Italy Voted Today

Luigi de Maio's Five Star Party looks like it will be the biggest in the new parliament

Last week, Alan Grayson gave us a look at an Italian populist leader, Cola Di Rienzo, who ruled Rome, briefly in the 1300s. John Oliver brought Italian politics up to date with a few minutes on the chaotic election that culminated today after a divisive, angry and unsatisfying campaign. Voters are saying they were choosing the lesser evil from a political class that is not just uninspiring but out of touch with everyday Italians and corrupt. The lvoter turnout was lower. We may not know for weeks if anyone can form a government but exit polls show the right-wing coalition slightly ahead. (Note: Italian exit polls are notoriously inaccurate.) A hung parliament is almost certain.

A couple of days ago Grayson attempted to explain why Italian politics can be so zany these days and how "what is happening there has interesting implications for what is happening here." His perspective:

The leading party also is the newest party, the Five Star Movement.  5* was founded by a brilliant Italian comedian, Beppe Grillo, using social media only. The five stars refer to the five main issues for the movement: universal public water (apparently, this is controversial in Italy; here in the United States, Fox would call it a government takeover of the faucets); universal free internet access; sustainable transport (meaning renewable energy for vehicles); sustainable development; and environmentalism. This is, in essence an anti-Establishment "Green" party, and it might become the first ever to win a national election in Europe. It's at 25%-30% in the polls.

The party in second place is very similar to our Democratic Party, a modestly liberal party with substantial internal conflicts. Remarkably, it is called the Democratic Party. It's scoring 20%-25% in the polls. Desperate to come up with something to appeal to the voters that doesn't involve raising taxes or spending much money, the Democratic Party is proposing a new government program to encourage Italians under the age of thirty to stop living with their parents. It is unclear whether this is intended to help Italian twenty-somethings, or the parents who can't stand to live with them any longer. (I'm guessing the latter.)

The party in third place is called "Go Italy!," seriously, and it is the plaything of three-time Prime Minister and reputed statutory rapist Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi was Trump before Trump was Trump. (Google "bunga-bunga," and you'll see what I mean.) Berlusconi, a convicted felon, is ineligible to serve again as Prime Minister, but he's not going to let a little thing like that stop him. His big idea is tax breaks for pet owners because, as he points out, most wives would rather sleep with their dogs than with their husbands. (He really said that.  It's unclear whether he learned it from his wife.)

The party in fourth place used to be called the Northern League, but that was too geographical, so now it's called just the League. It is the only party making serious policy proposals, albeit nutty ones. The League wants to have referenda on Italy changing its currency, and dropping out of the European Union. This is Italy's version of "build a wall, and keep the Muslims out." Needless to say, the League's leader is a bigly fan of Donald Trump.

The party in fifth place is the neo-Communists. So it follows that the party in sixth place is the neo-Fascists.

How, you may wonder, can Italian politics be so vapid? So pococurante? (That is, in fact, a word.)

Here is the answer.

Everyone in Italy has universal healthcare. That healthcare is free.

Public colleges in Italy cost around $1000 each year. Private colleges start at around $7000. (My daughter's tuition at Columbia this year, by comparison, is $62,000.)

Workers in Italy get 30 paid holidays each year.

Not only can you get paid sick leave in Italy, but as of last October, you can get paid sick leave when your dog is sick.

You see where I'm going with this?

Italian politics can afford to be loco in the coco, because Italians already have employed the political system to provide a decent life for everyone. When you're debating a tax break for pets, it's pretty clear that your basic needs have been met.

Here, less so.

Do You Only Learn History On The History Channel?

Cola

Most campaign emails are absolutely worthless spam, even from otherwise good candidates. But some candidates put some effort into making them great. This cycle, for example, Austin Frerick (Iowa) and Derrick Crowe (Texas) are doing really good ones. What do I mean by "good ones?" If I'm going to take a moment to even open campaign emails that always turn out to be just recycled spam, I want to be sure I'm going to have a positive experienced-- like be entertained or, better yet, learn something. So you know who has the best list to be on? Alan Grayson. I love his e-mails. They're witty, informative and, very frequently, brilliant. I learn so much from them-- like this one-- "Cola Di Rienzo won, 500 years after he died.-- from yesterday. I never heard of the guy... and now I'll never forget him. In fact, the email made me want to go back to Rome to see the locations Grayson talked about:

Dear Howard,

Many people think that between the years 400 and 1400-- the ‘Dark Ages’-- nothing much happened in Europe.

Not true. Among other things, Cola Di Rienzo happened.

Di Rienzo was born around the year 1313, in Rome. His father was a barkeeper (paging John Boehner!), and his mother washed clothes. Nevertheless, Di Rienzo rose to be the leader of Rome, not once but twice.

At the time, Rome was a crime-ridden city of squalor. Its best days were a millennium earlier. Di Rienzo overcame the two noble families who had run Rome for decades, with a program to restore Rome to its former greatness. Think of it as MRGA-- Make Rome Great Again, except with actual meaning to it.

Di Rienzo began by cleaning up the streets, and cracking down on crime. But he didn’t stop there. He boldly proclaimed two concrete goals:

• The unification of Italy, and
• The sovereignty of The People over government-- i.e., democracy.

Those were very controversial ideals in the 14th century. Di Rienzo ruled Rome for a few years, at which point the noblemen deposed him. He then returned to power for a couple of months, at which point the noblemen (and a mob) murdered him, in 1354, at the age of 41.

So much for that, you would think.

But the ghost of Cola Di Rienzo surely celebrated 500 years later, in July 1871, when Rome became the capital of a united Italy. And then again, in June 1946, when the King of Italy abdicated, and Italy became a democracy.

Di Rienzo won. It took more than 500 years, but he won.

And not without recognition.  For instance, Friedrich Engels, the co-author of the Communist Manifesto, wrote a play about Di Rienzo. And if you ever visit Rome, then ten blocks northeast of the Vatican, you will find Piazza Cola Di Rienzo. (There is a shop selling ice cream on one side, and a shop selling gelati on the other.) You will find the piazza along the Via Cola Di Rienzo, which runs from the Vatican to the Tiber River.

My point is this. If you support the right causes, then sometimes you have to be very, very patient. You might even have to wait 500 years. But you will win.

Please support our campaign for justice, equality and peace. No need to be patient; you can do that right now.

Another excellent place to learn history: John Oliver's TV show. And... as long as we're on the general topics of Italy-- and elections...

On This 4th Of July We Should Ask Ourselves How Hard Will Daesh Work To Get Trump Elected President?

Trump is probably correct when he says the global elite is out the get him and that they'd prefer Hillary over him. They'd also prefer Hillary over Bernie, probably by even higher numbers. But can there really be any doubt that every dedicated enemy of America is rooting for Trump to win the presidency? And in the case of Putin, one suspects the rooting is more than just passive cheering from the sidelines. Actually, that may very well be the case with Daesh/ISIS fanatics as well-- and for the same exact reasons-- a bubbling idiot in the White House sewing discord and disharmony every time he opens his mouth.

He may be the most flawed of messengers but Trump has taken up the populist banner against global elites pushing the devastating trade agenda that Trump has used to make himself wealthy and now sees as a blunt instrument to use against Clinton who he accuses to secretly supporting globalization type treaties like the TPP. Much to the horror of the dominant Paul Ryan wing of the GOP, Trump has appropriated Bernie Sanders' critique of the TPP, right down to the phrase "rigged economy." Keep in mind, that just over a year ago, when the House voted on granting Obama fast track powers, the 219-211 approval came because 191 Republicans merged with just 54 Democratic corporate whores to pass it. 157 Democrats (and a lonely 28 Republicans) opposed giving Obama fast track authority. Among the Republicans facing tough reelection battles whose votes would be harshly judged by followers of Trump are, aside from Ryan and McCarthy themselves, electorally vulnerable Republicans like Frank Guinta (R-NH), Fred Upton (R-MI), Cresent Hardy (R-NV), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Peter King (R-NY), Pat Meehan (R-PA), Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz... oops, she's supposedly a Democrat but she voted with the GOP on that one. "I want you to imagine," the carnival barker barked at a rally near Pittsburgh last week, "how much better our future can be if we declare independence from the elites who've led us to one financial and foreign policy disaster after another."

Tom Donohue, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, responded to Trump on behalf of the 191 House Republicans who voted for TPP Fast Track, knocking down-- from the GOP establishment perspective-- each point Trump made, demagogue-fashion, at his anti-globalization rally.

Tom Donohue is hardly alone among global elitists warned Americans about Trumps. The Italians are jumping up and down, waving their arms over their heads and throwing plates of taglierini, conchiglie, farfalle, capellini, rotini, bucatini, fusilli, pappardelle, and cannelloni-- both stuffed and unstuffed-- frantically warning us that Trump is just another horrid version of their own latter day fascist, Silvio Berlusconi.

Speaking from hard-earned experience, Italians offer a warning to American voters: Think twice before electing Donald Trump.

That advice is based on the fact that Italy chose a Trump-like leader-- and many later came to regret it.

Italy's version of Trump is Silvio Berlusconi, 79, the media tycoon who served as Italy’s prime minister four times, dating to 1994. The two men have much in common.

They are both billionaires who got their start in real-estate development and who came into politics as newcomers promising to use their business acumen to revitalize their country’s economy. Both are brash and self-confident with reputations as womanizers. Both blame much of their country’s woes on immigration. Both seem impervious to critiques and gaffes that would sink other political careers. They even share an obvious concern about their hair: Trump’s billowy coif is an integral part of his look, while Berlusconi admits to at least two hair transplants to cover up an expanding bald spot.

“For Italy watching the election in the U.S. gives us a sense of déjà vu,” said Gian Franco Gallo, a political affairs analyst with ABS Securities in Milan. “It’s like you’re rewatching a horror movie, and as the protagonist is about to get ambushed, you throw your hands up and scream at the screen, ‘Don’t go through that door!’”

That negative view stems from the fact that during Berlusconi's long tenure, which ended in 2011, Italy suffered prolonged periods of economic weakness, political corruption got worse, and Berlusconi became ensnared in sex scandals and legal troubles that included a wide range of charges, from false accounting and tax evasion to bribery and paying a minor for sex.

Most Americans see Clinton as a safer bet for who would deal with terrorism better (50-39% in the latest polling), especially after the mass shooting in Orlando. As Greg Sargent wrote for Washington Post readers last week, "It’s true that Trump’s anti-Muslim xenophobia and demagoguery did cause his numbers to rise among Republican primary voters in the wake of the Paris attacks. But in the wake of the carnage in Orlando, and even in spite of the raw public emotion it produced, the broader public has been treated to a vivid look at his approach, and Americans have recoiled... [T]he result of both candidates’ response to the Orlando attacks was also that Clinton holds a 34-point edge on which one showed the better temperament in response (it’s 59-25); a 19-point edge on which could handle the situation as president (it’s 53-34); and a nine-point edge on which has the best proposals to prevent future attacks (it’s 44-35).

This may be pushing Trump to bellow at his appearances that ISIS views Clinton as weak and that only he will bring back torture and set the U.S. on a path that includes war crimes like executing family members of suspected terrorists. "They want her to get in so badly. They have dreams at night, and their dreams are that Hillary Clinton becomes president of our country," he asserted to his poorly educated fans who are probably unaware that one of the strongest criticisms of Clinton is that she's a dedicated neocon hawk who is viewed all over the world as frighteningly warlike, far more so than Trump, who is generally viewed as a pompous, bill-mouthed buffoon who would likely stumble from one crisis to another, alienating friends and foes alike. If Daesh leaders dream about anyone in the White House, it's Trump, and if they get the idea that stepping up terrorist attacks will help elect him, expect more terrorism far and wide.

While Italy's Economy Was Going Down The Toilet, Guess What Silvio Berlusconi Was Doing

Silvio and Ruby

Italy's 77 year old right-wing former Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, a flamboyently crooked billionaire, was finally kicked out of Parliament Wednesday. Ostensibly it was because he had been convicted for tax fraud. The Senate vote was 192-113 with 2 abstentions. He'll never face prison on the tax conviction but the loss of his Senate seat also means the loss of his immunity against prosecution for all sorts of other criminal activities he's been immersed in for decades. Probably the first one he'll have to face involves the charges of bribery in the sex scandals that have plagued his recent career. He has been bribing the then-underage stripper, Ruby, who he had hired for sex. The judges are calling the bribery "pollution of evidence." Already convicted in the case are a TV anchorman from one of his stations, a talent scout and his dental hygienist, all of whom were procuring underage girls for him to have sex with. The 2 males were also accused of "testing" the girls before presenting them to the Prime Minister. There were 32 young women called as material witnesses, 18 of whom are now thought to have perjured themselves after being paid off by Berlusconi.

Berlusconi is accused of paying 2,500 euros ($3,400) apiece each month to young models and TV showgirls to tone down their accounts of the sexually charged nature of his dinner parties.

Three Berlusconi associates were convicted earlier this year of pimping for him. Berlusconi wasn't a defendant in that trial, but he is appealing a seven-year sentence he received in June for paying for sex with Karima El Mahroug, a nightclub dancer who was 17 when she attended the parties.

In a document released on Friday explaining the pimping conviction, the judges detailed the bribery accusations and said they had forwarded them to prosecutors, who are now expected to open an investigation.

The judges said that after the homes of Berlusconi’s female party guests were searched during the prostitution probe, he called about a dozen of them to his Milan mansion in January 2011 for a conference and initiated their monthly payments.

In court, the judges said, the women gave “perfectly overlapping” evidence of “elegant” soirees, rather than the striptease sessions described by some other guests.

The judges said they noticed the female witnesses using the same phrases in their statements, and that when they were asked the exact meaning of words they had used, some women were unable to respond, suggesting they had been coached.

Berlusconi, 77, has acknowledged paying his female guests regular sums but has claimed it was compensation for their stalled show-business careers, which suffered from the poor publicity stemming from the "bunga bunga" trial.

As Boehner Worked To Shut Down The U.S. Government, Berlusconi Made His Move In Italy

The reactionary clown on the right hasn't been sentenced to prison

I spent most of the summer holed up in an old house (built in the 1600s) outside of Montespertoli, southwest of Florence in the Chianti hills. Don't look for it on a map; it's not on many. People who say Tuscany is too crowded with tourists in the summer, aren't talking about where I was. There are virtually no tourists. Which is fine. On the rare occasions when I had the need to talk with anyone, I talked with Italians. And what we talked about-- aside from the incredible food in the region-- was the headlines: Silvio Berlusconi being "sentenced" almost every day.

While I was there, the court of last resort for the old crook said his conviction for tax fraud and his sentence (four years, already reduced to one) would stand. He won't be allowed to participate in electoral politics for the next six years. Unfortunately, the 76 year old Berlusconi will never see the inside of a prison. He'll probably be confined to his sumptuous palace in Rome (Palazzo Graziolo) with an ankle bracelet. More people in Italy are talking about whether or not the judges were prejudiced than about the proven corruption Bersulsconi exhibited in this specific case (or generally)-- especially on the right. Many rightists-- especially wealthy ones, who are virtually all tax cheats too-- see him as a martyr. At the time, I wrote that Berlusconi's PDL party (Freedom Party), which he owns and funds, is a major participant in the ruling center-right coalition, will be a force for instability now. The Democratic Party-- as vapid and cowardly as the American Democratic Party-- isn't even likely to end the coalition they have with Berlusconi's party! The Democrat's Prime Minister, Enrico Letta, wants to hold onto power too much to break the coalition with the fascists.

That force for instability thing happened over the weekend. Just as drunken, frightened John Boehner succumbed to Tea Party pressure to shut down the American government, convicted criminal Silvio Berlusconi decided to shut down the Italian government. Prime Minister Letta, whose government collapsed when Berlusconi withdrew his 5 right-wing ministers from the Cabinet, called it an "irresponsible act of folly” motivated “exclusively by his personal problems."

Following Mr Berlusconi’s conviction for tax fraud last June, the coalition has been buffeted about by the bizarre behaviour of the former prime minister who, on alternate days, has threatened to pull it down only to withdraw the threat next day.

Mr Berlusconi refuses to accept the terms of the Supreme Court’s ruling, namely a four year prison sentence-- which was reduced to one year-- and a ban from public office. The crisis has accelerated greatly in the last week following his calls for all his MPs to resign, followed by this call yesterday evening for the PDL ministers to resign their government posts.

In theory, Mr Berlusconi claims that he has withdrawn his ministers because a prime commitment in the agreed coalition programme was not respected at last Friday night’s cabinet meeting when the government did nothing to stop a 1 per cent rise in VAT. In practice, that cabinet meeting was held in crisis-mode, following a remarkable mid-week tirade by Mr Berlusconi who accused his centre-left coalition partners of having a “criminal ideology” and of plotting to “eliminate” him by judicial means.

Mr Letta, normally a cool customer, called this latest tirade a “humiliation,” not for him but rather for Italy. Mr Berlusconi’s attack came at the very moment Mr Letta was in New York, addressing the United Nations General Assembly and investors on Wall Street, trying to present a picture of a stable Italy headed for a 2014 of guaranteed economic growth.

...Inevitably, with the exception of the media that he himself owns, this morning’s Italian media comment is highly critical of Mr Berlusconi.

Italy’s financial daily, Il Sole 24 Ore, owned by the Confederation of Italian Industry, summed up the mood in a front page comment: “Rather than deal with serious issues (such as unemployment and the protection of savings), he calls on “his” party to give its all in order to deal with the judicial problems of one person (himself), someone who has defended himself at three levels of judgement and who refuses to accept the final verdict. In this way he places himself (bad) and Italy (worse) beyond the confines of the rule of law."

Sunday, Reuters took an in-depth look at what probably happens next. President Giorgio Napolitano does not want to dissolve Parliament and call another election so soon after the last one. But Berlusconi is already campaigning and demanding new elections. The Establishment parties-- squabbling among themselves-- haven't managed to get anything done and "the political paralysis resulting from the government's collapse will delay those reforms even further in the euro zone's third largest but most sluggish economy." Italians are furious... fed up.

"Markets have grown accustomed to Italy's dysfunctional politics but there's a sense that things are now spinning out of control, with potentially dangerous consequences for both Italy and the euro zone," said Nicholas Spiro, head of Spiro Sovereign Strategy.

With fears that markets will punish Italy for the political turmoil, all eyes now are on whether Napolitano can muster backing either for a second Letta government or for an administration led by another figure.

If not, Italy would be forced to return to the polls with a major risk that, with a dysfunctional electoral law and three parties of roughly equal size, they would produce a hung parliament and yet more instability.

...Economy Minister Fabrizio Saccomanni played down the risk that Italy's borrowing costs would shoot up when markets open on Monday, a danger highlighted by other cabinet members.

"I think the uncertainty connected to the government's instability has been largely already factored in during the last few weeks," he told business daily Il Sole 24 Ore.

Italy's borrowing costs hit a three-month high at an auction of 10-year bonds on Friday, while the premium investors demand to hold Italian debt rather than German paper widened to about 267 basis points from under 250 at the start of the week.

Saccomanni's deputy Stefano Fassina warned on Sunday that benchmark bond yields would rise by up to 300 basis points if new elections were called.

With the stirring message that he's not Weiner, former NYS Gov. Eliot Spitzer presses his bid to become the new Mario Procaccino

The former governor certainly attracted a media mob on his first day back on the campaign trail.

"At one point, an older woman in a straw hat leaned in to the scrum around Mr. Spitzer and declared: "His wife and his daughters understand. Why shouldn't we?" But a few feet away, a man in a blue polo shirt loudly castigated Mr. Spitzer, saying, "You slept with hookers, and you lied and cheated on your family."

-- from "As Spitzer Campaigns, Candidates and
Voters Weigh In," today on NYTimes.com

by Ken

Okay, now this is getting plain silly. Slept with hookers. Lied. Cheated on his family. If by magic one day every officeholder who met this description was magically removed from office, we would suddenly have one hell of a lot of unfilled offices.

Eliot Spitzer's problem, of course, is that he did these things, or rather wound up doing them, in an alarmingly public way -- the "public" part helped along, it has always seemed, by not-exactly-clean-handed political operatives on a mission to bring him down. Downright embarrassing is this from Christine Quinn, who started the NYC Democratic mayoral-primary season a commanding front-runner but the last I looked has fallen into something of a pick-'em with our other cumback kid, Rep. Anthony Weiner, and former City Comptroller Bill Thompson. Also from the NYTimes.com report:

"The question with both Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer is, what have they been doing to earn this second chance?" asked Christine C. Quinn, the speaker of the City Council and the only woman in the crowded top tier of Democratic candidates for mayor.

She added: "What have they been doing since their dishonest behavior? I don't think we see all that much from either of these men that would put them in a position where they would have earned a second chance -- redeemed themselves from their selfish behavior and earned a second chance by New York's voters."

Really now, Madame Speaker, their selfish behavior? Imagine now an even more miraculous day when every officeholder guilty of severely selfish behavior suddenly vanishes. The decks, it seems to me, have now been pretty much cleared.

Not that my vote counts for anything, considering my long history of voting for losing candidates, but I had already been thinking about casting a mayoral-primary vote for Bill Thompson -- who you'll recall came this close to bringing down Mighty Mayor Mike in the last mayoral election, and probably could have if the Mighty One's public-relations machine hadn't persuaded everyone that his Money (I think MMM's Money really has to be capitalized) made him unbeatable -- and I found this reassuring:

A more measured take came from William C. Thompson, Jr., a Democratic mayoral candidate who previously served as city comptroller and readily acknowledged that Mr. Spitzer would be qualified for the job.

"Eliot served as a very strong public servant," Mr. Thompson said as he greeted commuters at an Upper West Side subway station on Monday morning. "Everybody wants to run, feel free to run."

WHY DOES OUR ELIOT EVEN WANT THE JOB?

Well, as we all saw, his teevee career didn't exactly take wing. Or actually, as probably very few of us saw. I mean, whose idea was it to put him on the teevee anyway? Attorney General Eliot commanding camera time to announce the progress of his investigation of important (i.e., rich) people, the kind who don't usually get hassled by public servants -- that was OK TV. But our Eliot as a constantly talking head? Imagine widespread sounds of snoring. Why, to get people to watch you would probably have had to put him on the air with the high-class hooker, and even then she damn well better be hot.

But a former NYS governor running for NYC comptroller?

It's not what you'd call a "glamor" job, the city comptrollership. At its worst, it can be the emblem of political hackery. And its worst would be a man who not only got elected to the job as more or less a joke (at least on the voters) but four years later won the Democratic nomination for mayor with a whopping 32.8 percent of the primary vote, slipping ahead of a slew of more plausible candidates, and going on to run what political commentator Richard Reeves has called "the worst political campaign in American history." And it's thanks to that 32.8 percent primary "victory" that NYC got the primary runoff law in cases where a city-wide candidate fails to get 40 percent of the vote, a law that is likely to play a crucial role in this year's mayoral primary.

Who was that remarkable man? Glad you asked. Because Howie wanted to be sure I mentioned one of our next city comptroller's most memorable predecessors: Judge Mario A. Procaccino.

THE LEGEND OF MARIO PROCACCINO

Look up "machine hack" in your Political Dictionary, and you'll find Mario's picture. The hack's hack, who had been rewarded for a lifetime of hacklike Democratic-party servitude with a minor judgeship in his home borough of the Bronx, and happened to be in the right place at the right time (or the wrong place at the wrong time?) when the NYC Democratic machine had to do some big-time ticket-balancing.

It was a nightmare for the boys in the smoke-filled room: a Jewish mayoral candidate! Speaking of machine hacks, in 1965 then-City Comptroller Abe Beame had paid his political dues and was cashing in his chit: It was his turn for a crack at the top job. But how the dickens did you balance a ticket that was topped by a Jewish mayoral candidate? Under normal circumstances you didn't even have to slot a Jew in for any of the three city-wide offices. Was there any question how the overwhelming majority of the city's Dem voters were going to vote?

What's more, that year there was going to be something different on the Republican side, with the famously charismatic and liberal young Republican congressman John Lindsay making the race. That told the back-room political fixers decided that the way to go was conservative. They already had Abe Beame at the top of the ticket, and his politics were pretty conservative, insofar as a bookkeeper can be said to have politics.

Luckily for the back-room boys, there was an easy choice for the No. 2 job, the City Council president. At a time when the Sixties were beginning to become, you know, the Sixties, when there was already a backlash forming in the country under the banner of "law and order," Queens had a popular district attorney named Frank O'Connor. Get it? You got a Jewish guy from Brooklyn atop the ticket, so here you get an Irish guy from Queens, and somebody people have actually heard of!

But then, but then . . . .

Until finally one of the back-room boys remembered this pain-in-the-ass noboddy judge in the Bronx, Mario A. Procaccino, who had attracted a little attention as a knee-jerk apostle of law and order. Eureka! That's our guy for comptroller: He's Italian (another of the city's crucial ethnic minorities), he's from the Bronx (another of the city's outer boroughs), and he's a "hanging judge" (at least that's how he was known in Howie's and my circle).

The crowning irony is that in that strange year 1965, John Lindsay won the mayoralty atop the Republican ticket but couldn't carry his running mates. (Does anyone remember their names?) So Frank O'Connor became City Council president, and parlayed his new political weight into the 1966 Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1966, when he got creamed by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. (Eventually his party loyalty was rewarded with a judgeship.) And Mario Procaccino became city comptroller, demonstrating that pretty much any lug off the street can do that job.

Which doesn't mean at all that the city comptrollership is a nothing job. It can be and has been done by serious people. The comptroller, most obviously, controls the city's enormous pension-fund investments, which gives him potentially a huge amount of clout. And the comptroller, through his fiscal responsibilities, can at least try to enforce accountability for pretty much everything city government does.

And you know, there may well be more to our Eliot's decision to try to return to public office. Contrary to Speaker Quinn's impression, we may be dealing here with one of our more dangerously un-selfish public servants -- one who actually believes in public service. He did it in his first officeholding career, showing himself as NYS attorney general to have some strong beliefs about the public good, including holding powerful people to account for their misdeeds. It's the message he's trying to convey into all those microphones thrust in his face.

He told DNAinfo's Colby Hamilton that "he's look[ing] forward to using the comptroller's position to go 'beyond auditing paper clips.' "

He pointed to the power the city's pension funds have in the companies they invest in, as well as the ability to audit the city's finances as the tools he planned to use should he get elected.

He added that he wanted to use the city's top financial officer position to play a "affirmative and creative role" in the city, doing "to the comptroller's office like he did to the [attorney general]'s office."

Spitzer said he began thinking about getting into the city comptroller's race only "about 48 hours" before making his decision, but said he'd been interested in the job ever since leaving office.

"It was a decision based on what the office is and what I hope to bring to the office," Spitzer said.

THE EX-GUV INSISTS: I'M NO WEINER!

Obviously the former guv knew that as soon as he made noise about making a race, the name that would be heard throughout the five boroughs and beyond was --

Weiner

Actually, I've taken a little license here in suggesting that our new candidate for comptroller has declared himself the un-Weiner. So far, at least, he's been doing his darnedest to avoid talking about Weiner. According to DNAinfo's Colby Hamilton:

[T]he former governor isn't interested in comparisons.

"I'm not sure it's an issue I will address," he said.

In an interview with DNAinfo New York . . . Spitzer said Weiner's campaign was a factor in his calculations only as he "examined in great detail" the political field in the context of "the entire tableau in the political life that's going on out there."

Spitzer, 54, hoped voters would forgive him for the 2008 scandal that forced him from office.

CAN HE WIN?

At the moment, our Eliot is not wildly popular among NYC Democratic officeholders or party functionaries. His at-the-wire entry into the comptroller race (his first obstacle is going to be assembling the necessary petition signatures by Thursday) has caused confusion and consternation in one race everyone thought wasn't in play. Everyone was quite content with the one declared candidate, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.

But then, Eliot's never really been a "party guy." Too independent. Which is a good thing when it comes to setting an agenda that for the average party guy might be uncomfortably disrespectful of established players. But also maybe not so good for a job like his last one in government, when as governor he showed that he didn't exactly play well with others. His short tenure has been largely obscured by its spectacular crash-and-burn, but some of us remember how much ill will he created among people he needed to work with, like the leaders of the state legislature, who not only didn't like taking orders from the new governor but frequently had good reason to question his judgment, something the governor himself seemed seriously disinclined to do, ever.

But the city comptroller's job might actually be a better fit. Being a team player isn't necessarily such an asset for a comptroller who questions both priorities and the way things get done. And he doesn't seem wildly concerned about the minimal institutional support he can expect, with most of that already committed to Scott Stringer. Here's Colby Hamilton:

Spitzer said his past experience in primary battles has left him confident in his chances.

"Endorsements don't vote, voters do," he said.

NEXT UP FOR NYC: DISGRACED EX-ITALIAN 
PRIME MINISTER SILVIO BERLUSCONI?

According to the always-reliable Borowitz Report, the disgraced former Italian prime minster -- "in a stunning bid for a political comeback" -- has revealed that he's "considering running for office in New York City." The report continues:

Mr. Berlusconi announced his intentions after several local polls showed him with a higher approval rating than the candidates currently on offer in the city.

For the disgraced former Prime Minister, the chance to start over again in New York is "like a dream come true."

"In Italy, you make one little mistake, they throw you in jail seven years," he said. "New Yorkers are much more forgiving."

Mr. Berlusconi said that he had not yet decided what office to run for, but was leaning toward public advocate.

"Once they see how good Silvio does at that, they make him mayor or governor, no?" he said, with a booming laugh.

Mr. Berlusconi said that he was unconcerned by rumors of a possible bid for office in New York by another former European politician, Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

"Just let him try," he said. "Do I look worried? I am not worried. I walk down street, people tell me thumbs up. New York loves Silvio."

#

For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."

Accountability In Politics Is Not Very Strong-- Not Here And Not In Italy Either

I thought Italian former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a billionaire with criminal, perverted and fascist tendencies, was in prison. I was wrong. And he wants to be prime minister again. In October of 2011, Berlusconi, suffering from a series of scandals around underage call girls, was convicted of tax fraud. With Italy's economy cascading out of control, he resigned-- in disgrace-- the next month. Ironically, now he and his right-wing party will run against Mario Monti's failed Austerity Agenda.

Berlusconi confirmed the long-expected news almost casually on Saturday, telling reporters at a training field of his AC Milan soccer club that he had reluctantly decided to run. In an entry on his Facebook page, he said he had tried in vain to find a worthy successor.

"It's not that we haven't looked. We have, and how! But there isn't one," he wrote.

The popularity of his People of Freedom (PDL) party is at an all-time low of around 15 percent and his international credibility is still in tatters a year after he was driven from office by his inability to tackle a mounting debt crisis.

Berlusconi's advisers urged him not to return, yet after a year of political, business and legal setbacks the scandal-plagued media tycoon probably felt he had nothing to lose.

He was sentenced in October to four years in prison for tax fraud, although a long appeals process will keep him out of jail and may overturn the ruling, and risks another sentence in an ongoing trial for having sex with an under-aged prostitute.

The share price of his Mediaset broadcasting company has lost around 40 percent since he left office, deprived of his political protection.

Even physically, Berlusconi seems a shadow of his former self. He has stayed in the background for most of the last year and, after several face lifts and hair transplants, often appears puffy and is finally starting to look his age.

Yet for all this, the aged gun-slinger should not be completely written off.

He still enjoys a hard-core of support among millions of Italians, and if there is one thing Berlusconi is good at it is fighting elections.

He has won three out of five since he first shook up Italian politics in 1994 and has always performed better than expected, unlike the centre-left which is famous for polling below forecasts at national ballots.

Another victory will almost certainly be beyond him but he may just garner enough support to deprive the centre-left of a clear majority, giving him a say in the make-up of whatever government can be formed after the election expected in March.

He is now likely to run on a platform that seeks to tap discontent towards the austerity policies of technocrat Prime Minister Mario Monti whom he has supported in parliament for the last year.

"I cannot let my country fall into a recessive spiral without end, it's not possible to go on like this," he said in a statement on Wednesday.

"Today Italy is on the edge of an abyss: the economy is exhausted, a million more are unemployed, purchasing power has collapsed, tax pressure is rising to intolerable levels."

The market reaction to his announcement was a measure of how he is mistrusted by investors, with Italian shares turning negative and its bond yields immediately rising.

Berlusconi doubtless knows his international reputation is irredeemable, but he cares much more about resurrecting his appeal to the self-employed, small businessmen and relatively uneducated masses who have always backed him in the past.

The centre-left Democratic Party's (PD) commanding lead in opinion polls, with more than 30 percent of backing, has been built up in the absence of any centre-right leadership and boosted by its much publicised primary to elect a leader.

The result of that ballot was another factor that convinced Berlusconi to come back.

By electing the dour, 61 year-old former communist Pier Luigi Bersani over the young, telegenic mayor of Florence Matteo Renzi, the PD gave Berlusconi the chance to play the anti-communist card that has served him well in the past.

A showdown between Berlusconi and Bersani, with a combined age of 137, may be an unappealing prospect for a country in desperate need of renewal, but it is one which Berlusconi believes at least gives him a chance.

Although former Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham won't be out of prison soon enough to run for his old San Diego-area seat in 2014, he can run two years later. And he's 5 years younger than Berlusconi. Like Berulsconi, right-wing huckster Tom DeLay has managed to manipulate the courts to stay out of prison, even though he's been found guilty several times. He's younger than either Cunningham or Berlusconi and, unlike either of them (at least so far) has appeared on Dancing With The Stars. He also claims God tells him exactly what he wants him to do. Obviously if God wants him to run again... "God has spoken to me. I listen to God, and what I’ve heard is that I’m supposed to devote myself to rebuilding the conservative base of the Republican Party, and I think we shouldn’t be underestimated."

In a post he did for Truthout Saturday, Government Ethical Standards Are Toothless, Unenforced, Donald Schweitzer isn't talking about Italy... and he prefaces his post with some common sense from Thomas Jefferson: "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct... Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Public opinion polls show that politicians are the most despised people in America. If you believe Jefferson, corruption is in their DNA.

...The US has hundreds of laws and statutes dealing with ethics and more than 5,000 federal employees at more than 130 federal agencies charged with interpreting them.

The authority of Congress to discipline its members is found in the Constitution, which states, "Each House determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

By 2004, the House had heard 150 cases of members accused of crimes. 12 of those members were convicted, but not expelled. Although the House is forgiving of its own failings, it has impeached 12 federal judges and two executives.

During the 85th Congress in 1958, Congress for the first time adopted a general Code of Ethics for Government Service for officials and employees in the three branches of government. The standards in the ten-point code are still considered ethical guidance in the House and Senate, although they were adopted by Congressional resolution rather than law and are therefore not legally binding.

The history of the ten-item code of ethics is similar to the history of the ten items carved in stone and given to Moses to schlep down the mountain. Neither document is obeyed or taken seriously by any politician.

...In the 34 years since the formation of OGE [Office of Government Ethics], none of the 5,700 employees working in the 133 executive agencies has found any wrongdoing to be significant enough to trigger enforcement of ethical standards. Similarly, Congressional oversight of the executive branch has ignored president/s who condone torture, assassination, imprisonment of whistleblowers they formerly encouraged, violate the Constitution at will and have been accused of war crimes by constitutional lawyers.

The problem permeates our entire society.

Ian Welsh suggests that the fall of Italy and Greece to the forces of "austerity" is only the beginning

Greece's Papandreou had to go for resisting the enforcement of the plutocrats' kleptocratic "austerity" buying spree and for clinging to the vestiges of democracy. Italy's clown-crook Berlusconi . . . well, he just had to go.

"These attacks on currencies are deranged. The countries are not in that much difficulty, certainly the idea that France is in enough difficulty to be under attack is crazy. These attacks are about power. . . . The financial elites are on a plundering spree, gleefully using their power to force entire nations into poverty, blackmailing governments into huge payouts. . . . The elites will only respond when they feel your pain. And they will only feel it if you make them feel it."

-- Ian Welsh, in "What's happening in Europe
is what matters: rules of the financial rich"

by Ken

I don't imagine any DWT reader imagined that the fall of the governments in Greece and Italy was likely to be a portent of better things to come. In Greece, of course, Prime Minister Papandreou had to go for having the temerity to suggest that the even more stringent chokehold about to be placed on his country be subjected to, you know, a vote. (Voting in a nominal democracy? How unplutocratic!) And in Italy, well, the clown-crook Berlusconi simply had to go.

In his post "What's happening in Europe is what matters: rules of the financial rich" Ian Welsh argues: " The idea that the Mario Monti, the new PM of Italy, is something wonderful, is deranged. Note that once again, neither an election nor a referendum was allowed."

Here's Ian's take:

If you want to save the Euro and some form of European prosperity, there is only one solution, the European Central Bank (ECB) must do what it keeps insisting it won’t do, it must buy Eurobonds from members. And it must buy them at fixed prices. Italian, Greek, French, German bonds will be issued at X price, and if insufficient investors want to buy at that price, tough, the ECB will buy. If this causes inflation, great, Europe needs inflation right now.

Even France and to a lesser extent, Germany, are coming under attack. However France is under significant attack, and Merkel and the ECB seem unwilling to really do anything about it. France has the option to go off the Euro in a way that most other countries don’t. The issue with going off the Euro is simple: oil prices. You now have to buy oil with your lousy currency, which is even more worthless than the Euro. But if you happen to control countries that have oil, like France does (for example, France is mostly in control of Libya right now, not the US), then hey, sign some long term contracts and voila. It is not written in stone that prices must be set on open bid markets.

Which leads us to the sudden surge in the price of oil to $107 a barrel. On the face of it, this is crazy. Yes, the US has had a bit of a recovery, but Europe is going hard core austerity. But this is the game the hot money is playing: they move out of bonds and into oil, out of oil and into bonds. $107/barrel oil means the US recovery (such as it is, which isn’t much) isn’t going to last much longer.

Being rich is about being liquid when everyone else isn’t, so you can buy up assets on the cheap. When the rich are properly under control (ie. when you keep them poor and terrified of government and the people, as they should be) they can’t create such buying opportunities, they have to wait for them, and the government makes it so that the rich can’t take too much advantage of them, because taking advantage of them means taking advantage of other people when they’re most vulnerable.

Right now the rich can and are crashing asset prices by forcing countries into austerity through attacks on their currencies and control of their elites. They then buy up assets for fire-sale prices. (The history of fire-sale is worth commenting on. Crassus, the Roman Senator of the first triumvirate, had a fire fighting team. When a fire broke out they’d go to the fire, fight off the other fire teams, then Crassus would buy the burning buildings from their owners, negotiating as they burned. If they refused to sell, well, they lost everything.)

These attacks on currencies are deranged. The countries are not in that much difficulty, certainly the idea that France is in enough difficulty to be under attack is crazy. These attacks are about power: the global rich were bailed out after the crash, now they are using their hot money in attack after attack, demanding austerity, which will cause semi-permanent depression in those countries which accept it. That allows them to buy up what they want, keeps their labor costs down, and lets them divert what money they spend on investment which creates actual real economic growth into developing countries which are cheaper for them.

But watching European leaders respond has also made clear that they are either compromised, ideologically neo-liberals or completely ineffective. Watching the ECB insist that it won’t just buy bonds has been particularly amusing, because if the ECB won’t defend even France, the Euro is in great danger of not existing in a few years, and if the Euro doesn’t exist, neither does the ECB, which means all those central bankers will be out of jobs. They won’t even act to save their own jobs.

All of this is crazy. The financial elites are on a plundering spree, gleefully using their power to force entire nations into poverty, blackmailing governments into huge payouts. Pay extra on bonds, or pay extra on oil, or hey, why not both!

The political elites are clearly either bought or completely ineffective at resisting. If the ECB won’t buy bonds, then countries just need to leave the Euro so they can print money. Yes, that might cause inflation and various other problems, but that is better than semi-permanent depression through austerity.

Now, what can the people do when the elites won’t allow direct referendums, and when there are elections you can only vote for parties which are all in favor of austerity?

Make them fear you. Start as follows, which is what was done in Argentina: find their cars, those nice expensive cars, and trash them. Every time you see someone in a suit coming from the airport, surround the car and slash the tires.

And if you’re going to riot, don’t do it in your own neighbourhoods. Go to the parliament buildings, the bank HEADQUARTERS or to the neighbourhoods in which the rich live, and riot there.

If you insist on some form of pure nonviolence (which the European left and right don’t) then you must chain and twist tie yourselves around important areas. Go to the headquarters and shut them down by tying yourself up to all the entrances. Twist ties aren’t just the cop’s friends, they are yours. Love them and learn how to use them.

The elites will only respond when they feel your pain. And they will only feel it if you make them feel it.

#

Italy-- Austerity's Next Victim?

That tweet was just before I hit the sack last night. I woke up today and found that Berlusconi's closest ally, Umberto Bossi of the Northern League (imagine an Italian Rick Perry), was calling for him to step aside for former Justice Minister Angelino Alfano. With the defection of 5 deputies from his own party, it's unclear if Berlusconi would be able to survive a confidence vote expected later this week.

Unlike Greece's peripheral economy, Italy's in the third largest, after Germany's and France's, in the Eurozone. It's debt problem is like Greece on steroids and its almost inconceivable for the Euro to marshall on if Italy is driven into default. Right now Berlusconi is pushing unpopular Austerity measures that the Italian people seem unwilling to swallow-- although not measurtes drastic enough for the E.U. hardcore Austerity hawks.

Yields on Italy's 10-year benchmark bonds rose to 6.74 percent on Tuesday before dropping back. Analysts said Italy was reaching the point where Portugal, Greece and Ireland were forced to seek a bailout.

..."I'm not leaving," was the headline in the fanatically pro-Berlusconi newspaper Il Giornale, owned by his brother.

Speaking before the latest defections, Berlusconi said he had won back enough party rebels to win the vote and he would then table roll-call confidence motions on sweeping economic reforms promised to fellow European leaders.

"I want to look those who want to betray me in the face," he said.

If Berlusconi's support falls below around 310 votes in the 630-seat lower house, he will face massive pressure to go. Current calculations seem to put him well below that number.

Germany, whose extremely unhappy taxpayers are keeping the Eurozone afloat, is more than willing to sacrifice democracy in southern Europe for a stronger dose of Austerity. German banksters (their power exercised through the E.U.'s Frankfurt Group in Brussels) forced Papandreou to cancel a proposed referendum and to resign and they are demanding an appointed "technocratic government" in Italy (a bloodless coup) that would take orders from Berlin.




UPDATE: Things Have Gotten Worse... At Least For Berlusconi

I wonder where he's going to go into self-imposed exile now that "shitty Italy," as he put it, has rejected him. The same place Limbaugh wound up going, no doubt. He's offering a conditional resignation-- "pass this nice Austerity package and you'll be rid of me." He failed to get a majority in Parliament today and called the 8 members of his party who refused to vote for his bill "traitors."

Austerity Comes To Italy-- Blaming Democracy For The Excesses Of The Predatory Banksters?

Corrupt behind what Americans conceive of in our politicians-- and disgraced for having been caught on tape referring to the country whose government he heads as "shitty"-- career criminal/right-wing Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi knows he's committing political suicide by shoving a brutal austerity package down his people's throats. His right wing coalition has a firm grip on the Senate and they just passed the toxic package 165-141. It will be tougher in the lower house.

The measures will to generate more than 50 billion euros ($66.2bn) in cost savings through a mix of new taxes, pension changes and cuts to public spending. The plan aims to balance the budget in 2013 and help the government bring down Italy's enormous debt, which amounts to 120 per cent of its gross domestic product, the second-highest ratio in the euro zone after heavily indebted Greece.

Despite the Senate's backing, political opposition to the package remains high. To ensure the measures passed the Senate, Mr Berlusconi imposed a confidence vote-- a parliamentary manoeuvre that tied the survival of his government to the measures' passage.

Over the past two months, Mr Berlusconi has faced a tough balancing act, weighing the political interests of his coalition partners against the demands for growth-boosting measures from the European Central Bank, which has begun buying Italian bonds to lower the country's borrowing costs.

The ECB has warned that its patronage is only temporary and has called on Italy to introduce tough reforms that will address the country's high youth employment and lack of productivity.
"We have to face two major problems: our debt and our lack of growth," said Enrico Letta, a leader of the opposition Democratic Party.

The current package doesn't address those obstacles in any concrete way.

The measures include an increase in the value-added tax to 21 per cent from 20 per cent, the introduction of a 3 per cent "solidarity tax" on people who earn more than 300,000 euros ($396,940) a year, and an increase in the retirement age for women working in the private sector to 65 from 60 as of 2014.

Thousands of workers went on strike earlier this week, responding to a call by a major union that has pledged to oppose the plan regardless of whether it passes Parliament.

Some politicians and economists have said a technocratic government would be better suited to adopt the unpopular measures required to shock Italy's moribund economy back to life.

As Time points out there's a sense of unfairness that has "infuriated a public already fed up with the disproportionate compensation enjoyed by its ruling elite." And with disdain for Berlusconi growing-- as well as for the pampered political class ("The Caste"), what's this "technocratic government" thing being pushed. A government of banksters? Modern day fascists and plutocrats? Democracy is getting slapped around in Europe (as bad as it is in Michigan) by those who know what's better-- even if "those who know better" are the ones who have led the way into insolvency.

Opinion polls put Berlusconi's approval ratings in the low 20 percent range, European partners have heaped scorn on his center-right government's handling of the crisis and the ECB has said it will not keep supporting Italy indefinitely.

The premier should be down and out but the center-left opposition has struggled to establish itself as a cohesive political force and make capital from either the government's floundering record or Berlusconi's multiple personal scandals.

As Wednesday night's comfortable victory in a Senate confidence vote on the austerity measures underlined, the government has the numbers to survive, at least for the moment.

"It's a very serious situation," said Renato Mannheimer, one of Italy's leading pollsters, whose regular survey in the Corriere della Sera newspaper this week showed 8 out of 10 Italians opposed to the government and a similar number critical of the center-left opposition.

"There's one scandalous episode after another, there's the economic crisis, we're being observed very critically by the world at large and there's generalized distrust of the political class," he said.

"But as long as Berlusconi can hold his majority together in parliament, the situation remains, unless there is some outside shock from the bond markets or something similar," he said.

That does not mean the increasingly tense coalition between the People of Freedom (PDL), a party built entirely around Berlusconi, and the pro-devolution Northern League will get much done. Few believe it will survive until elections scheduled in 2013.

Berlusconi is no longer the undisputed master of Italian politics and business and newspapers speculate daily about the prospect of his replacement by a technical government of experts or a temporary cross-party administration that could push through tough reform.

His coalition's chaotic handling of the austerity plan has caused deep alarm among the tightly interwoven business and political establishment whose support has traditionally been needed for Italian governments of all colors to survive.

"We talked a lot about a government of technocrats or a 'wide-majority government'," said one senior banker who attended last weekend's Ambrosetti forum, the annual gathering of Italy's business elite at Cernobbio on the shores of Lake Como.

"We need a government that is able to react quickly but...a government which has the support of parliament can't be replaced," he said.

The wrangling over austerity measures to bring Italy's creaking public finances under control has nonetheless shown how deeply divided the coalition has become and how far Berlusconi's own power to enforce agreement in cabinet has weakened.

Business leaders at Cernobbio watched in shock as an urgent call for action by ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet was answered by Tremonti with nothing other than vague assurances and sweeping reflections on history and philosophy.

"It seemed like he couldn't promise anything on behalf of the whole government. He seemed not to have the power to do so," said the banker, who was present at the closed-door session.

Although parallels are not exact, there is increasing talk of the dark days of "Tangentopoli," the "Bribesville" scandals of the early 1990s when Italy's political order was driven out in a wave of popular fury at its corruption and inefficiency.

"We have that climate a little bit and I think at a certain point, if they ask for more sacrifices, things could blow up," said Turin University political scientist Luca Ricolfi.

Austerity: Class War Against Working People, An International Plague

Unless you think you'll be winning a lot of lotteries in the future, you're never going to be as rich as Warren Buffett. A significant number of Americans-- rational people in other countries don't think this way-- hold out hope that they will be the exception and that they want to be certain that tax rates on billionaires are low... just in case. Meanwhile, they could be making $40-50,000 a year and paying a higher effective tax rate than the billionaires they're protecting by voting for the billionaire protection racket known as the Republican Party. In yesterday's New York Times Buffett himself begged Americans-- and their representatives in Congress-- to stop coddling the super-rich. (You can watch Buffett discussing his editorial with Charlie Rose Monday night.)

Our leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill-- the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf-- was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income-- and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine-- most likely by a lot.

...Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone-- not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77-- shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion-- a staggering $227.4 million on average-- but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million-- there were 236,883 such households in 2009-- I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more-- there were 8,274 in 2009-- I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

We've been watching with alarm what the Austerity approach has done to social cohesion in Greece and England. I expect it will be even worse in France and Italy, which the international banksters are forcing in that direction. Italy's largest labor union threatened a general strike yesterday, after Berlusconi hastily pushed through an Austerity plan demanded by World Plutocracy.

Critics say the package-- a mix of spending cuts, job cuts and tax increases, including a "solidarity tax" for high-earners-- will strangle Italy’s stagnant economy, which is now expected to grow by only about one per cent this year.

Other critics, including nine members of Berlusconi’s own coalition, say it unfairly targets the middle class and fails to tackle Italy’s massive tax evasion problem.

Susanna Camusso, leader of the CGIL labour union, criticized measures aimed at liberalizing Italy’s labour market and targeting its pension system, saying a strike is the only way to "change the inequity of this package." She told the La Repubblica newspaper that union officials will meet Aug. 23 to set a strike date and invited other unions to join.

I don't trust Labor's Ed Miliband to get it any more right in England than Obama has here in the U.S., but yesterday Miliband launched a flashy (for him) attack on Cameron's reactionary approach to the riots, calling it "shallow and simplistic." Take that, fascist dog!

Reiterating his call for a national inquiry into the causes of the violence, he said the country had a "deep need" to explain and understand what had happened, but that Cameron had responded with "gimmickry."

The Labour leader said nothing could excuse or justify the actions of the rioters and looters but that, unless the causes were understood properly, the violence could be repeated.

...Miliband said writing the riots off as "pure criminality" or simply blaming parents would not get to the root of the problem. In a direct attack on Cameron, he characterised the government's response as "kneejerk gimmicks," citing talk of water cannon, "supercops" and the "harassment" of gangs.

"A prime minister who used to say 'hug a hoodie' now says the answer is to reform our health and safety laws," he said.

"A crisis like this tells us something about our political leaders. Day by day, the prime minister has revealed himself to be reaching for shallow and superficial answers."

Miliband said individuals were responsible for their actions, questioning why some parents were failing to teach their children right from wrong, but added that everyone had a responsibility for the society we live in.

He also questioned whether an economy that dictates that some parents have to work up to 70-hour weeks, meaning they are largely absent from their children's lives, might have a role in family breakdown.

But he added: "Children's ideas of right and wrong don't just come from their parents. And we can't honestly say the greed, selfishness and gross irresponsibility that shocked us all so deeply is confined to the looters, or even to their parents.

"It's not the first time we've seen this kind of me first, take what you can culture. The bankers who took millions while destroying people's savings-- greedy, selfish and immoral. The MPs who fiddled their expenses-- greedy, selfish and immoral. The people who hacked phones to get stories to make money for themselves-- greedy, selfish and immoral.

"People who talk about the sick behaviour of those without power should talk equally about the sick behaviour of those with power.

"Let's not pretend that the crisis of values in our society is confined to a minority only at the bottom when we see the morality of millions of hardworking, decent people under siege from the top as well."

He said the last Labour government, as well as the coalition, had failed to address the issues of inequality in society, arguing that there is a culture of aspiration for success that is out of the reach of people at the bottom, creating frustration.