BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR.
IS IT JUST ME, OR DO THE "EXPERTS" SEEM TO ALWAYS BE ABOUT
NINE MONTHS BEHIND THE REST OF US?
Why is it that we have to pay Ben Bernanke millions of dollars to bring in a truckload of Ph.D.s just to tell us that we're hurtin'? And even then he won't give us a definitive answer-- "Ah, Well, it's beginning to look like we just might be edging towards, or, tiptoeing, as it were, the outer fringes of an exceedingly mild recession--a teeny-weeny one I assure you--but we can't be absolutely certain of that at this time." Who is he trying to lie to? Certainly not the American public–people are outside the hall throwing rocks at the police so they can go to jail in time for lunch. All these so-called "experts" have to do is glance up from your spreadsheets at the people selling apples outside their window to know we're in a recession.
And why are they looking so shocked–what did they expect when we have to pump the price of Chavis Regal in our gas tank? (Actually, I wish it really was Chavis Regal–since I to get drunk just to get up the nerve to fill my tank). But they say a downturn in the economy is a fertile opportunity innovation–and they're right. If I had two dollars to rub together I'd open up a gas station with slot machines that pumped gas. I'd make a killing. I'd allow my customers to drop five dollars in the pump and if they got three cherries they'd get a free tank of gas. Remember, you heard it here first.
But seriously, have you ever wondered why all of these so-called experts, with all their advanced degrees are always nine months to a year behind the people when it comes to seeing the obvious. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars and lost countless lives invading Iraq after Willie the wino had already told us that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. And do you remember when I told you about a year ago that trying to sell Gucci bags in a homeless shelter was a ridiculous fiscal policy? Well, now the economy is saying I was right and the experts were wrong–again.
The only reason I'm not banging on Harvard's door to demand an honorary degree is because it didn't take a rocket scientist to predict this downturn. Bush's fiscal policy is not so much a policy as it is a scam–and they know it. Using my Gucci bag analogy, what sense does it make to continue to give Gucci a tax break to make handbags that the people in the homeless shelter can't afford to buy? Even Gucci knows that it doesn't make sense, so why should he use that money to hire more people to make handbags that he can't sell? So he's not going to take that money to retool–he's going to either Ferarri or pocket that money as profit. The only way to get Gucci to hire more people to make more handbags is to give the tax breaks to the people in the homeless shelter so they'll have money to spend on Gucci's bags. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that–but of course, I'd never accuse our president of being a brain surgeon.
Granted, I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that what we're dealing with here, are two economies. We have one economy that applies to the investor class, and another economy that applies to the labor class–labor, meaning anyone who depends on a job for a living, regardless to whether they're in labor, or management.
When the United States had a thriving industrial economy, one class complimented the other. Labor was well paid, so they were able to purchased goods. That allowed the companies that sold the goods to prosper, and benefit of the investor class. But now in a global market, in order to both remain competitive with countries that pay their workers just above slave wages, and also sustain their greed, the investor class have to squeeze every penny, and concession, out of the labor class to achieve their profit margin. So in essence, whenever Bush announces that the economy is thriving, he's not talking about you–he's actually telling the investor class that he's successfully squeezing the American workers to the limit. You see, since they have a global market now, they no longer have to worry about the American worker making enough money to purchase their goods–they can sell them overseas. So now the American worker is no longer a partner, he's simply a field hand.
That economic dichotomy explains why our politicians can't seem to get an handle on the illegal immigration problem. If they really wanted to solve the illegal immigrant problem, they don't have to build fences, or export millions of illegals back across the border--all they have to do is pass laws that makes it unattractive for illegals to stay. If they really wanted to solve the problem they'd fine anyone who hired them twenty thousand dollars per illegal, and they'd do the same thing to anyone who rented them housing. They'd also make it impossible for them to enroll their kids in school, and provide nothing more than emergency medical services–then once services were rendered, the recipient would be arrested. In addition, laws would be passed making being caught in the U.S. illegally punishable by a year in jail on first offense, and a felony thereafter. And finally, they'd pass a law that says if the parent is illegal, the baby is illegal as well. Laws such as those would take away any incentive for anyone to cross the border illegally.
I know that sounds pretty harsh, but we've got to make up our minds what we want to do. If we're going to grant illegals immunity, then, let's do it. But if it's the general consensus of the American people to send them home, then we've got to be serious about that too. We've got to stop fooling around, because the longer we straddle the fence the more convinced they're going to become that they have a right to stay. Once we allow the United States to become home, we're going to have a revolution on our hands if we try to change course.
This may sound strange coming from me because anyone who reads this column regularly know that I've agonized over this issue for sometime now, and I've flip-flopped on it at least a couple of times. In fact, about six months ago I wrote an article supporting the illegals as the indigenous people of this land. But I have a policy of going wherever the facts lead, and while I still admire and have a great compassion for anyone who's willing to walk through the desert to feed his family, after giving it careful thought, I've come to the conclusion that there are far worse things in life than being asked to return home. They should address their grievances with their own government in the same way that the Black community has done here.
I've also come to the conclusion that the consequences of having millions of people flooding across our borders into the U.S. will have a devastating impact on our children and grand children. As I pointed out, in order for American business to compete in a world with countries that produces goods with workers who work for just above slave labor, America must respond in kind. That is the purpose of illegal immigration–it's being used to undermine the middle class in this country. We're being told that illegal immigrants are only being used to do the jobs that American workers don't want, but that's not true. Illegals are taking what were formerly high wage jobs like electrical worker, construction, truck drivers, upholsters, mechanics, etc. In addition, they're placing undue strain on our educational and healthcare systems. They're also driving up the cost of housing, and having a negative impact on our entire social infrastructure. The end game is to undermine our educational system, destroy our power to collectively bargain, and downgrade the middle class, in order to effectively create a permanent, and helpless, labor class.
But we shouldn't at the same time, we shouldn't take our anger out on the illegal immigrant–they're being victimized just like we are. Our anger should be directed at big business, and the politicians who are allowing it to happen. We need to pin these politicians down, and let them know that we know what's going on, and if they don't fix it, we're going to see to it that they loose their jobs long before we loose ours.
We've also got to take immediate steps to see to it that these corporations don't move to Dubai with Dick Cheney's Halliburton, then sell their goods in the United States. We need a worker's Bill of Rights that says, if you want to ship your jobs overseas, you can sell your goods over there as well. If you're an American company, you must be headquartered in America, pay taxes in America, and use American workers. If you're not willing to do that, we'll find someone who is. Of course, they're going to call us protectionists–but as Miles Davis said, so what.
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com