The "Homeland Security" Boondoggle: $75 billion per year welfare for the rich

                              The boys and their high tech toys at a Homeland Security trade fair

While the poor, disabled, elderly, students, and ordinary working people are being clobbered by budget cuts at the federal, state and local levels, America's two exorbitantly costly gravy trains  --  The Pentagon and its twin brother, Homeland Security -- just roll on and on.

Details about the internal features of these Big Government juggernauts remain largely unreported, sheltered from public debate.  Year after year they float above scrutiny, cherished as the nation's citadels of fear.  It seems that our politicians and much of the citizenry would rather drive the country into bankruptcy than confront the irrational policies and staggering levels of waste these institutions involve. 

On rare occasion some in the press corps bother to ask: "How much are we paying for this stuff and what are we getting for it?"  Thus, an article in the LA Times recently surveyed the $75 billion per year spent on the projects (many of then patently absurd) called "Homeland Security."

"Large sums of Homeland Security money, critics complain, have been propelled by pork barrel politics into the backyards of the congressionally connected. Yet the spending has also acted as a cash-rich economic stimulus program for many states at a time when other industries are foundering.

"Utah is getting a $1.5-billion National Security Agency cyber-security center that will generate up to 10,000 jobs in the state. The Pentagon in July launched bidding for a $500-million U.S. Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, which likes to point out that former President George W. Bush flew here for shelter after the Sept. 11 attacks."

  *  *  *  * * *  *  *
Few people in public life want to talk about it -- much of the colossal budget for the Pentagon and Homeland Security amounts to welfare for the rich, e.g., lots of six figure salaries and lots of "research and development" on high tech toys.  When it comes to "addressing America's spiraling debt," welfare programs in this category are never "on the table."

Think of them as "entitlements."




Return to "Recession"? Compared to What?


The news today quotes several leading economists predicting a "return to recession."  When I hear pronouncements of that sort I'm reminded of one of the greatest soul/jazz tunes, "Compared to What" by Les McCann and Eddie Harris.  And it turns out that the original video of the 1969 Montreux concert is now available on YouTube!  I'd not seen it before.

The lyrics, piano, sax, rhythm section, total groove, and message from preacher McCann are still fresh after all this time. 

The President, he's got his war
Folks don't know just what it's for
Nobody gives us rhyme or reason
Have one doubt, they call it treason
We're chicken-feathers, all without one nut. God damn it!
Tryin' to make it real compared to what?
       
        

Will Facebook go the way of the Beanie Babies?

                                                          Will you still be my friend?

A web research outfit, Globalwebindex, has published its "Wave 5 Trends" study.  It suggests that Facebook my be going out of style.  Oh my.

"Despite massive global user growth, active participation on Facebook is falling and we are increasingly seeing a slow down in existing Facebook users. This is particularly true in the U.S. and in other English speaking countries where Facebook has been prevalent for longer and has shifted growth to emerging countries."

Speaking of popularity, much of the report uses the increasingly popular language of "brands" and people's relationship to "brands" as a way to gauge the pulse of the planet.

"Online consumers want brands to provide services that fit with their lifestyle. Most importantly they want brands to listen and their comments wherever they are posted ....More and more consumers are expecting brands to improve their knowledge in specific areas and connect them with other similar-minded brand users." 

This rapidly spreading blight upon the language now infects descriptions of our economy, social life and politics.  In the White House, for example, there are now grave concerns that the once robust brand "Obama" is withering as voters/consumers look for more exciting and satisfying "brands." The worry is not not that his leadership is flagging, but that his "brand" is sagging.

Evidently, among the world's most urgent problems right now is this:   

                                                     Are my brands listening to me?