I AM A JEW (PART XXIV - Dershowitz Again)

As the title shows this is the 23rd part (actually the 24^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on Part I and then scrolling upwards or by accessing the label I Am A Jew.

Alan Dershowitz appears to have taken it upon himself to be the principal spokesman or apologist for anything and everything that Israel does. He used to be a spokesperson for liberal causes in the great tradition of Judaism, but that Desrshowitz is no more.

As recently as May of 2013 he denounced Right Wing Jews:

…who believe that retaining the entire West Bank is more important than trying to make peace with the Palestinians.

But that was before prominent Israeli leaders began advocating for retaining the entire West Bank.

Now Dershowitz joins the apologists for all that resembles Israeli policies by becoming a spokesperson for those who try to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Now he finds anti-Semites under every rock, and in doing so joins the Right in smearing leading Jews.

In an article appearing on March 11, 2014 in the Right Wing magazine Newsmax entitled "Europe's Alarming Push to Isolate Israel" he lashes out at all critics of Israel and labels them “the grandchildren of Nazis and Nazi collaborators” which is rather startling in its sweep.

What is his evidence – and one might expect some evidence from the noted lawyer. It is true that there were many non-Germans complicit in the Holocaust, not just Germans. Yes, what else is new? How does that take us from the fact that Nazi supporters were not all Germans to his conclusion, or rather to his smear? He lumps Voltaire, Karl Marx, and Levrenti Beria to prove that the Left is as bad, or worse, than the Right. 

Well, now that he finds himself in good standing as a member of the Right (he appears to be writing a regular column for the Right Wing publication Newsmax) he has the nerve to lump Voltaire with the leaders of communism, or for that matter Marx with Beria.    

Voltaire was the founder of the enlightenment. In that capacity he was very anti-religion since it was religion that gave legitimacy to “the privileges of the nobility, and in the infallibility of the Church.” In doing this he “preferred to concentrate his attacks on the Old Testament and its followers, the Jews” but according to the Jewish Virtual Library, he did this “primarily a(s) a result of his hatred for the Church” and the Jewish Virtual Library goes on to say, “Voltaire's outlook was a powerful contribution to the creation of the mental climate which made possible the emancipation of the Jews…” emphasis added (Ibid) 

But the further exploration of this point is rather ridiculous because the views of people who lived in a world where anti-Semitism was the norm is hardly of import today. Whether there is anti-Semitism in today's world can hardly be doubted, but to conclude from this, that criticism of Israel has its basis in anti-Semitism, is far-fetched, to say the least. 

Dershowitz mentions the persecutors of Alfred Dreyfus, but somehow omits mention of Zola’s ringing defense “J'accuse.” If Zola were alive today and criticized Israeli policy, would Dershowitz smear him too with the brush of anti-Semitism.

But the extent of Dershowitz’s descent from any kind of liberalism is his own anti-Semitism, for he joins the Right in smearing prominent Jews. Thus we read his mean-spirited attack on Gertrude Stein and her companion, Alice Toklas, when he says that they: “collaborated with the Gestapo”. This is a gratuitous smear on one of the great Jewish intellectuals, which shows how low Dershowitz has sunk. For the background of this smear see the Jewish web site Tikkum's "Why the Witch-Hunt Against Gertrude Stein?." As to Gilad Atzmon, why publicize a nut few people have ever even heard of. See what the Arab press has to say about him. 

Will Dershowitz soon join the Right in smearing George Soros? It is such smears against fellow Jews that reveal the inanity of the new Dershowitz.

Following the demise of the Nazi regime we have had a long period where anti-Semitism, at least in Western Europe and the US, was at one of its lowest ebbs in recent history. It is only, the outrages of Israel, and its attempt to equate criticism of its policies with anti-Semitism, that has stoked the very thing that Israel should have been instrumental in preventing.

People like Dershowitz share the blame for this new outbreak of anti-Semitism, irrational, like all prejudices, including those against Blacks and Muslims, which are raging, at least as much as anti-Semitism. He asks:

Where are your demonstrations on behalf of the oppressed Tibetans, Georgians, Syrians, Armenians, Kurds, or even Ukrainians? Where are your BDS movements against the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, the Turks, or the Assad regime?

But demonstrations in those cases are unnecessary, since the governments of the West have been actively engaged in opposition. Do we need demonstrations to denounce the Russians in Ukraine, when the West has applied sanctions? If sanctions were in place against Israel it is highly unlikely that there would be demonstrations.

When Iraq tried to occupy Kuwait, George H.W. Bush declared:

This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait. 

The Cubans?

Does Dershowitz think that the US aught to be doing more against Cuba than what it has been doing all these decades?

Have the Western nations not made their concern with Tibetans clear by receiving the Dalai Lama in all the capitals. What more can reasonably be done?

No, the anger about Israel is because Israel has been given a free pass, to do as it will with the Palestinians. If there has been any favoritism it has been in favor of Israel, not against it. American aid to Israel in the last two years has exceeded 6 billion dollars. Since 1949 aid to Israel has exceeded 120 billion dollars, and to help Israel keep Egypt friendly, the US gives Egypt an additional “annual $1.3 billion military assistance package… “ 

Israel has been given a free pass because of the world’s guilt about the Holocaust. But the reliance on that guilt is wearing thin.

The prejudices of the world have always been around. Unfortunately they will always be with us. But to use them to intimidate legitimate criticism of any country, or of any policy, is a disservice to the very values for which Dershowitz used to be known.

It is sad to see a figure of such renown fall to such depth.

Except for comments received, my summation, and possibly a debate preceding the summation, this concludes my analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy. I now welcome any comments readers care to make and will publish same, with or without attribution, as the contributor wishes.

Borrowing, Taxes & Deficits – A Discussion Continued

In my post of November 2, 2011 entitled "Borrowing, Taxes & Deficits – A Discussion," I referred the reader to an article written by Professor Robert Malchman and posted on his blog entitled "Real Interest Rates," and the exchange that followed, which appears as four comments below the post. In my post referred to above, I rebutted the view of Professor Malchman, and to a greater extent those of Bunny42.

(I interrupted that exchange to focus on the controversy regarding "Contraception, Abortion and Komen.")

My rebuttal was reproduced on that blog and provoked two more rebuttals by Bunny42 below the post, which you can find here.

I thought that her rebuttal was so misguided that I feel it incumbent upon me to respond to it, and so here is my rebuttal:

Bunny, you have every right to be taken seriously because you do not run away from opinions that are contrary to yours. I can assure you that most people close their ears when confronted with contrary views, and only want to hear opinion, and indeed facts, that reinforce their views.

Furthermore, you are far more knowledgeable than most people. You are familiar with the Keynesian economic theory. Please watch this video on YouTube. You say that “(Your) impression has been (and still is) that reducing taxes on industry allows for expansion, and that includes new jobs.” It is no wonder that this is your impression, since this has been the message repeated over and over again. It is part of what is known as staying on message. But that doesn’t make it true and it isn’t. Right now corporations are sitting on $2 trillion and are not investing according to a New York Post, [a News Corporation subsidiary (i.e. Rupert Murdoch's)] article that goes on to say: “US consumers are stretched financially. Rosenblatt says there's no incentive for many companies to expand. Why go out and make 110 widgets when I can only sell 100?" he asked. Which sums up the situation.” See here. See also here.

Taxes have nothing to do with it. In fact right now we have one of the lowest tax rates in our history. When Eisenhower (R) was President (1960) the top rate for all those making over $400,000 was 91% and our economy did very nicely, thank you very much. When Ronald Reagan was President and after he sharply reduced taxes (1985) the top tax rate was 50% on incomes over $169,000 (See here) and our economy did very nicely, thank you very much. When Clinton became President he inherited a slow down and increased taxes and the economy boomed. But I said all this in my previous posts, but apparently it didn’t sink in. Impressions are hard to shake.

Consumer spending accounts for 70% of US economic activity. See here. When consumers spend, businesses make products to sell. When consumers don’t have the money to buy, business contracts, and jobs are lost. During inflationary times, when consumers want to buy more than business can produce the emphasis must be on increasing production. During deflationary times or during recessions when business capacity is greater than the demand, emphasis must be on increasing demand, not supply. That is not only economic theory. It is common sense.

It is not a coincidence that in 1929 just before the great depression the income disparity was huge just as it is now, or to quote from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top than at any time since 1929.” See here. Henry Ford, not known as a left wing radical said, “One's own employees ought to be one's own best customers. Paying high wages is behind the prosperity of this country.” See here.

But as I write this, I begin to wonder if I am giving you too much credit, Bunny. It seems like I am going over much of what I covered in my last post, which essentially you ignored, as undoubtedly you will ignore the facts here, because they do not comport with your “impressions.”

You say that, “One of our problems involves not having enough skilled labor available to fill those jobs.” This is not the major problem in our economic malaise, but it illustrates another problem in our society – we are not spending enough money on education, we have fallen way behind the rest of the world in educating our young, and college education, has become far too expensive. When I climbed out of poverty to a prosperous upper middle class existence, my college was free. Without that I could not have moved up. But we no longer have those rungs on the ladder.

Bunny, you are entitled to your opinions, but not if they are based on misconceptions. You talk about a slippery slope. But you ignore that the slippery slope has been in the opposite direction. It’s not a little tax there and a little tax here. It a big tax cut and another big tax cut. I have shown you how much taxes have been reduced over the years, but it makes no impression on you. You refuse to focus on the facts.

“Remove Incentive” worries you. But nothing in the present or the past would remove incentive. Look at the facts!!! “(You) dispute my assertion that most of the wealthy have inherited their money. According to Forbes “The top 0.1% -- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million -- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.” What does that mean. It means that the very rich are making their money, not by working, but from the returns on their wealth. Now where did they get their wealth? By working? Not likely! Even the “captains of industry” make only millions. Billions are acquired on a multigenerational basis, i.e. through inheritance. Yes, some like George Soros and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have made it in one lifetime, but most inherit it and they live off their money. Nothing makes money more easily than money, and because of that more and more wealth concentrates at the top, and when we tax such money at a lower rate than money earned working, it exacerbates it all the more.

What we are getting is something very similar to the inherited monarchies that we rebelled against. A permanent, wealthy aristocracy and their subjects, with elections getting more and more meaningless because money controls that too. Power goes to money, and money goes to power, ad infinitum.

From the Gotham Gazette:

The median personal income of those who do not receive any unearned income is $15,000 while for those that do, it is at least $191,200 (and may be much higher.) Only about one-quarter of those who are receiving such income are working, and about 10 percent are making more than $100,000, so many members of the group choose to spend their time in other ways. Indeed, very few report social security income, business or farm income, retirement income or wages and salaries. In short, their investment income is their main source of income. They are substantially older than all New Yorkers older than 15, but even among the younger ones only a small fraction work.

Unfortunately, we can not put together a picture based on the statistical data of how they spend their time, though we know that only a few are working full-time. Some undoubtedly volunteer their time, spend time at vacation spots, or work at jobs that pay relatively low wages, such as docents in art museums or other rewarding pursuits. There are very few surveys that would have enough information to even begin to depict the idle rich.

Donald Trump pretends that he made his money, but what he shows is how to “make yourself richer when you inherit an established business and have millions of dollars plunked into your waiting hands after your Dad has sent you to Wharton.” See here.

You mention that your mother depended on Medicaid. Do you really want that eliminated? It’s taxes on the rich that make it possible. It isn’t funded by Bill Gates, nor could it be. Nor could our schools, or our libraries, or the agencies that protect our health, and our food and our children’s toys. Yes, you are entitled to whatever philosophy suits you, but you shouldn’t base a philosophy on total misconceptions of facts.

Now let me take your comments on Social Security and Medicare, and how you paid into them all your life. Yes you did, but unless you die early you would get a multiple of what you paid in. The way it works is that each succeeding generation supports a previous generation. You are not being paid out of the money you paid in. That was used to pay another generation. Your payments come out the money accumulated by generations later than yours and that money is there. They have not been “pillaged, misused and depleted.” How can you have sound opinions when your facts are so wrong? That money has been invested in Treasury bonds, the safest investment in the world with the Full Faith and Credit of the US behind it. The same bonds China invests in. The problem Social Security faces is that with people living longer, the baby boomers coming into the age where they draw on Social Security, and our young population not growing fast enough to meet the demands, the disbursements of the trust fund are projected for the first time ever to become larger then the income being generated. This means that the SS payment are coming out of the trust fund, or soon will be, and the trust funds assets will slowly be depleted.

Thus unless we find a way to either decrease the disbursements, e.g. increase the retirement age, or increase its income, i.e. increasing the top income from which taxes must be paid, (it is now capped at $106,800 of gross wages, and capital gains income is exempt) it will not be possible to continue paying the benefits after a certain time. No Bunny, “Government run amok has (not) created this problem.”

Your idea of voluntarism sounds wonderful, but it doesn’t work in the real world. If taxes were voluntary, very few would pay them. Social Security could not exist if all people were not required to pay their FICA taxes. The military could not function, if only volunteers were sent to the front. They obey orders. Our government could not exist with voluntary taxes, and could never get enough revenue without getting it from those who can afford to pay it, without hardship.

Bunny, it isn’t a question of your being entitled to have whatever opinion you choose. But your opinions should be based on an understanding of the facts, not on misconceptions. Horatio Alger was an author who wrote fictitious stories of people coming out of poverty into the middle class. These happen occasionally in real life, but the chance I had, was because of a government that gave me my chance with a free education, and cheap public transportation. Sadly, this is long behind us, and Republicans are trying to make it harder and harder to succeed unless you are born into it or, as Rick Santorum did, by being elected to Congress, and after retiring from it, selling your connections. See here.

If you truly want a country where your status in life is determined by who your ancestors are, and where very few overcome the barriers keeping them from rising up in our class structure, then I have no problem with your views. What do you think your chances, or those your children, of making it to the top are?

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.