and the graphics/information is very easy to understand at a glance. The PACs page can be found here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/

As for labor unions as a political force, when membership declines, they have less of a base from which to organize voluntary contributions and/or raise dues.

In 2010 according to the Unionstats.com (citing Current Population Survey data from the Census Bureau), the percentage of wage and salary workers who were union members was 11.9 percent: in 1973 it was 24.0 percent; in 1983 it was 20.1 percent; in 1993 it was 15.8 percent.

But in 2010 only 6.9 percent of the private sector was unionized. In the public sector, the rate of unionization is 36.2 percent.

In 2009, public sector unions -- for the first time in U.S. history -- had more members than private sector unions. Hence the recent movement by Republicans to demonize public sector workers as parasites on the taxpayers, and the laws passed in Wisconsin and elsewhere to eliminate collective bargaining powers, as well as prohibiting automatic deduction of union dues from paychecks, a practice which has been shown to reduce dues collections by about a third.

"And it explains why Obama could mesmerize so many of us in 2008 while never straying far from the DLC game plan."

Agreed, but it also appears that Obama, while intelligent, is malleable: his political moves to the right, from early campaign days to now, can be seen in all those broken promises, some of which (in the realm of national security) didn't even require congressional support to fulfill. Unless we assume that he was a cynical imposter from the first, we have to assume that he was shjfted by the advisors surrounding him, both in his cabinet and behind the scenes, most of whom were provided or suggested by the Democratic Party leadership. That he is malleable is clear from the pathetic series of flip-flops and waffling demonstrated -- I've never seen a president so given to meaningless poses of insistence, followed almost inevitably by capitulations and reversals.

I almost wonder: was he groomed as a presidential candidate for the unusual combination of intelligence, charisma, and malleability he seems to possess?

[Emil Pulsifer]

"Ultimately, big money is the issue and it's not one we're going to solve in this post-Citizens United era."

Agreed. I think it's going to take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution: one restricting the "personhood" (as a legal concept) of corporations; I actually think that this could appeal to many across the political spectrum and form a bridge issue between different activist groups.

It might also be necessary to explicitly redefine "free speech" to exclude big money as a form of speech. The whole issue of Super-PACs funded in large part by a few tens of wealthy but unidentified billionaires reeks to high heaven.

[Petro]

Not apologizing in any way for Obama, but I found this interesting (regarding prosecuting Bush admin war crimes):

"Then Dean Chris Edley volunteered that he’d been party to very high-level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).

"Afterwards I told him that CIA friends confirmed that Obama would have been in danger..."

http://my.firedoglake.com/rogershuler/2011/09/07/obama-advisors-feared-a-coup-if-the-administration-prosecuted-war-crimes/

One wonders if, given the apparent willingness to apply this kind of force against a newly-sitting President, what other policy positions might have been lobbied like the Cosa Nostra... and in how many other Administrations past?

[terry dudas]

Emil - I didn't assume Obama was a cynical imposter from the beginning, I knew he was. And, I so said to your guru, Rogue, who has castigated my opinion ever since.
Well, you got him in your shorts now, & Obama is not going away without biting off your balls, boys. This guy was groomed for the job he's doing.

[Rogue Columnist]

Just curious, Terry. What was your option?

[Joar Pio]

Whether Obama is a cynical imposter or not, whether he's trapped or not, he's played the role to near perfection.

[Petro]

Joar Pio (your handle cracked me up) - for the record, I think he trapped himself with cynical aspiration.

[eclecticdog]

Iran, Uganda, CIA plot to kill Obama -- Obfuscation for the masses. I'm not ameliorated (wow, couldn't spell that without going way up the thread!).

[terry dudas]

Rogue - my option was to vote libertarian. I could not bring myself to cast a ballot for either of the other two candidates. Old-fashioned me, I HAD to vote for someone; that is how I was trained. You are now privy to one of my darkest secrets.