The Obama Administration just proposed to lower corporate taxes (bad idea) in exchange for closing some loopholes (good idea). Why don't they just close the loopholes? One feature, however, does strike me as interesting. The Administration proposes to tax manufacturers at even a lower rate than other corporations - 25% as opposed to 28%. It's probably insignificant but it does raise an important question: What do you make? If you make something of value, like bricks or windmills or cars or build homes, roads or schools, then you should be encouraged with a lower tax. If what you make is money, like investment banks and hedge funds, then maybe not. Can we begin to distinguish between "good" corporations and "bad" corporations as I suggested back in November, 2010? Yes we now have the very encouraging movement of the 99 Occupiers but with both Democrats and Republicans vying to be the spokespeople for corporate interests, as we rush headlong into fascism, it looks as if we the people, the 99, us Americans, are losing. Divide and conquer is a useful strategy in war, politics and chess. Can we find and promote good corporations that make something and obey laws against the bad corporations who are basically gamblers who hide their winnings off shore and take advantage of loopholes? They don't have to break the law like old fashioned gangsters because they own the politicians who they instruct to make the way they steal legal. What would a "good" corporation look like? Maybe we can set some guidelines - points for companies that ... 1) Make something of value or provide a service of value. 2) Have a workforce that is unionized or in some sort of worker ownership arrangement. 3) Is small, locally owned. 4) Transparent and accountable to the public.

Watching Mitt Romney in the South Carolina debate say he wouldn't apologize for being successful reminded me of the Willy Sutton's famous answer, "Mister Sutton, why do you rob banks?" "Well that's where the money is."

Willy thought it was an silly question with an obvious answer. He didn't assume any deeper meaning. He didn't think it was wrong to rob banks. Just as Mitt doesn't see anything wrong with forcing businesses into bankruptcy and putting hundreds of workers out of jobs as long as he and his fellow investors made a lot of money.

From a progressive perspective - nay from an American perspective - Willy is the less evil. He at least distinguished between a person's money and the banks money and didn't steal from individuals. In fact Willy probably would have agreed with Mitt about government regulators. Without so many police he could have robbed more banks more safely.

THREE CHEERS FOR THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT Story in AlterNet.org.

Party of The 99 Platform

What might be the platform of a new Party of The 99?

1) Progressive tax structure.

2) Promote US manufacturing and infrastructure construction - not speculation and gambling.

3) Tax speculative transactions on Wall Street to make rapid computer-generated speculation unprofitable.

4) Fund education and medical services for all.

5) End all wars of aggression and start by ending assassinations especially by drones.

6) Rationalize immigration policy

7) Revoke U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that decreed corporations had constitutional rights

Transparency should be required of the government (with few exceptions which would also soon be made public), all lobbyists and publicly held corporations.

Voting out most of the current Democrats and Republicans who serve corporate interests and replacing them with representatives of The 99 should be a peaceful and lawful goal. The 1% won't just give up, however. We should be prepared to see an increased police/military response using increasingly violent tactics.

Occupy Congress? What a great idea. And DC is warmer than Wall Street. In fact let's take over Congress. We can start with a platform-developing convention and start to create a new party of The 99.

9/26/11

I gave the Obama campaign $50 for 2012 - reluctantly. I guess I think it's worth $50 to support Obama in his last year even though I am very disappointed in his leadership. We are still at war and turning into a police state.

After the campaign thanked me I replied to Rufus as copied below, since I doubt that Rufus will ever read it or that I will ever hear from him.

Rufus, I wish Obama would stand up to the corporate gangsters and their political sycophants. Right now I'm saving my money and real organizing efforts for a program much more progressive than the Obama administration. If no more progressive group arises and Obama continues to be weak, I guess I'd better save my money for the coming hard times. Good luck, Jim Buckley

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Rufus Gifford wrote:

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your generous donation of 50.00.

This movement has always measured our strength not just in dollars but in the number of people who step up to own a piece of this campaign.

Will you take the next step and recruit five friends to join you today?

It’s quick and easy on our grassroots fundraising pages, and you’ll be playing a key role in bringing new people into the fold for 2012. Get started here:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Grassroots-Fundraising

Whether you bring in one new donor or 10, you’re building the foundation of this campaign -- and I think you’ll be surprised at how much you can do in a short time.

This movement would not be possible without supporters like you.

Thank you again for your generosity,

Rufus

Rufus Gifford National Finance Director Obama for America

Are There Any Good Corporations?

Chris Hedges, in his article in TruthDig at http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/power_and_the_tiny_acts_of_rebellion_20101122/ and in his new book, “Death of the Liberal Class” describes the increasing corporate control of American society and our spiral into fascism.

His writing is lucid and well reasoned. I agree with him almost completely. He speaks the truth.

But it is pretty dreary. Hedges ends the article with "I do not know if we can win this battle" but he urges us to keep on "resisting".

Hedges details how corporate America keeps us divided between meaningless dichotomies and cites Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrician from Maryland who he says was blacklisted by the corporate media and locked out of the debate on health care reform by the Democratic Party and liberal organizations such as MoveOn:

“The Democrats and the Republicans give the illusion that there are differences between them,” said Dr. Flowers. “This keeps the public divided. It weakens opposition. We fight over whether a Democrat will get elected or a Republican will get elected. We vote for the lesser evil, but meanwhile the policies the two parties enact are not significantly different.

That got me to wondering if we can't also play divide and conquer. Is Corporate America so monolithic? Are there no good corporations? Seem to me that lots of (mostly small) corporations are ethical, operate within the law and support American democracy. How about Apple and Southwest Airlines and Google? Most of the companies I know in the masonry industry are family-owned. For many the image of John Gault seems to be a goal.

Or is it the corporate hierarchical structure that makes corporate America inherently and necessarily at odds with and in contradiction with American ideas about democracy and freedom? As I quoted the New Yorker, writing about Wikileaks back in June: Considering that many corporations are as big and powerful as whole countries, it's instructive to note that in a corporation there is no right to vote, all power emanates from a central committee, there is no balance of power, no fourth estate, no judicial review and no freedom of speech. The economy is centrally planned, there is pervasive surveillance, no right of association and no opposition.

Google seems like a nice corporation. But as they get larger, richer and more powerful and have all this information about everyone, are they destined to become tyrannical?

I wonder if, like Democrats and Republicans, corporations can be categorized or divided and identified by their internal structure, motives or the good intentions of their owners and officers. Or is it all about and only about money?

Even if it is only about money, democracy and the creation of a forum where dissenting ideas can be discussed was thought by 18th century political theorists and by the American Founding Fathers to be a rational way to make decisions for governments. Why not for corporations? If you wanted to make a lot of money and make good decisions in a more of less sustainable way wouldn't democracy and freedom work within a corporation as well as for a government?

Some corporations have and even encourage unions or are collectively owned by their employees. Some may have board meetings and internal policies that reward innovation or even dissent. On the other hand the corporations that seem to be mostly in the news these days appear to be greedy, arrogant and willing to pollute, screw their employees and the public alike and break laws if can't outright make laws favorable to themselves and nobody else. Can we begin to list these corporate features and distinguish between the "good" corporations with democratic and rationalizing structures and "bad" corporations which operate more like North Korea or the Mafia?

Maybe corporate America isn't as monolithic as Hedges supposes and the way to "resist" is to understand these corporate differences and work the contradictions.