What does $109 million dollars say about American democracy?

I don’t begrudge hard working, well educated, public servants from making a good living. Dang, I wish firefighters, cops, nurses and teachers all made a great living (given the hard work that teachers perform, their salaries should start at $75k - $85k); after all, the sacrifices that they make for the rest of us are immeasurable. That said, it is simply astounding that a former president, a servant of the people, can shoot up to such meteoritic income heights after leaving office. Yesterday we learned that since leaving the White House in 2000, the Clintons are now “in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent” of all American taxpayers:

The bulk of their wealth has come from speaking and book-writing, which together account for almost $92 million, including a $15 million advance — larger than previously thought — from Mr. Clinton’s 2004 autobiography, “My Life.” The former president’s vigorous lecture schedule, where his speeches command upwards of $250,000, brought in almost $52 million.

During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions.

To me, this is outrageous and a clear indication of the revolving door that exists between Washington, D.C. and the gleaming corporate boardrooms of America; proof, too, of how access is paid for and bought by monied interests, and who — ultimately — has the ear of OUR public representatives.

Of course, the Clintons are not the only ones that have benefited from this revolving door policy, they just happen to be the most recent example of this corrosive practice eating away at American democracy. The $109 million dollars that the Clintons have received since 2000 does not just place them in the top hundredth of one percent of American taxpayers, it places their descendents in an all together different strata — that’s right, $109 million dollars is generationally changing money. Thus, public service in the White House, or even in Congress, coupled with the revolving door policy leading is antithetical to the very anti-aristocratic principles that America was founded on; thus, a threat to our democracy.

DPChallenge.com Repost

Originally posted on the DPChallenge.com message board:

Your point and intentions are very clear:

1. Once gain, you’re following the Republican talking points and attempting to associate Trial Lawyers with the Democratic party. See, you know that over the past 40+ years, the Republican party and the American Enterprise Institute have been successful at driving the “Trail Lawyers Bad” idea into the public’s mind; so, Republican party hacks keep on hammering that notion into our heads. You know very well that Trial Lawyers (or, Public Interest Defenders, as I prefer to think of them) represent a huge threat to one of the biggest constituencies of the Republican party: Big Multinational Corporate Money (yeah, I know it’s a mouthful). Because, as you know, Public Interest Defenders, as a group, have amassed sufficient resources to go head-to-head against Big Money, and force them to comply with, among other things: safety regulations, labor protection laws, and pro-enviromental measures — of course, I’ll grant you that by so doing, Public Interest Defenders hope to make a buck. (Hey, it’s the American way!) Now, as we’ve concurred, there are good-guys and bad-guys in both camps: the Big Money and the Public Interest Defenders camp. The point here is your continued effort to associate what you call “Trial Lawyers” with one party, and not the other — a common practice among those that follow the Republican talking points. (See here for an example of the Republican talking points.)

2. Again you rely on one of the Republican talking points: the specter of the so-called liberal media. Interestingly, later in your response, you acknowledge that the so-called liberal media is driven by “commercial” and “sensationalistic” interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias (but I’ll get to that later). You insinuate that the so-called liberal media is aligned with the Democratic party and, therefore, the news items should be edited by the Democratic party lawyers. First, it is ridiculous to suggest that the media is in the pocket of Democrats and that the two somehow coordinate with each other. But I’ll leave that aside, it’s so ridiculous and you know it. Again, the specter of the so-called liberal media has been so repeatedly beaten into the public’s mind, that many don’t even question it anymore. Of course, Republican partisans know that they won the battle over the so-called liberal media label long-ago. Here’s an instructive piece I came across: http://conservativehq.com/. Of course, the author is not widely known to the public at-large. However, it is precisely that anonymity that allows him to speak so candidly, as he knows who his audience is and who is likely to read his book. He writes:

Our cause has come a long way in the past 40 years. We’ve learned how to use the alternative media-political direct mail and talk radio and cable TV-to build our movement and convert more and more Americans to our cause. “Liberal” is now such an unpopular label with the American people that every liberal I know has run for cover and calls himself a “progressive.”

He later comments, “smart people on the Left are learning from the past successes of conservatives.” Well, he’s right about that… the model that the Republican/Conservative movement laid out is extremely educational.

Refuting the myth of the so-called liberal media is like pulling teeth: painful, arduous and always approached with weariness — given how entrenched the notion is. However, for those interested on the subject, please see the following:

* Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
* Media Matters for America
* The Republican Noise Machine
* Control Room (documentary on how the Iraq war was covered by U.S. vs. Middle Eastern media)
* Out Foxed (documentary on the inner workings of the Fox News operation)
* What Liberal Media?
* Manufacturing Consent (summery)

I couldn’t agree with you more. As I noted earlier, and as you concur above, the media is driven by “commercial” and “sensationalistic” interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us — all U.S. citizens — have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they’re doing of covering substantive issues. What’s pertinent to the point at-hand, is how closely you’ve followed the Republican talking points by raising the specter of the so-called liberal media — even though you acknowledged and recognize that “commercial” and “sensationalistic” interests are what drive the media, and not some liberal bias.

Ron, you do a fantastic job of splitting hairs, and of deploying the same sort of linguistic jujitsu used by two masters of verbal dexterity: Mr. Clinton and Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Clinton asked, “it depends on your definition of what IS is.” And, of course, Mr. Rumsfeld’s use of gab has been described thus:

“It uses playful language to address the most somber subjects: war, terrorism, mortality. Much of it is about indirection and evasion: He never faces his subjects head on but weaves away, letting inversions and repetitions confuse and beguile.” See the rest here.

Look, use whatever qualifier you want: leak, disclosure, background briefing, etc. That’s not the point. The point is that valuable human-intelligence resources should not have been publicly disclosed by the Bush administration, whether it be a mole within al Queda or an undercover C.I.A. agent. Both of these actions directly undermined our national security and put the lives of U.S. operatives on the field at risk.

You did not address the issue, which is that the Bush administration — over the past two years — has squandered whatever credibility they had left. Jeesh, talk about “conspiracy theories”; you’d have us believe that the media have gotten together to conspire against Mr. Bush, and so must “CREATE” news. Well, I think it’s a lot simpler than that, I think: Mr. Bush & Co. have a serious credibility problem and, therefore, many in the public cannot take them at their word anymore.

Yes, I’m referring to the al Queda mole whose name was released, and to the under cover C.I.A. agent whose identity was revealed. One of these cases is under criminal investigation, and we’ll just have to see how high up the Bush White House the investigation goes — of course, Mr. Bush has already consulted a lawyer on the matter.

As for the “political gains” to be made by the leak/release/disclosure of these names: 1. Rather than expending political capital explaining to the public how four year old information had now yielded the possibility of a new threat, the Bush administration took the easy way out by releasing Mr. Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan’s name as their main supporting proof. (I’ll grant you that they are related; however, the evidence should’ve been supported without disclosing the identify of such a valuable resource.) Intelligence analysts agree that it’s extremely hard to penetrate al Queda for various reasons, including: language, culture, insularity, etc.; even so, Bush & Co. decided that a valuable resource inside of al Queda wasn’t really all that important after all. Aside from the ramifications that the release of the mole’s name has for us at home, our allies have to deal with the consequences, too. Thereby, further damaging our already fragile relationship with the international community. 2. As for the release of the under cover C.I.A. agent’s identify, let’s remember that her name was leaked when it appeared that her husband, Ambassador Wilson, was going to publicly refute Mr. Bush’s claim that Iraq was attempting to acquire nuclear materials from Niger. (Now, you and I will interpret the players’ motives very differently; however, luckily for us, the facts can be debated elsewhere — as there already is a criminal investigation underway in the case of the C.I.A. agent’s identity leak.)

Wow, now I know you know better. You know that the evidence was shotty, inconclusive and circumstantial. Yet, the Bush administration presented their case to the American people and the world as rock solid. Again, let’s remember that not everyone thought that there was solid proof that Iraq possessed W.M.D.(s) that presented a clear danger to the world, much less to the US. Dr. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector before Bush & Co. muscled him out of the position before the invasion, had this to say:

“Well, they [the Bush administration] certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time.”

You can read the full interview here. Of course, Dr. Hans Blix is a diplomat and, therefore, walks a fine line on the subject — never explicitly saying, Yeah, Bush & Co. lied and made a fool of us all. But, hey, we’re not diplomats and we can read between the lines just fine. You know, Ron, for a man that so often employs the, “oh shucks, I want just the facts,” you sure are willing to cut Bush & Co. a lot of slack when it comes to circumstantial evidence that lead to the loss of 934 of our sons, daughters, fathers, brothers, uncles, mothers… not to mention an estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilian casualties.

Damn, I could go on and on about this subject, but I’ll spare you all… not to mention that posting to this board is seriously affecting my productivity at work. I’ll just add one more thing: to say that it’s only in hindsight that we can judge the Iraq invasion to be a mistake and that there was no way to know, is to lie to yourself, and to others on this board. Now, as for what should’ve been done: 1. Bush & Co. should’ve let inspections work, and 2. Bush & Co. should’ve pushed for a larger coalition (a’ la Gulf War I), in case force need to be used. However, military force should not have been an immediate option, as we still had unfinished business in the Afghan-Pakistan border, a.k.a. Osama Bin Laden.

For further information please see:

* Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration’s Public Statements on Iraq
* Disarming Iraq by Dr. Hans Blix

I sincerely hope that you’re not being intentionally misleading; because, as you may or may not know, the 9/11 Commission did not deal directly with the issue of Iraq nor with the issue pre-war intelligence manipulation.

I agree, Bush & Co. should apologize for the repeated national security failures, including the lack of W.M.D.(s) in Iraq.

Nice bait-and-switch. Look, no one will argue against the premise that aiding our fellow human-beings is a laudable goal. Shoot, I would certainly come to the rescue of a French woman — where do I sign up? :) And, by the way, you’re absolutely correct, as a former enlisted man, I met many brave young men that without hesitation would’ve risked their lives to defend another fellowman. Likewise, I now count myself equally lucky to know many Democratic friends and, yes, many Liberal friends, that would also risk themselves to come to aid of another. That said, Mr. Bush did not say that we were invading Iraq to help our fellowmen — Mr. Bush, at the time, offered one reason: Weapons of Mass Destruction. It’s only after W.M.D.(s) failed to turn up that Mr. Bush invoked the humanitarian aspect of the war. Ha, I would’ve loved to have seen Mr. Bush & Co. make the case for invading Iraq under the guise of “Nation Building” and “Humanitarian Aid” — that would’ve caused such a feud within the Republican party, it would’ve beautiful to watch.

Man, you’re a true believer. I salute. And, like you, I understand that ultimetly it’s about “personal values.” So, once again, let me relly on a couple of sentences I’ve used on this board before:

Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on what choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must.

We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.

I say Amen! And I’ll see you November, 2nd.

You can read the rest of Mr. Clinton’s speech here.