The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Fifteen

This was first published in May 2012


"Battle Over Budgets" Part Two/Austerity 

The huge deficits of the 2000s added trillions to the collective national debt by the time of the 2008 crisis. When voters elected Democrat Barack Obama as President, his economic team wanted a major stimulus bill passed by Congress to counter the economic decline. This was in contrast to many Republicans who wanted more tax cuts, naturally with much of the money going to the wealthiest Americans, and to their basic hands off of the economy beliefs. For the administration, with no money, there was only one way to get that money, DEBT. In the end a combination of spending proposals and tax cuts were enacted. Gradually, although faster than I thought possible, the economic plunge halted and the economy stabilized. The problem ever since has been, now what?* (See Part 14 for the headwinds that have also limited the recovery.)

Conservatives in America and the world over have been arguing that budget deficits are keeping the economy from expanding and that the tremendous debts will bring a day of reckoning.** Conservative governments in Europe have implemented "austere budgets" to cope with their respective debts, with much of the pain falling on those less then wealthy individuals and families. These policies have been especially implemented in Greece, Spain, and to some degree, in France and Britain. If you're an American and this all sounds familiar, it should, as Republicans, led by conservative Congressman Paul Ryan, have laid out plans to deal with the deficits, largely at the expense of everyone, but the wealthy, to whom he wants to give MORE tax cuts! These folks have used their policy ideas as an almost slogan of  "don't punish the job creators." They have attacked unions, attempting to destroy or to limit the labor movement. They have tried to "fix" unbroken election laws, thus limiting potential Democratic turnout. Not only that, but they want to remove all inheritance taxes*** so that huge estates can be passed on to the chosen few who may or may not have ever worked to earn any of it. So much for a meritocracy, and the creation of a true aristocracy. It seems to the world's conservatives that "austerity" is for everyone else, not for the wealthy or their corporate entities. Sacrifice is for everyone else, not for them, or perhaps better said in another slogan like, "Everyone else sacrifice for us."

The Occupy Wall Street movement has brought increased attention to the income disparity in America, and spinoffs in Europe and elsewhere ("Blockupy") have taken the ball and run with it, often to the cries of "We are the 99%." Protests in Europe have been large and frequent, with occasional outbreaks of violence. Recent elections in Greece and France have produced dramatic results, especially in France, where a socialist was elected president. In Greece the situation has been much more polarized, with a new government being in limbo. New elections have been called. In local elections in Germany, conservatives have lost ground, making the next national election suspenseful. The common thread seems to be that less than wealthy people aren't just rolling over for the wealthy interests, but they are taking to the streets, often led by the younger generations, and, when elections come, they are voting their own self interests. You have to start some place, and this is the signal "We aren't going to take it anymore!" Will it work? Now the discouraging part; probably not; at least not in the way some want it to work. Some countries have unrealistic spending levels, but the necessary changes will have input from those to be affected the most, and that's all we can expect in true democracies. People will not allow the wealthy and their allies to dictate how much they will cut others, while taking more money in tax cuts for themselves; money they don't need.

These movements have a chance to get this country and other nations of the world back from wealthy and corporate interests, but they must court the middle classes. Anarchists and extremism will only scare the very people who are needed to enact positive change.
       
 * Federal Reserve policy has also been very involved in the economy, but I'll try to keep this already complex subject limited.

** Just an observation here, as American conservatives didn't say much about all of the debt accumulated during the Reagan years; for instance, when the "Gipper's" economic team said "deficits don't matter." Nor did they rave or rant when George W. Bush was in office and debts climbed into the trillions.

*** Republicans are working at both the federal and state levels to remove estate taxes, as there are separate taxes at these levels.

WORD HISTORY:
Austere-The ultimate origins of this word are unclear, although some believe it to be Indo European, but it traces back to Greek "austeros,"^ which had the notion of "harsh," which seems to have also been applied food and drink that were bitter; that is, "harsh tasting." Latin borrowed the word from Greek as "austerus," with the same basic meaning. Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited the word as "austere," and English borrowed the word from French in the early 1300s. The modern meaning still retains the notion of "harsh, severe," but it can also mean "plain, simple," usually in terms of "showiness," but this retains the "harsh" notion, as in "deprived of, restricted in adornment." 

^ Greek is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the family tree.

We Can't Compare Now to 2007

Just a little spiel about the economy: the economic crisis and virtual collapse that occurred in the early fall of 2008 actually started out as a downturn in late 2007.^ Escalating housing prices, called a "bubble," as well as escalating stock prices, ah... called a "bubble," escalating oil prices, ah... called a "bubble," escalating personal debt of all types, and escalating government debt at all levels, which helped "cover up" the true weakness in the American economy, all contributed to an economy ripe for a major collapse. While unemployment was relatively low, many workers were struggling to meet obligations, as debt and low or stagnant wages put a crimp in the pocketbooks of many Americans, although not the wealthiest among us, who continued to reap the rewards of all of the above named problems, as they continued to "rape" the rest of us.

With the collapse of a couple of big banks and the teetering on the brink of collapse by others, the "bubbles" burst, and the economy and the stock market took a downward plunge, as unemployment went in the opposite direction, an upward spiral. The administration of President George W. Bush, previously devoted to "free markets," suddenly, but CORRECTLY, saw the need for GOVERNMENT ACTION. Thus began a period, which continued and escalated in the Obama administration, of action by the federal government to halt and stabilize the economy.^^

Now in the spring of 2012, we are better off, but problems remain, as we are tied more than ever to outside influences. History shows us that the effects of such dramatic downturns linger for years, and this downturn has been no exception. The reasons are really common sense. People defaulted on all sorts of loans, including millions of mortgages, and the use of credit actually shrank, sometimes by consumer choice, sometimes because terrified credit providers would not grant credit. Unemployment has declined, but it is still relatively high, and it may well remain that way for a while, even if economic matters continue to improve. One of the key problems worldwide will be how to reduce government debt and wean the world economy off of deficit spending by governments. The wheels could come off again, if some nations are unable to deal with their debts in a responsible way. American deficits have been declining, but they are still high. No one person or group of people have the answer to these problems, and don't believe anyone who says they can snap their fingers and all will be well. There are many irresponsible people who want to do away with the minimum wage, cut wages and benefits for workers, pretty much outlaw unions, etc, etc. If you notice, these are things about non-wealthy people. As soon as someone mentions tax hikes on wealthy people, these same people go ballistic, claiming the economy can't take any tax hikes. Folks, many of the wealthiest Americans have been doing better in the last couple of years than EVER, and this has been in a slow to moderate economic recovery. The idea that the rest of us can give up things, and that doesn't hurt the economy, but that a few hundred thousand dollars in taxes on people making millions will somehow bring the economy to a standstill is NONSENSE. We heard all of this before, and not all that long ago, in the early part of the Clinton administration, which proposed higher taxes on the well off. The doomsayers and protectors of great wealth told us the end was near, but the economy did the exact opposite, it BOOMED! Don't be fooled.

And another thing, we can't compare the economy of 2007/2008 with the economy in 2012, unless we're all ready to go on another credit binge. HOPEFULLY, many people have learned some lessons, so don't be fooled by those who say, "but in 2007," or "in 2008." Do you want to revisit that perilous time? Further, the devastating earthquake in Japan and the Gulf oil spill hurt the American economy at a time it was seemingly on the mend. Debt problems in certain European countries have made world financial markets jittery, as has a slowdown in China's economy, so continued progress for the American economy is far from certain.

^ The Great Depression started as a downturn in the early summer of 1929, but it didn't begin to turn into a rout until October of that year. For more on the Great Depression, see my series on the subject beginning with: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/08/great-depression-part-one.html

^^ There were similar actions taken in other countries, as the economic collapse was not just in America, but worldwide.

WORD HISTORY:
But-This little and very common word is actually from a compound, "be," not the modern word, rather what became modern "by," and "utana," a Germanic relative of "out," which meant "out, outside." I covered "by" elsewhere, http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/10/german-military-leadersnazi-erajodl.html . "Utana" traces back to the Indo European root "ud/ut." West Germanic* had the compound word "bitana," which meant "by the outside, at the outside." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "butan," which meant "outside of;" thus also, "besides, except." It wasn't until the 1200s that the word gained more popular usage as a conjunction, as it previously was purely adverbial. Later the word became "boute(n)/buten," before the modern version. Low German Saxon and Frisian have "buten," which still means "outside;" Dutch has "buiten," with the basic meaning "outside," although also with the meaning "but," in certain circumstances. High German once had a form, BUT it died out before the modern era.

* Germanic has three branches: North, East and West. English is West Germanic, and therefore its closest Germanic relatives are German, Low German, Frisian, Dutch, and Afrikaans.

Where Things Stand & A Catch 22

Back in January of this year, I sort of took a look at where the country was, economically speaking. Now we're at the midpoint for 2010, so it's time to take another look. The Obama Administration likes to tout the fact that, during their first year in office, the economy "didn't fall off the cliff." Okay, I'll give them that, and I'll remind regular readers that I said prior to the 2008 election, that whoever won the presidency would probably end up being the loser, as the economic plunge and its aftermath would make life difficult for them, politically (not to count millions of Americans suffering the direct consequences).

So where's the economy now, going into the July Fourth weekend? The economy has gained more than a half million jobs so far this year, but that has to be put into the perspective that the "plunge" caused the loss of about 8 MILLION jobs! Now the unemployment rate sits at 9.5%, although counting people who are underemployed, it is in the upper teens.* The recent U.S. Census brought about "temporary" hiring, but many of those jobs are now over. The bad news is, private business hiring is slow, with only 83,000 hirings in June. The good news is, the "under employement" rate did take a good drop. The reason this "could" be good news is, employers will increase hours for current workers first, before they hire new workers. Let's hope! In fairness to the Obama Administration, the President and others in the administration have been saying from the first, that unemployment would be slow to fall. Some private economists have said it will take four or five YEARS to recover from the mess, and that estimate probably does not assume a major slowdown or even another period of negative growth in that time period. Now, my crystal ball is a bit cloudy today, but all is not well, and none of us should need a crystal ball to tell us that. The "oil spill" in the Gulf of Mexico has got to have an impact on employment in that area of the country, although I suppose some people have been hired in the clean-up effort. Even "if" they stop the leak this evening, the consequences will linger for some time, possibly years.

In other parts of the world, all is not "moonlight and roses," either. Europe has been in a separate (at least at this point) financial crisis of its own lately. Overspending by governments, presently most prominently by Greece, including "locked in" payments for a variety of benefits, have caused major financial problems, which in turn, have brought about attempts to rein in spending, which in turn has brought about civil unrest. All of this has been complicated by the economic down turn in the last couple of years, and from what I understand, from the purchase by some countries of securities marketed by American bankers. Yep! As Ronald Reagan would say, "There they go again!" This isn't gospel, but from what I understand at this time, that magnificent edifice of wealth, Goldman-Sachs, sold Greece (and other European countries) securities, often backed by ah.....American mortgages, including ....ah....subprime mortgages. "Supposedly," Goldman-Sachs told these governments what a great deal these securities were, but at the same time they were telling wealthy American clients to get out of these securities before they imploded. "Supposedly," Goldman-Sachs owned a large number of these securities, and its leaders were in the process of "dumping" as many of these securities as possible before the collapse came. C'mon now! American bankers do such a thing? Ah....all I can say is...."There they go again!"*** How much any of this will affect America's economy is unknown, although Fed Chairman Bernanke just recently said it wouldn't hurt us. Forget not, a few years ago it was said that the mortgage crisis wouldn't hurt the economy. Yeah, right!

Basic finance isn't rocket science. Look at it this way: You're employed and making decent money. You develop a lifestyle. You buy a house, so you have a mortgage. You buy a new car, and this adds another payment. You take a vacation, and you put all or a portion of the cost on your credit card, or cards; more payments. Then the economy gives away. Even if you keep your job, maybe you have your pay cut significantly.** You have these fixed payments. They haven't gone away. Something has to give. Even if you "save for a rainy day," if you actually lose your job, in an economy like now, that amount may not be enough.

Now, back to our economy. State and local government budgets, including for education, are in deep trouble. When the stimulus bill was passed about a year and a half ago, there was a certain amount of money that went to help state and local governments in an attempt to prevent layoffs from these entities. I guess, at least to some extent, it did help on that front, but now the "medicine" has been cut or stopped, and whether the patients can now get by on their own is very doubtful in my mind. California's budget has been a mess for years, and now they are really under the gun. Governor Schwarzenegger just issued an order reducing California employees' pay to minimum wage, because they are in a budget crisis. All over the country state and local governments are trying to bring revenues and expenditures into balance, but at great cost to many people, and to the overall economy. This whole situation could prove to be more than just a thorn in the side of the economy, but it may even cause a "double dip" recession. For the "free marketers," they'll say, "It will weed out unnecessary and inefficient programs," and there is a certain amount of truth to that.**** Of course, some also have argued that Uncle Sam should have just stood by and let nature take its course with the overall economy. Remember folks, those at the top don't worry about their next meal, or their child's next pair of shoes, or their kids' schooling. It is easy for them to make these "do nothing" arguments, and I understand that. What troubles me is that some middle class/working class folks seem to be on that same page.

If nothing had been done by Uncle Sam, and it certainly was NOT perfect, including the Federal Reserve, my guess is, many of these same folks would be wondering about those hardships I just mentioned above, because they would now either be unemployed or underemployed. I know many Americans, including this one, are concerned about the terrible budget deficit, and with good reason. That's one of the reasons the "winner" in 2008, may end up being the "loser." The Bush Era left the country in terrible debt,^ unable to properly finance an "anti depression/recession" package. So, the private credit bubble that so helped ravage the economy is now being combated by a trade off to public debt.^^ Not good, but something had to be done. The current administration is between a rock and a hard place, with trillions of dollars having been lost by the economy during the downturn.^^^ "Public" money has been borrowed to try to help make up for some of that lost money, but whether America is on the precipice of another downturn remains to be seen. The other day I heard on television that it is estimated 40% of our current budget deficit is due to the recession. So that means, if we don't get the economy growing more, that deficit can't be easily cut. On the other hand, the money needed to stimulate the economy is borrowed. What a "Catch 22!" (A Word History is below the notes)

* Underemployment essentially means that some workers still have jobs, so they aren't counted as unemployed, but they have had hours cut, or even gone to part time status.

** This might include no overtime, or you might not get bonuses, or you might even be put on part time.

*** In fairness, to my knowledge, all the facts have yet to be determined.

**** My guess is, most Americans don't want police and firefighters cut (and probably teachers), but in some cases it may be necessary.

^ The budget surpluses inherited by George W. Bush evaporated, and replaced by trillions in debt over his eight years in office. Neither the Iraq War nor the Afghan War was paid for, nor was the prescription drug benefit added to Medicare (thus further weakening that program, financially), on top of those things, tax cuts were given, with the bulk of those cuts going to upper income people, including many of those who got us into the current mess. As I've noted before, Bush was terribly worried about the "plight of billionaires and multi-millionaires."

^^ What I mean is, for instance, banks' bad (private) debts were taken over by the government in many cases, but the money given to the banks was not in the U.S. Treasury, but rather had to be borrowed (public debt). To be fair, some of those government loans have been paid back, with interest. Things aren't just limited to banks or car companies, but to all the other measures taken to try to stop the "plunge" that occurred. All of that money was borrowed by Uncle Sam.

WORD HISTORY: 

Three-This goes back to Indo European "trejes," which gave Old Germanic "thrijiz." This then was passed down to its Germanic descendants as: Old English "thri/thrie/threo," prior to our modern spelling, standard German has "drei," Low German dialect has "dree" and "drie," Dutch also has "drie," Swedish, Norwegian and Danish all have "tre," and Icelandic has "þrír," which is essentially the equivalent of "thrir."

Obama: Oil, The GOP & The Media

Regarding the oil mess in the Gulf, the President is hemmed in by politics and the political climate in the country at this point in time. What I mean is, when this first happened, BP, the oil giant doing the drilling and reaping the profits from the well, issued statements saying that things weren't all that serious. It wasn't until the live camera showed Americans (and the World) what was really happening that everyone could see that BP's statement of "not serious" was something that definitely was "not serious." If the administration had ordered BP to do certain things, just imagine the reaction from some Republicans, especially the hard rightwing: "They're trying to take over the country!" "They want to order private companies around, is your company next?" "They actually want to regulate the oil industry!" Or, if government authorities had essentially assumed control and started doing whatever was thought necessary to contain the situation (something I don't believe they actually had the overall capability of doing, at least not immediately), then those same Republicans would have said, "They're bailing out a private company with taxpayer money!" If you're a hardline Republican, admit that what I'm saying is right.

When it became obvious that the magnitude of the disaster was much greater than "not serious," some Republicans then turned to: "Where's the government?" Talk about having it both ways! Which way is this, GOP? Too much government or not enough? After 28 years of government bashing (prior to the Obama Administration), and executive control of government for 20 of those 28 years, the government has been run into the ground, especially on the regulatory side, where so many on the political right have prevailed with "the best regulation, is no regulation!" This political situation is a valid point, and does give the President a little "cover," but not much, in my book.

With hurricane inflicted damages, for instance, the government should move immediately, and actually BEFORE the storm hits an area, since hurricanes don't just develop in the time it takes to watch "Sixty Minutes," which would be...let's see...an hour. See! Give me time and I can figure things out. Besides, hurricanes aren't owned and operated by BP, Walmart, UPS, or even The Weather Channel. The point is, "natural disasters" require government at all levels. In this present situation, we have a private company, BP, which not only is private, but based in a foreign country, the United Kingdom. Hmm, if I were one of those rightwing conspiracy nuts, I might say, "I think they're trying to get even with America for what happened in 1776! And furthermore, I think Obama is in on it. Just think, his father was from Kenya....and Kenya was once a British colony! Ah ha! There's the connection!" (If these folks spent half as much time devoted to helping humanity, as they spend on such nonsense, the world would be a much better place!)

Now, Obama and his administration have not handled the overall situation well, in my opinion. Blaming the media doesn't cut it with me (and that goes for BOTH political parties!). The media is what it is, and he and his people have to deal with it. The other day the President mentioned that he was on the Gulf coast not long after the spill happened, but that the media didn't cover it. Okay folks, the idea that the White House couldn't arrange media coverage of a presidential trip to a potential (at that time) disaster site is nonsense! Further, the President needs to toughen his hide, as he appears far too thin-skinned in this 24/7 media coverage age. Some in the media have criticized his lack of "anger," and while I understand that, he just doesn't seem to be much of the kind of guy to go bonkers, even if he knew "whose ass to kick," to quote the President, but he damned well better learn that role, as this is about governing, not campaigning for president.* Part of the job of being President is expressing "our" collective emotions, something this President seems uncomfortable in doing. He needs to forget the "I'm going to change Washington" nonsense, too. During the campaign, he and his aides were able to get around the media to some degree by going directly to supporters via the 'Net, and this may have instilled a sense of "I'll change Washington." Not so now! Further, there's no question the media had a love affair with Obama back during the campaign, just as McCain had their love back in 2000, but now, they want to get a story or develop a story further, and if Obama and his folks think they can change this, they will suffer the consequences.**

Americans tend to like bold action. If the President had really taken charge, put BP on the spot right off by demanding "up front money" to cover containment/clean-up costs and reparations for Gulf coast businesses, do you think the public would have ignored Republican claims that "he's trying to take over the country?" Or would we agree with the rightwing, because we wouldn't have known all the things we have come to know now?

Having said all of the above, "if" the spill is soon stopped and the oil spread contained, Obama may come out looking better than Randy thinks he will, but the effects of this whole situation, and I'm NOT saying that he could have waved a magic wand and made things right, are potentially going to last for years, and not only environmentally and economically, but perhaps even in our dealings with the UK. Such things can seriously diminish a president's reputation. (A Word History is below the notes)

* Ronald Reagan had much the same overall "get along" temperament as Obama, but Reagan came from the world of Hollywood, and he understood how images can have an impact on the public and how the media (even well before 24/7 coverage in those days) wants a story, and how they develop a narrative. I just forget the exact incident, but Israel had done something that made Reagan and his administration look foolish, and it didn't take long before a stern-faced Reagan was shown (in still pictures) on the telephone to the Israeli prime minister. Did he fake it? (the anger mode, I mean) Maybe, but regardless, he understood what the situation required, and how the presidency is more than just about being the chief executive or commander-in-chief. And, let's not forget Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain."

** Herbert Hoover, a Republican, won the presidency without ever having held elected public office. He was very bright and was a hands on kind of executive; after all, he was an engineer, a profession that often requires micro-management. Trapped by the collapse of the economy during the opening years of the Great Depression, Hoover failed to grasp the public leadership role of the presidency. Instead of trying to demonstrate his concern for average Americans struggling to get by, he distanced himself from such "staged" events. He loved children, and one story went something like this: One day when out for his daily walk, he came upon a group of young boys playing baseball. The boys came over to see the President, and one climbed up on his knee. The usually "stiff" president showed his "warm" side. One of his aides told the President that he should come back tomorrow and that he would arrange for photographers to be there for pictures to show the human side of the beleaguered chief executive. Hoover refused, not wanting to stoop to things he saw as gimmicks. The public became very disconnected from Hoover, and he lost the next election in a landslide. (I'm not saying this was the only reason for his defeat!)

WORD HISTORY:
Gulf-The origins of this word are uncertain, but Greek had "kolphos/kolpos," which gave Latin "colfos," which then became Italian "golfo," and then Old French "golfe." All of these forms had similar meanings: "bay, gulf," but initially in Greek it meant "bosom," before taking on the "bay/gulf" meaning, supposedly taken from the enclosed nature of a bosom (a "gulf" being a relatively enclosed body of water). In Latin it also took on the added meaning of "chasm/abyss," which seems to have been passed on to its offspring in Italian and French, and carried over to English when it borrowed the word from French during the 1300s, first as "goulf," before moving on to the modern spelling.

Oil Debate "Spills" Over

For quite some time, in response to the nation's energy needs, many voices, mainly in the Republican Party, have shouted, "Drill baby drill!" President Obama recently went along with plans for more offshore oil drilling. Now we have witnessed what is fast becoming the biggest oil catastrophe in history. The oil spill in the Gulf Of Mexico not only threatens wildlife there, but it threatens the jobs of many Americans employed in the fishing and seafood business so dependent upon the Gulf's resources. Further, beach areas are threatened. Supporters of more drilling say, "This hasn't happened since 1969," but I say, "It only takes once!"

We have to be honest with ourselves. This country has let the energy situation slip away from it over the decades. Democrats, and certainly Republicans, have shied away from anything that might inconvenience us for a time. All of this has led to an ever increasing dependence by America on foreign oil supplies. Certainly a case can be made that without our money flowing out of this country and into other countries' bank accounts, a number of them downright hostile to America, the terrorist threat of recent years would not be as great.

We and the developed world are dependent on energy to fuel our economies. We are caught in a very bad situation due to our failure to address this problem decades ago. I'm not against trying to find new sources of oil in the short term, but we've got to kick the habit, or we will continue to finance the very people who hate us most. We almost certainly will help finance the development of nuclear weapons by our opponents, namely Iran. Now, you might say that we don't buy oil from Iran, but that's irrelevant, since we consume oil from other suppliers, forcing some oil-hungry countries to seek oil from Iran. You can't get around this.

As for "drill baby drill," it's easy for some to say such things, since they don't live anywhere near areas of potential oil disasters. Having been born and raised in a coal mining area, it's easy to urge more coal use, and the jobs that can create, but ask how many people want to live next to facilities that burn coal. (Pardon while I cough) Like with crime, we all want the criminals locked up, but we don't want prisons near us.

WORD HISTORY:
Oil-This goes back to Greek "elaion," which meant "olive tree," this coming from Greek "elaiva," but where this came from is uncertain, although it is thought by many to come from an eastern Mediterranean language. In ancient times, olive oil was the most common form of oil. Latin picked up the word from Greek as "oleum," and Old French, a Latin-based language, continued with "oile." The "French" that developed in England after the Norman Conquest, called Anglo-French, had "olie," and this gave English "oile/oyle/ile." English "supposedly got the word in the 1100s, but I also found sources that noted Anglo-Saxon (Old English) having "aele/ele." This would suggest that we got the word earlier than the 1100s, as the other Germanic languages also use forms of the word, all apparently borrowed from the Latin form (again, with Latin having gotten the word from Greek). German has "Öl," Dutch has "olie," and Swedish has "olja," for examples in other Germanic languages. Of course, over time, the word came to mean more than just oilve oil, and you need only check out the price of gasoline at your neighborhood station to know what I mean.

The Free Market Chant

A couple of weeks ago, I saw Karen Hughes, a former close aide and continued friend of President George W. Bush, on television. I believe it was on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” When it was mentioned that the economy had not only stopped falling, but that it had actually shown slight growth (the show was on prior to the most recent economic data announced the week of February 1), Hughes quickly awarded credit for the positive developments to the Bush Administration. Not only that, it was noted how the Obama Administration had continued many of the same Bush initiatives on the economy. Now, is this claim true? Yes, to some extent, but……

Hughes claimed credit, but she also left out the part about responsibility for the near collapse. This kind of reminded me of a person who stabs you in the gut, but then goes to the hospital and gives blood for your transfusion, and then takes credit for having saved your life. Of course you wouldn’t have been in the hospital on the brink of death had it not been for this same person’s sharp knife. Throughout the Bush years we heard about “free markets” and that government had no place in business affairs. When oil and gasoline prices soared on the whims of greedy investors, beating down many an American family, the Bush folks kept up the chant of “free markets, can’t do anything about it.” When millions of Americans were losing their homes, or threatened with such, the chant continued, “free markets, can’t do anything about it.” When trade deals took American jobs overseas, or resulted in decreased wages/benefits for American workers, we not only got the same answer of “free markets, can’t do anything about it,” but we got more trade deals! *

When the cumulative effects hit home, something neither the administration nor the Federal Reserve seem to have anticipated (DUH!), the “free market” chant stopped, and Americans were told that “Uncle Sam,” long the belittled, or even hated, relative of the free marketers, was needed to prop up “free market” businesses. The “free market” idea of “sink or swim” was turned on its head as, “swim, but if you can’t, Uncle Sam will jump in and save your behind.” So, Karen Hughes needs to retool her message. “If you want to take credit for the sunshine, you’ve got to take the blame for the rain.” ** And it hasn’t stopped raining on millions of Americans. (A word history is after the notes)

* George W. Bush did give protection to the American steel industry during his first term, but this seems to have been purely a political move in preparation for the 2004 reelection bid, as steel producing states were seen as critical for the election. Gradually the protections were removed, and within about 18 months, they were gone. Two points: this is not to only smack Bush for the political move on steel protections, as politicians in BOTH parties have made, and continue to make moves based purely on politics all of the time, but then again, that is our system. I said the protections were “gradually” removed. In my opinion, if the trade deals had been put in place the same way, GRADUALLY, there may not have been the same pain for American workers. Unleashing foreign goods produced by people who make only a fraction of the wages/benefits of American workers was not in our interest. Later, during the financial meltdown, the poor negotiating by the administration reared its head again, as banks and insurance companies were given hundreds of billions in bailouts, but with few if any strings. This led to billions in bonuses paid to executives within these industries, thus infuriating the beleaguered American public.

** The same standard applies to the Obama Administration.

WORD HISTORY:
Heft/Hefty/Heavy-All of these words are from the same Old Germanic base that gave English "heave" (see previous "Word Histories"), which meant "to lift," with the idea of "throwing" coming a bit later. Old Germanic "khabiz" was a noun that meant "weight," and which spawned the adjective "khabigaz," or "weighty," if you will. This was passed down to Old English as "hefig" (the "k" sound obviously was not prominent, and died out), and later as "heavy." Dutch, a close relative of English still has "hevig," but the other Germanic languages, all once having had a form related to the English word, have found other words to express "heavy." The Dutch word took the more figurative meaning "intense," but let's not forget our extended meaning of "heavy" as something that is "heavy or weighs" on our minds; and the notion of "intensity" is certainly present. Heft developed in English during the 1400s (one source says 1600s) and meant "heaviness/weight," and hefty came from it during the 1800s. The form "heft" seems to have developed from the examples of "weave" and "weft" (seldom used anymore) and "thieve" and "theft," and the past participle of "heave" was "heft."

Why Are We So Angry?

It certainly seems that America is one angry nation. The question is, "Why?" Actually, there are lots of answers, as this is an individual sort of thing, but with some groups of angry Americans connected by the same or similar anger. The George W. Bush era, although not without some foundations produced during the Clinton Era and during previous administrations, seems to have brought about much of this anger, although some Republicans probably won't admit to that. The 9/11 attacks galvanized the country in support of the President. He decided to hit back by sending troops into Afghanistan to go after the bad guys. One problem was, he never asked us to pay for that war. It has gone on seemingly forever, and what first was a war supported by a huge percentage of Americans, has now sunk woefully low in public opinion polls. Then just a short while later, Bush ordered our military into Iraq and he didn't ask us to pay for that war either. That war continues, too. Within about a year, the Iraq war began to grate on the nerves of Americans as casualties mounted and there was obviously no plan on how to get our troops out of there. This war, especially, cast a shadow over the Bush Administration, as the announced reasons for going into Iraq changed as time passed. First we were told it was to get Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which could be passed onto Al Qaida terrorists. When the weapons were never found, we were then told that it was to get Saddam out of power, as he had had ties to Al Qaida (something that has never been proven, and has been refuted in many ways) and then that was augmented by our desire to establish democracy in Iraq. The whole saga (which still has no final chapter) made many Americans skeptical of Bush and his advisers. The Afghan war was put on the back burner, but that didn't stop the pot from simmering; something we have come to realize within this last year or so. President Obama decided early on to send more American troops to Afghanistan, and to increase that number even more just recently. The President's decision has bumped up support for the Afghanistan war a bit in public opinion polls, but the last I saw, it was just barely over 50%.*

To me, the Bush Era was filled by an American anxiety. The results of free trade policies began to hit home more and more, as American companies transferred a number of operations overseas, along with the jobs that had supported those operation here, to take advantage of cheap labor costs.** Wages and benefits for the average American worker stagnated, as home based companies struggled to compete against foreign goods, produced in countries where workers were often paid only a few dollars a day. This brought about enormous trade deficits of tens of billions of dollars each month; that is, America was importing (buying) more goods than we were exporting (selling).*** Tax cuts were enacted that benefited the very wealthiest Americans.**** Federal budget deficits soared. The stock market boomed, making the wealthiest Americans even wealthier. Oil and gasoline prices soared, making the wealthiest Americans even wealthier. Natural gas prices soared (temporarily), making the wealthiest Americans even wealthier. All in all, there was a massive flow of wealth from lower and middle class Americans into the bank accounts of the very wealthiest Americans (and foreign nations), who took their added money and further invested it in products, driving up the prices on everything in sight, from corn to wheat to dairy products. The tremendous surge in energy prices further drove up prices on EVERYTHING, picking the pockets of EVERY American, except for the very wealthiest, who earned more and more from such things. The income gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us grew to levels not seen since the 1920s, and this was acknowledged even by Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and George W. Bush. The unemployment rate gradually dropped from the recession that followed 9/11, falling below 5% with about two years to go in Bush's presidency, but many Americans didn't feel secure. Millions of Americans were either in foreclosure, or had notice of such, and millions more were filing bankruptcy. Companies moved plants overseas or companies long established in an area changed locations faster than NBC changed Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien.

Then came the collapse. Banks teetered, and several big banks were merged into other banks to save them. One big bank, Lehman, failed. Panic hit, and Wall Street retreated; no "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" for those of the "sit on their ass class." Unemployment soared, federal budget deficits soared even more, budget constraints began affecting more and more states and local governments. The Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve moved to save the banking system from total collapse. The Fed lowered interest rates to zilch. They also gave protection to some non-banks, by calling them "banks," and entitling them to borrow money from the Fed to stay afloat. The Bush Administration pushed through Congress, with much Democratic backing, a bailout plan to save the American banking industry. Later we would find out that billions of dollars were given to banks with no conditions! Further, we also found out that wealthy banking officials were knocking down millions in "bonus" money each year, even though their companies were floundering. So, run your company into the ground, get rewarded! The Obama Administration came to office and essentially picked up where their predecessors left off. They moved to save the American auto industry with billions in bailouts, but also forced the auto industry to come up with plans to show how they could become profitable again.

With millions out of work, budget deficits mounting by the hundreds of billions of dollars, foreclosures escalating even above the already records numbers, the President and his advisers chose to spend political capital on reforming the nation's health care system, with potential costs around a trillion dollars or more over ten years. This, along with sending more troops to Afghanistan, with the added expense of doing such, and getting a Congress devised "stimulus" plan of about $800 billion passed, made many Americans feel that the President was trying to do too much.

From what I can see, there are a lot of different elements to American anger, and not everyone's anger is about the same things, except there does seem to be a consensus (many of the left and many of the right) that they are VERY angry at the bankers, and possibly big business in general. Some on the political right are upset over the deficits, although most were not as vocal about the mounting red ink when Republicans were in charge of the national credit card. Others are angry over government intrusion into "free markets;" that is, into the banking and auto industries, and attempts at reforming the health care system. Others still are angry about some homeowners getting help or special deals to try to prevent foreclosure.^ Some analysts have said they feel that some on the right have pent up anger from the Bush years, as they didn't like many of the things he did, but they kept their mouths shut. Now, with a Democrat in the White House, they have vented their frustration. Probably some truth to that. Others, hopefully small in number, but I have to include this, are just plain angry that a black man is president. They can't stand that a man of a black father and white mother could hold the highest office in the land. My "guess" is, some of these have latched onto one or more of the other issues I've mentioned as a form of cover. On the political left, many are angry that the war issues have not been totally dealt with, especially now that there is an escalation in Afghanistan. Others are angry that some advisers to the President have strong ties to Wall Street, or were involved in supposed oversight of Wall Street (I'd have to say that some on the political right, feel this way too). Others are angry that their own pet issues have not received high priority by the administration. Still others are angry that regulations have not yet been put in place to curb Wall Street or the businesses deemed "too big to fail" (although that "appears" to be changing).

So, there are a lot of things to be angry about, but we don't all agree on those things; in fact, some run counter to one another, as in a support FOR government regulation, and an opposition TO government involvement in business matters. We'll have to see how things develop. No doubt in my mind, IF unemployment does begin to recede, we'll see the anger level begin to cool. (A word history is after the notes)

* Public opinion polls DO MATTER! I know, lots of people don't like to hear that, at least not if those polls are contrary to their own position. Polls give us some idea of what Americans are thinking about on important issues. Yes, they can be flawed, or they can be skewed by how questions are asked, but if we take the main polls and compare them, it gives us a pretty good idea of public opinion. Unlike election polls that might show one candidate leading by a few points, only to lose the election, public opinion polls on issues don't rely on people actually having to cast a ballot, or changing their minds at the last minute (issue polls are typically an ongoing thing). I'm NOT saying they're perfect, but they're all we have, and they are NOT going away. In our system, political leaders who dare too much to ignore public opinion, especially if that opinion is heavily weighted to one side of an issue, can face harsh reality.

** This is not just a swipe at G.W. Bush, as much of the basic legislation on free trade was supported by, and passed during, the Clinton Administration, with support from all living ex-presidents at that time (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr.), and a televised debate with Vice President Gore in support of the free trade legislation, and Ross Perot in opposition. I think G.W. Bush took free trade to a whole new level, however, with little regard for American workers, except for duties on foreign steel for about a year.

*** I'm putting this simplistically, but previously, for instance, if a product was made in a country with cheap labor, we imposed a duty (tax) on it when it entered the country, thus driving up the price of that product, so that our own products remained competitive.

**** And not with 60 votes required in the Senate. They were ushered through in a process called "Reconciliation," which required only a majority vote. You've got to watch these politicians (in both parties). They tout certain procedures when those procedures advance their own cause, only to scream "foul" when the same process is used or threatened to be used by their opponents.

^ I heard Joe Scarborough of "Morning Joe," on cable station MSNBC, the other day mention that some people are angry because they are part of "the 90% who paid their mortgages." Now, I like Joe, and he's a VERY smart guy, but that seems a bit nasty. After all, many of those who have been foreclosed on never dreamed their job would go overseas, or that they would get laid off, or their pay would be cut. Further, many Americans NEVER asked for help during their foreclosure process, past or ongoing.

WORD HISTORY:
Sound-This is the adjective form, as English has several words spelled and pronounced the same. This form, meaning "safe, sturdy, healthy," goes back to Indo European "swen," which gave West Germanic "gasundaz," which seems to have developed from Old Germanic "sundas." The West Germanic form (English is a West Germanic language) gave Old English "gesund," with the meaning of "healthy, safe, uninjured." Over time, English altered the spelling a little, and dropped the prefix. Close relatives Dutch and German kept the prefix, as Dutch has "gezond" and German has "gesund." By the way, German "Gesundheit," the word said after someone sneezes, means "health/healthiness." It can also be used as we use "Cheers," when having a drink. The idea of "health/safety" also gave English the extended meaning of something being "sturdy." So we have uses like "safe and sound," and also "that building is sound," and the financial meaning "that company is sound." This also seems to be the same word as in "sound sleep," I suppose with the idea being that good sleep is "healthy."

The Economic Fallout Continues

The Obama Administration likes to tout the fact that, during their first year in office, the economy "didn't fall off the cliff." Okay, I'll give them that, and I'll remind regular readers that I said prior to the 2008 election, that whoever won the presidency would probably end up being the loser, as the economic plunge and its aftermath would make life difficult for them, politically (not to count millions of Americans suffering the direct consequences). So, as we begin 2010, where are we, economically speaking?

Well, the economy has stopped plunging downward, and it even has seen some minimal growth, but the emphasis has to be on "minimal." A year ago the nation was losing in excess of a half million jobs every month. Now the unemployment rate sits at 10% (although counting people who have gone to part time work, it may well be in the mid to upper teens), and the number of job losses has slowed considerably, to "only" 85,000 in December 2009. We always have to remember that if YOU are one of those 85,000, "only" is not an important word to you. So, while things certainly are not great, economically speaking, there has been some improvement. So what troubles me?

I'm a chronic worrier, and one of the things that has me worried (notice I said "one of the things") is the dire situation in many states and local communities. State and local government budgets, including for education, are in deep trouble. When the stimulus bill was passed early last year, there was a certain amount of money that went to help state and local governments in an attempt to prevent layoffs from these entities. I guess, at least to some extent, it did help on that front, but now the "medicine" has been cut or stopped, and whether the patients can now get by on their own is very doubtful in my mind. California's budget has been a mess for years, and now they are really under the gun. All over the country state and local governments are trying to bring revenues and expenditures into balance, but at great cost to many people, and to the overall economy. This whole situation could prove to be more than just a thorn in the side of the economy, but it may even help cause a "double dip" recession.

For the "free marketers," they'll say, "It will weed out unnecessary and inefficient programs," and there is a certain amount of truth to that. Of course, some also have argued that Uncle Sam should have just stood by and let nature take its course with the overall economy. To me, that's a bunch of nonsense. Remember folks, those at the top don't worry about their next meal, or their child's next pair of shoes, or their kids' schooling. It is easy for them to make these "do nothing" arguments, and I understand that. What troubles me is that some middle class/working class folks seem to be on that same page. If nothing had been done by Uncle Sam, including the Federal Reserve, my guess is, many of these same folks would be wondering about those things I just mentioned above, because they would now either be unemployed or underemployed.

I know many Americans, including this one, are concerned about the terrible budget deficit, and with good reason. That's one of the reasons the "winner" in 2008, may end up being the "loser." The Bush Era left the country in terrible debt,* unable to properly finance an "anti depression/recession" package. So, the private credit bubble that so helped ravage the economy is now being combated by a trade off to public credit. Not good, but something had to be done. The overall outcome is still to be determined, but in the meantime, watch those state and local situations, and keep your fingers crossed.

* The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were never paid for, nor was the Medicare prescription drug plan. Of course that didn't stop Bush from cutting taxes, and the wealthy benefited tremendously from Bush's tax cuts and his administration's lax regulatory philosophy. Income inequity grew ever wider, with many middle class folks actually losing ground.

WORD HISTORY:
Nimble-The roots of this word go back to Indo European "nem," which had the notion of "dividing, dealing out." The Old Germanic offshoot was "neman(an)," but rather than the notion of "dividing," the meaning veered to the result of something being divided or dealt out; that is, "take, accept." (See note below) This gave Old English "naemel," with the notion of "take" still very much present, as it meant "quick on the uptake/take in knowledge quickly." By the 1300s, this "quickness to learn" began to fade, as the meaning broadened to "quick afoot," and then also, "agile," and the spelling changed to "nemel." Later still (1400s or 1500s) the spelling changed again and the "b" was added, presumably because it made pronunciation easier, although some believe it was copied from the spelling of "limb."

Note: In Old English the verb "niman" meant "to take," but this was later replaced by "take." Modern German has "nehmen," which still means "to take."

McCain Steps Up To The Plate

Finally!!! John McCain has returned once again as the guy many Americans, including many in the media, fell in love with in 2000. McCain, a Republican, has joined forces with Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, to propose legislation to restore some sense of sanity to the banking system. Their idea isn't new; rather it is about 76 years old. By proposing such legislation, McCain is making the admission that at least part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was effective. What is this proposal, you ask? (Ah, you DID ask, didn't you?) It is a proposal to reinstate the "Glass-Steagall Act of 1933." This law kept commercial banks in their traditional banking role. It prohibited banks from using depositors' money in casino-like ventures and investments. That role was left to investment banks. The law worked, too! It worked so well for decades that some "free market" conservative (libertarian?) politicians couldn't stand it! As wealthy investors (better known to me as, "the sit on their ass class") gained political strength since the early Reagan years, one of their best front men, Phil Gramm, a conservative Texas Democrat turned Republican, took a lead position in dismantling this regulatory law.

You remember Phil, don't you? About six months before the final plunge of the economy in 2008, old Phil declared that there was nothing wrong with the American economy except that "Americans are a bunch of whiners!" I tell ya, I was so hurt, I couldn't stop sobbing all day. With his statement all over the news, just days later old Phil stepped down as the chief economic advisor to the presidential campaign of.......John McCain!

Now, old Phil was not alone in his efforts to return the country to pre-Depression lack of regulation, no siree! Most, if not ALL, congressional Republicans voted for the measure, but they were joined by a number of Democrats, and enjoyed the support of the Clinton economic team, including one Larry Summers. Let's see...where have I heard that name lately? Oh! He's the Obama Administration's economic advisor!

At least McCain has seen the damage wrought by the lack of regulation and is now attempting to rectify matters. So, government DOES have a role! What is particularly troubling is that this rectification has not been sought by the current administration! I've been telling you folks, too many Wall Streeters in the Obama Administration!

Don't assume that the McCain-Cantwell proposal will pass both houses of Congress and be signed into law by the President, as that would make too much sense and be much too easy. The long arms of the bankers and the "sit on their ass class" will undoubtedly do just about anything to stop such common sense legislation, and they will rely heavily upon their many Republican allies to go to the mat for them; so, this is far from a done deal. Throw in some campaign contributions by the above mentioned to key congressional Democrats and this legislation may never make it onto the floor of either house. I've been preaching here for several years that WE have to step up and put the heat on the politicians of BOTH parties, in order to get our country back from the wealthy interests. With OUR help, maybe McCain and Cantwell can get this legislation passed. If that happens, I guess we can forgive McCain for giving old Phil such a high-level position in his presidential campaign. Now, as for forgiving him for selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate, NO WAY, Jose!

WORD HISTORY:
Tarnish-I can't trace this word back to some Indo European base, but I could swear I've seen such somewhere in the past. English got this word in the late 1500s from a form of French "ternir," which meant "dull, dim, lack brightness." This form had developed from French "terne," which meant "dark, dull, lacking brightness." French got the word from Frankish, a Germanic language/dialect. Old Germanic had "darnijaz," which had the notion of "conceal, hide, darken." This gave Old English "dyrnan," which meant "to conceal, to darken." (From what I found, another form in Old English, "dierne," meant "obscure.") In that same time period of long ago (600-800 A.D.), Old High German had "tarnjan," with the same basic meaning, and Old Saxon, the Germanic dialect that remained in northern Germany after part of the Saxons left for Britain, had "derni." It "seems" that the word form died out in English,* except for a distant relative form, "dark," and that English acquired our modern form "tarnish" from French. Modern German still uses the basic form as "tarnen," which means "to camouflage, disguise." In English, the verb form came first, followed by the noun about a hundred years later.

* I say "seems," because one never knows about these things, as many common people could not read nor write in those times, but old words long abandoned by the educated folks remained in use by these people, often in relatively isolated rural areas.

Will The Democrats Get With The Program?

The November 3rd elections were relatively minor, as elections go, but the pundits have always looked at such elections to see if they can glean some insight into what Americans are thinking about on a national basis. Let's not forget, in this era of 24/7 news and punditry, "news" has to be made to sound very important, even if it really isn't. After all, the television channels need ad revenue, as do newspapers, magazines and websites. That being said, the three main races that were highlighted nationally were the races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey, and the race for an open congressional seat in upstate New York. The election for New York City mayor wasn't really considered to be all that significant, but the much closer than expected outcome did perhaps give some insight into the public's mood.

In Virginia, a pretty reliable Republican state over the past forty years, a Republican trounced a pretty feeble Democratic candidate for the governor's post. Virginia has been more reliable for the Republicans on a presidential basis, as Democrats have been able to win the governorship numerous times, including just recently, as the current governor is a Democrat.

In New Jersey, a pretty reliable Democratic state, a moderately conservative Republican defeated the current Democratic governor, Jon Corzine. While New Jersey certainly tends to vote Democratic in presidential elections, and often for governor, Republicans can and do win the governorship on occasion.

In upstate New York, a Democrat won a congressional seat that had been held by Republicans for over one hundred years. Does it mean anything? Not necessarily, although the Republicans had more of a fight among themselves than with the Democrats. Much of the rightwing of the Republican Party chose not to support the Republican candidate, who incidentally, was not chosen in a primary by the Republican electorate in the district, but rather was picked by a committee of, I believe it was eleven, Republicans. The Republican rightwing chose to support a conservative; thus making this a three-way race for the seat, until, in the waning days of the campaign, the actual Republican candidate dropped out and endorsed the Democrat for election! The Democrat won with just shy of 50% of the vote.

In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg, one of the wealthiest people in the country, won a surprisingly close election against a relative unknown. According to reports, Bloomberg spent in excess of 100 million dollars to win the election. (It must be nice!) Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat until 2001 when he changed registration to Republican. Then in 2007, he became an independent.

So again, what does all of this mean? Well, for one thing, exit polls may tell more of the story than the actual balloting, at least to some extent. From what I saw of these polls, overwhelming majorities named the economy as the most important issue facing the country. Governors and mayors of both parties are on the front lines of the near depression in which the country finds itself. They are forced to make tough decisions to cut spending on programs that have popular support, thus making these budget-cutters highly unpopular. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for instance, was once very popular in California, but his numbers are now in the tank.

At times the national media over analyse elections, and I don't want to do that, but I do want to make note that Corzine in New Jersey was once the head of Goldman-Sachs, one of the top Wall Street firms, and the place he earned much of his wealth (he too is one of the richest people in the country). He lost. In New York City, Bloomberg, also a former Wall Streeter, damned near lost. I hope Americans are waking up to all of the wealthy interests who have come to dominate our lives so much, and who have given us a near depression for all of their greed. Trust me folks, they won't have to worry about paying their electric bill or buying basic foods for their families.

Now, the President and his administration seem NOT to have paid much attention to the old "Clinton dictum," that "It's the economy stupid!!!" After a meltdown on Wall Street, have Democrats done anything to rein in the greed and nuttiness? Hell no!!! The Wall Street banks are now even BIGGER than when they were called "too big to fail." Have the Wall Streeters shown any remorse for the terrible destruction they've brought to the country? Hell no!!! They're scheduled to give themselves ten of billions of dollars in bonuses again! Have the Democrats done anything to separate the casino atmosphere of Wall Street banks and get them back to two separate entities; traditional banking and investments. Hell no!!!

The President chose to push for health care reform, an admirable goal, but not what the country is looking for at this time. This has gone so far, they can't draw back either! The administration and Congress are bogged down in a seemingly endless battle over how to reform the health care system, and neither the President nor Democratic leaders in Congress can even get enough Democrats on board to pass anything. All the while, millions of Americans are out of work. The priorities have gotten misplaced. If the recent elections say anything, it is that Americans are worried for themselves and for the country, and it might not be that Americans are distressed so much by what Democrats have done, but rather more about what they HAVEN'T done! I've noted here many times that the three decade march to the tune of big business and the wealthy interests might just be what dooms the country. I hope that doesn't come true, but we're far from being out of this mess.

Word History:
Whet-This word, more commonly used in the compound "whetstone," and in the expression "whet one's appetite," goes back to the Indo European root "qwed," which had the notion of "sharpening." The Old Proto Germanic offshoot was "khwatjanan," also with the notion of "sharpening," including in the more figurative sense, "sharpen people's feelings; that is, incite or encourage." In Old English it was "hwettan," and the "h" sound eventually died out, or was transposed; after all, we do spell it "wh," although we don't really pronounce the "h" in modern English, choosing to pronounce it like "wet." Old Saxon, the Low German dialect that remained on the Continent after the departure of some Saxons to Britain, and thus was very close to Old English, had "hwat," which meant "sharp." Modern German also still has a form of the word, which is "wetzen," and it too means "to sharpen." So our expression, "to whet one's appetite," means "to sharpen or incite one's appetite."

Siphoning Money From Our Gas Tanks

The country remains in what is now being called, "The Great Recession." The price of many things have fallen, largely in an orderly manner; that is, we've not had a panic driven deflation that has sent the economy spiraling into the abyss. Of course, those stalwarts of the "investment industry," better known to me as "the sit on their ass class," have chosen to continue to extract more money from the American economy through higher oil and gasoline prices.

Every dollar siphoned from our pockets into their bank accounts means less for the rest of us to spend on things that might actually help bring the economy back. I've heard it said several times on CNBC* in the past, that for every penny gasoline goes up on an annual basis, it costs American consumers one billion dollars.** I've not heard anyone challenge that info, so I'll take it that it is pretty accurate. The best thing Americans can get out of the greedy bastards is that "it is cheaper than last year." I've been saying for a long, long time here that these greedy egomaniacs will destroy the country, and much of the wreckage is already lying around us. The "investor class" has already helped bring the country to its knees. Do they stop? Hell no! Mo' money! Mo' money! Mo' money!

Now that NASA has bombed the moon to see if there is water there, what we really need for the space agency to do is, find out if there is money either on the moon or on some other planet. If so, they'll be able to sell tickets to our greediest citizens to go there, because there isn't enough money for them on THIS planet! (A "Word History" is below the notes)

* CNBC is a cable business channel owned by NBC Universal.
** Remember, this is on an annual basis.

WORD HISTORY:
Siphon-This word, originally just a noun, traces back to Greek "siphon," which meant "tube or pipe." Greek is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the "family tree," although many words, or root words in English, and indeed in many of the Indo European languages, have come from Greek, albeit at times via Latin, or a Latin based language. From what I can find, linguists haven't been able to trace "siphon" back to some Indo European, or other, base, up to this point in time. Latin picked up the word from Greek as "sipho," as the singular form, with a long "i" sound and a long "o" sound. Latin is another Indo European language, likewise related to English further down the "family tree." French, a Latin based language, continued with "siphon," and English seemingly acquired the word from French at some point, perhaps in the 1500s or most definitely by the 1600s. During the mid 1800s, a verb form seems to have emerged from the noun, with the meaning "drawing in or expelling liquid through a tube" (often used in reference to some sea creatures with such tubes), but apparently it wasn't until World War Two that the idea of "diverting a liquid (gasoline) from one container (gas tank) to another container (a gas can) by way of a tube," developed.

Are We Going To Make Things?

There are signs the economy may be stabilizing. Notice I said “stabilizing,” not recovering. Besides the big questions of when a recovery will start, and, more importantly, when unemployment will begin to drop, there is also a question in my mind about American manufacturing. You remember American manufacturing, don’t you? You know, where Americans made things with their hands or operated machinery that made things, and where men and women could get decent paying jobs with benefits, and they didn’t have to know the square root of some number, what the hell Excel was, or know the symbol for copper; which is, ah….ah…well I know, but I just don’t want to make any of you feel dumb.

In reading over some things recently, I found that the U.S. now ranks BEHIND every other “industrialized” nation in percentage of national economic activity that is from manufacturing, except France. (At least the French have an excuse. Hey, you can’t make wine and washing machines too! Or is that, you can’t drink wine and make washing machines too?) According to the World Bank, less than 14% of our economic activity now comes from manufacturing. It makes me wonder how long it will be before we’re no longer called an industrialized nation. And we’ve dropped 4 big percentage points in the last decade!

Will the current administration put together some kind of manufacturing policy for the country? They don’t have to do a hell of a lot to be better than the Bush Administration on this. As millions of manufacturing jobs disappeared, the Bush people gave the standard answer they gave for everything economic: “We can’t do anything about it, this is a free market economy.” Thus Bush and his people answered until the country was on the verge of economic collapse, then they decided it wasn’t THAT MUCH of a free market economy,* and they asked taxpayers for 700 billion bucks to help banks and insurance companies.**

In just six months, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress are already well ahead of Bush and Co. according to an article by Louis Uchitelle that was published in the NY Times. He says that the “stimulus bill” includes a “Buy America” clause for the purchase of American made goods for infrastructure work. Further, he says, “And trade agreements negotiated by the Bush Administration-agreements that would make the United States more open to imported manufactured goods-have (now) been allowed to languish in Congress.” He also cites government loan guarantees as a way the new administration is trying to jump-start new manufacturing plants, frequently in wind and solar energy equipment. He notes a plant in Toledo where the owner is beginning to make solar panels, and he now has 100 workers. The author further notes that the number of loan guarantees under Bush was zero, which doesn’t surprise me in the least. They didn’t believe in government action, except to cut taxes for very rich folks, and in that, they were great.

That’s not to say that he feels things are perfect now. He also chides the Obama people for following in the steps of the last couple administrations in permitting China to keep their currency at an artificially low rate of exchange, thus hurting American manufacturing. This is a sensitive issue with the Chinese, and I don’t know where it will go. It’s easy to say, “Just put the heat on them,” but for one thing, we need them as some sort of counterbalance to that wacko in North Korea, Kim Jung (mentally) Ill, I mean Il.

Whatever the new administration has already done, we will need much more to revive a sector so devastated by neglect. It is not only a matter of economics, but of national security! (A word history is below)


*Remember many well fed, well supplied Communist leaders in Russia and elsewhere essentially made the point, "We want all people to be equal. We just want to be more equal than the rest of you."

**Something I think was VERY distasteful, but necessary. The point is though, the time to avoid economic collapse was well before the summer of 2008, and they needed to quit hiding behind these “free market” statements.

Word History:
Shimmer-This goes back to an Indo European root "skai," which had the meaning "gleam or shine." The Old Germanic derivative of this was "skim." Old English had "scimerian," which meant "to glitter." (The "sc" was pretty much pronounced like modern "sh.") Close English relative German has "schimmern," and another relative, Swedish, which is North Germanic, has "skimmra." Notice, in North Germanic the "k" sound was retained from the original Germanic, but in West Germanic (English and German), it became the softer sounding "sch/sh."

The New Deal Era & Now, Part Two

U.S. automakers have been struggling for the past number of years to remain profitable, but the economic downturn has put them flat on their backs.*** The automakers were literally losing millions of dollars each day!!! In September, 2008; that is, under the previous Congress and the Bush Administration, 25 billion dollars were authorized as loans to the three main American automakers; Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, for retooling to produce more energy efficient vehicles. This money was included as part of a major bill of more than 600 billion dollars, funding many aspects of government operations, and, therefore, there was not a separate vote on the auto loans.
Then in the middle of December 2008, Bush Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson loaned several billion dollars to both General Motors and Chrysler, to prevent them from going bankrupt. In all, General Motors, along with its finance arm, GMAC, has received over 63 billion dollars. Chrysler, along with its finance arm, Chrysler Finance Service, has received more than 16 billion dollars. (These figures from "Propublica.org") These funds came from the 700 billion amount voted on for banks previously, so again, there was no separate vote on this money. While Ford hasn't received any of the money (only the "retooling loan" money), they, too, have been losing billions, but in the last few months, they have been losing at a lower rate than GM and Chrysler. Recently, Wall Street cheered when analysts predicted that Ford would report a 10 billion dollar loss, and they actually "only" lost 9 billion. Don't pop the champagne corks yet! And I'll come back to the auto companies again shortly.
Enter the Obama Administration, January 20, 2009 (The new 111th Congress took office earlier in January, with both houses controlled by Democrats.):
Congress passes what most Americans know as the "economic stimulus bill." It provides 787 billion dollars (that's "billion," with a "B") for a wide variety of projects over a two year period. Some economists say it was not enough, while others say it was too much. There were two separate bills passed, one by the House and a slightly different version by the Senate (not an unusual situation). Then a conference committee, with members from both the House and the Senate and members from both parties, presented a new "compromise" bill for a final vote in both houses. The bill passed and was signed by President Obama in February. The final vote totals were:
House-246 FOR (all Democrats)-183 AGAINST (7 Democrats and 176 Republicans)
Senate-60 FOR (56 Democrats-2 Republicans-2 Independents)-38 AGAINST (All Republicans)
To be continued... (A word history is below the note)

***It should be noted that "foreign owned" automakers in the U.S. market have also experienced significant drops in sales during this downturn. Initially, the American companies took the major hits, prompting some commentators on CNBC (a cable business channel, owned by NBC) to proclaim that this problem in the auto industry was an American problem, and that the American companies should be allowed to file bankruptcy or liquidate. When other commentators asked if America wanted to still have American auto companies, the answer from the previous groups was, "We'll still have American auto companies; they're called 'Toyota' and 'Honda.' " The above is not a true word for word exchange, but rather a summary of things that were said.

Word History:
Switch-verb form-This was derived from the noun. See Part One of the above article for the noun's history at this link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-deal-era-now-part-one.html

During the 1600s, the verb meant "to beat with a switch;" that is, beat with a riding whip or thin flexible twig. You don't hear this meaning used much anymore, but when I was a kid, it was not uncommon to hear another kid say, "I got switched last night!" Let me tell you, they didn't mean they got switched at the hospital either, but rather....YEOW!!! Further, the noun meanings transferred to the verb. I guess you could say they were "switched." Okay, back to the word. The noun also gave the meaning "to switch something on or off," or "to divert a train from one track to another." The notion of "swapping" didn't come about until the latter part of the 1800s.

Can We Get Out Of This Mess?

Calvin Coolidge was president during much of the era known to history as "The Roaring Twenties." *** Coolidge was a conservative, including in his use of the English language, as he conserved words to the American press and to the American public. As the election of 1928 approached, Coolidge called together members of the press and made a startling announcement. Let's see...do you want me to tell you EVERYTHING he said? Okay, but you asked for it. Let me get my fingers limbered up....flex...flex...flex. Ready? Here we go: "I do not choose to run for president in 1928." And with that, Coolidge walked out of the room. Whew! I'm worn out from typing his statement!

Many Americans wondered why Coolidge had opted out of another term, as he most certainly would have been re-elected. Stories circulated, and I can't tell you with absolute certainty that any of these stories was 100% true, but there's probably some truth to them. One story kind of sums up all of the other stories about Coolidge's choice to step down as president, although the story does make Coolidge something of a prophet, and a pretty accurate prophet at that. This isn't a word-for-word recital, but the gist of the story was that a few months after his announcement that he would not run for president, and his Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, had been nominated on the Republican ticket for president (Hoover too was a likely winner in the election), Coolidge told his wife and a cabinet secretary or two that there was a depression coming. He said that Hoover would have to spend lots of money to combat the downturn, but that he wouldn't spend enough, and that the Democrats would win the presidency, and that they would spend money like water. After that, the country would be ready for him (Coolidge) again. As I said, the story does make Coolidge something of a prophet, but it certainly fits with his general philosophy. "Supposedly" he also told some folks that he had been elected to save money (something he did with great ability), but that the time had come to spend money, and that he did not fit that role. Hmm, if only those modern Republicans had read this info about Coolidge. At least he understood his role, and that the role of the presidency in those times was going to change and that he didn't fit into it, but that his role would return. Thus the ebb and flow of political eras.

Today, we seem to be in a quandary; that is, there's a general feeling that government needs to spend money to help the floundering economy, but the fact is, the country is trillions of dollars in the hole already. Bush inherited a surplus and a declining national debt.^^^ As for the surplus, he cut taxes, with much of that money going to the wealthiest Americans, who already had plenty, and who frequently just took the tax savings and invested it in things that drove up the cost of necessary items, like oil and gasoline and various food stuffs. This was a tremendous transfer of wealth from middle and lower income Americans to the wealthy, and in the case of oil, to foreign countries, many of them not known for their loving affection for America. Of course, the greedy bastards were also heavily involved in “mortgage backed securities,” which has proven to be one of the daggers thrust into the heart of the American economy. The “sit on their class” showed how they had become an entire “industry” unto themselves, albeit one that produced nothing tangible. At least the greedy barons of the 1800s and early 1900s produced steel, oil, coal, railroads, ships, etc. Further as to the surplus, we got involved in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, and they continue to this day, and Bush NEVER asked the American people to help pay to fight those wars, except in the all important category of blood. Add to this the need for “Homeland Security,“ after "9/11," and more money went out the door. Add to that the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and it shouldn’t take a mathematics professor to tell you that the surplus was long gone, but that you might need a mathematics professor to total up the increasing debt. Which brings us to the national debt, it went up by TRILLIONS under Bush and the Republican controlled Congress; more than under ANY other president in American history, and we‘re still counting. Mr. Bush’s legacy will be with us for many, many years to come.

Now we have a new administration, and while it has only been on the job for a few weeks, it seems to me that it, too, is trying to preserve the fantasy of the system being “intact.” In my opinion, this is not going to work. It already hasn’t worked under Bush. Both administrations seem intent on trying to pretend that this is still a free market (crapola) economy. It isn't!!! Bush and his minions took us back in time to try to relive a part of history when there was little regulation of business and industry, but when that very system got into trouble, just like during the Great Depression, these same "free marketers" turned to the government for help, hat in hand, and the Bush "free marketers" offered them billions. That was the end of this free market nonsense. Now we need to return to the reality of 2009, not 1929!!!

End of "Part One." I know many of you like the "word histories," and I will be posting several "word histories" in a separate article either before or after "Part Two." I have much of the work on the word histories already finished.

*** Coolidge was vice president under Warren G. Harding, and they took office in March, 1921 (in those days, presidents took office on March 4th, not January 20th, as they do today). Harding died in office in 1923, and Coolidge became president. He ran for a term of his own in 1924, but chose not to run for another term in 1928.

^^^Without checking on my memory of the facts, the country actually paid DOWN the national debt in the late 1990s (both Clinton AND the Republican Congress deserve credit for this), and this was the first time a substantial amount had been paid on the national debt since.....guess who? Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s! While admirable, both situations also had consequences to the downside, as without government debt for investors to buy up, off they went into other forms of investments, like the stock market in the 1920s and 2000s, and oil and mortgage backed securities in the 2000s.