| The Hoax Of Democracy |
Be wary of capitalists bearing democracy.
For example, in countries like Chile, elections such as were held in October 1988, are as dangerous as they are superficially promising. Although Pinochet suffered a landslide loss at the polls, he disregarded the results and refused to give up his power as dictator. Despite his loss at the polls, holding an election was of great benefit to him. It not only mapped out clearly where his supporters lived, but where the greatest concentrations of his political opponents lived! While the ballot system is only secret at the individual level, it can and does in reality expose whole villages to the threat of death squads. Death squads simply love democracy, it makes their job so much easier.
In El Salvador, America pumped in more than $5 billion during the last decade to prop up the virtual dictatorship of President Jose Napoleon Duarte whose death squads have so terrorized the electorate (by assassinating unsympathetic mayors), that over a third of the country's 262 municipalities are without a head. {B102} {B103} Although the concept (of exposing one's city, town, or village to the threat of death squads) may have little meaning in America, it does expose, however, that in countries where death squads prevail, it is meaningless to point to election results either as proof of a dictator's popularity or as justification for continued economic and military support from America.
In Columbia, the left-wing Patriotic Union party had its presidential candidate murdered in October 1987, and its deputy leader murdered on March 3 1989. Furthermore, 29 of its 87 candidates for mayoral office in the 1986 elections have since been murdered. {B104}
In Guatemala, which normally makes America's top 10 list for foreign aid (as does El Salvador), more than 150,000 citizens have been murdered since the CIA helped to topple the democratically elected President Arbenz back in 1950.
So, having looked briefly at Greek, and death squad democracy, it should be obvious that democracy comes in many guises. And, because it does serve both good and evil purposes equally well, let's objectively look at how democracy is being used in America.
Quite logically, American democracy should have at least two obvious characteristics:
The Founding Fathers were also acutely aware of the role of legislation, so, in an attempt to prevent the economic elite from continuing to use their power to manipulate the rest of society, they wrote a Constitution that attempted to banish Feudal conditions forever. As you may have guessed,
The original constitution never intended that the top 1% should be capable of possessing more wealth than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. If it did, then the constitution was a Feudal charter right from the beginning!
To have strayed so far from the original visionary concepts, old
laws have had to be altered, and new ones introduced. And this
is where the elected politicians enter the picture. They introduce
bills that they themselves vote into law. Not surprisingly, the bills they
introduce and make into law reflect to whom they have given their
allegiance. This is precisely why there is a glut of very complex taxation orientated laws favoring the elite and their corporations.
That is what "Conservatism" is all about! That is also
why the elite go so far out of their way to discredit "Liberalism",
which allows for changes to the status quo. "Conservatism"
maintains the status quo and that in turn ensures the rich stay
rich and the poor stay poor. The reason we have a democratic society
being run as a Feudal oligarchy lies not with a faulty constitution,
but with a subversive voting system that connects the elite directly
with the politicians.
In the first voting system, the general public is allowed, every few years, to put a tick on a voting ballot that almost totally prevents them from having any say whatsoever with regard to controversial issues of the day. Prior to the election, discussion of important controversial topics is avoided wherever possible in favor of discrediting one's opponent, or getting lost behind a patriotic smoke screen.
In the second and somewhat covert voting system, roughly 23,000 lobbyists swarm over Capitol Hill every day to fight for favors on behalf of the "special interest groups" that can afford to hire them. On a daily basis, the economic elite can send their legion of lawyers to talk directly with specific congressmen to make bargains with the legislators behind closed doors.
What kind of favors do the wealthy bargain for? Well, they bargain for such goodies as personal or corporate income tax concessions, or a means of getting around the inheritance tax, or for price subsidies, or write-offs for any number of things, or to have the capital gains tax reduced even further, etc., etc.,.
Why do the elite have so much power over the legislators? ...two reasons. To get elected, a politician requires votes. To get votes a candidate requires campaign support in the form of money and publicity. Nowadays, getting elected is a very, very costly business. Even though most politicians have small personal fortunes, few politicians would be willing to personally fund their own campaigns and risk losing the bulk of their personal wealth just for an opportunity to unselfishly serve the public. In big states like New Jersey or Illinois, a candidate in the 1990 elections can easily require $10 million to compete. {B106} In 1988, the average Senator spent $4 million to campaign. {B107} So even those with a few million can end up on the payroll through the need for election campaign support.
Therefore a politician doesn't even get to first base without the support of a sympathetic media and without financial contributions from benefactors with money to spare. This, for all intents and purposes, excludes the bottom 90%, and leaves corporations, wealthy individuals, and other business interests.
Democracy could still theoretically function under these circumstances
except for one important point. Those who fund the politicians
either openly or covertly demand favors in return.
...exit "POPULAR" DEMOCRACY!
...ENTER "SPECIAL INTEREST" DEMOCRACY!
The second reason why the elite have so much influence over the legislators, is that to a politician, there is only one thing more important than getting elected, and that is getting reelected! Consequently, they enter politics eager to bargain for reelection campaign support which is required every two years. Once elected, politicians know that from that point on they must win favor of the moneyed interests who will eventually finance their reelections. And that is the bottomline. By using this leverage, the lobby community effectively purchases whatever favorable legislation it needs! Democracy, if you can call it that, goes covertly to the highest bidder!
The first voting system serves the public, the second serves the elite. Not surprisingly, the one that serves the elite is much more powerful because the lobbyists can vote daily, and they can seek specific and obscure minor changes to the wording and meaning of previous legislature that can greatly favor a special interest group, ...usually to the detriment of the rest of society. A good example of this was the lobbying carried out by the rich wine making Gallo family regarding an inheritance tax exemption that has since come to be known as the "Gallo Amendment". {B108} The reader can get a rough idea of the ultimate cost to the taxpayer in lost taxes, as a direct result of this family's successful lobbying, by reading the article "Before the loophole closes" on page 239 of the Oct 2 1989 issue of Forbes. {B109}
Another reason that the lobby system works so well and seems so firmly entrenched is that nowadays most politicians already have a few million dollars in personal wealth, and politics presents an opportunity to increase their social and economic contacts in order to multiply their personal wealth more rapidly.
Since the system's legislation clearly favors the richest 10%,
and more specifically the richest 1%, it's evident that the elite
have more effective power using their lobby voting system than
the majority do using their tick on a ballot. In many ways, a tick on a ballot every few years has about the
same effect as a tick on an elephant every few years.
The S&L problems began in 1982 with the introduction of the Garn-St.Germain Act (introduced by Senator Jake Garn (R-Utah)), which had to do with deregulating the banking industry. Deregulation in a nutshell amounts to less regulation and less supervision. The first relaxation of regulations actually occurred in 1981, when S&Ls were permitted to offer variable-rate mortgages. In 1982 they were allowed to branch into business loans and into the funding of developers' real estate ventures. {B118} The relationships that soon evolved between developers and S&L owners amounted to real estate speculation teams. The speculation binge that resulted created an artificial boom that made billions of quick and easy profits for existing multimillionaires, before eventually going bust in a big way. Hell-bent on deregulation, the Reagan Administration even denied the Federal Home Loan Bank Board money to increase the number of its regulators.
And now to the Lincoln fiasco.
When Mr Charles Keating, a lawyer, purchased Lincoln Savings and Loan for $51 million back in 1984, it had assets worth 1 billion. In one of his investment ventures later that same year, Keating used Lincoln's federally insured S&L deposits to effectively make $30 million in "greenmail" profit involving a take over bid for Dallas-based Gulf Broadcasting Co. {B119} Then in 1985, Mr Keating hired none other than the present chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Mr Alan Greenspan, to lobby government to allow diversification from home loans into direct equity investments. In fact, Mr Greenspan praised Lincoln as "a financially strong institution that presents no foreseeable risk to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation". Mr Greenspan was successful. Mr Keating was virtually free to speculate directly. Mr Greenspan's lobbying had in effect pulled the cork. By October 1986 when San Francisco regulators first investigated Lincoln, the S&L already had unreported losses of $135 million. The regulators started putting pressure on Mr Keating.
At this stage Mr Keating first called in four of the five Senators (that would later come to be called the "Keating Five") to lobby on his behalf. The Senators, who were all recipients of Keating's generous campaign support, received the following: Senator Alan Cranston of California, $974,000; Senators John McCain of Arizona, $125,000; Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, $48,000; Senator John Glenn of Ohio, $234,000; and Senator Riegle of Michigan, $76,000. The first four Senators lobbied the Washington-based head of the Home Loan Bank Board, Mr Edwin Gray, on April 2 1987, in Senator DeConcini's office. Mr Gray, who later commented that the four senators "came at me like lawyers arguing for a client", refused to be bullied into submission and suggested that they deal directly with the San Francisco Bank Board regulators under whose jurisdiction Lincoln actually fell.
One week later, they did. But this time the four original Senators were joined by Donald Riegle, now Chairman of the Senate Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. The San Francisco regulators held to their position that Lincoln should be shut down.
Soon after this meeting Mr Gray in Washington was replaced by Mr Danny Wall, who had been the top aide of Senator Garn (who had begun the reckless spree in the first place). Mr Wall acted quickly to prevent the San Francisco branch of his Board from shutting Lincoln down by transferring the regulatory authority for Lincoln Savings and Loan from San Francisco to Washington, and thus under his direct control. {B120} It is estimated that the 20 month delay to the closure of Lincoln Savings that resulted (caused collectively by the five senators and Danny Wall), will cost the taxpayers an additional $1.5 billion dollars. {B121} In all, the cost to taxpayers for the failure of this S&L alone, is estimated at from $2 billion to 2.5 billion.
Few articles have conveyed the favors for favors mechanism underlying American politics better than the article entitled "An amazing tale" on page 66 of the August 26 1989 issue of The Economist, which deals with the Lincoln Savings and Loan debacle. If you next read "High-Rolling Texas: The State That Ate FSLIC", you probably won't need to read much more about how Congress operates. {B122}
However, if you are a glutton for punishment, I would certainly recommend you read the following additional related articles, but make sure you have a sick-bag handy when you read them.
Start with "The Seduction Of Senator Alan Cranston which appeared on page 82 of the December 4 1989 issue of Business Week. {B123} Then try the article entitled "DeConcini Banks On Voter Loyalty" in the Dec 18 1989 issue of Insight which disclosed, among other things, that DeConcini and family had made a 540% profit on parcels of land that they, through privileged political knowledge, knew were to be used for a $3.8 billion canal project called Central Arizona Project. The DeConcinis, it seems, did not share this information with the folks whom they purchased the lands from. {B124} The article also mentions that Senator McCain flew in Keating's private plane on several occasions to the Bahamas to vacation and enjoy hospitality in Keating's house.
In short, each of the articles gives a tip of the iceberg peek into the general ethical standards of the men running the nation, and does a fine job in helping to put American democracy in perspective.
But the Lincoln incident is not an isolated incident, quid pro quo is practically the only game in town.
Additional insights on the topic of quid pro quo can be gained from reading "How one family handles its finances", on page 42 of the June 12 1989 issue of Forbes, which outlined how Jim Wright, the ex Speaker of the House was able to enhance his lifestyle beyond the normal limits of his Congressional salary. {B125} It is worth noting too that in 1986, Jim Wright also used his lobby power on behalf of his fellow Texans to prevent Mr Edwin Gray from putting the squeeze on the S&L industry. I guess it was his way of thanking the thrift and real estate interests who had donated $240,000 to his 1986 campaign war chest.
Meanwhile, in an effort to stamp out thrift examiners, Texans
killed a measure in committee in 1987 that would have increased
the pay of thrift examiners, whose starting pay is only $18,500.
One such individual is Mr Henry Gonzalez, chairman of the House of Representatives' banking committee, who played such an important part in exposing the Lincoln abuses. He is busy investigating another S&L called Silverado which appears just as worthy of headlines. It is alleged that Silverado, like Lincoln, was involved in buying up assets (mainly junk bonds) which had been first artificially pumped up in value by being sold profitably back and forth between selected insiders (prior to selling the overpriced assets to the various S&Ls involved. The insiders allegedly included among others, Colorado-based Silverado S&L, California-based Lincoln S&L, a Miami-based thrift called CenTrust, Houston-based San Jacinto Savings (owned by the now bankrupt Southmark), and a troubled Colorado property development company called MDC Holdings which worked closely with Silverado S&L.
The interesting point to note is that it was Mr Larry Mizel, chairman of MDC Holdings who introduced President Bush when he surprisingly showed up at a Republican fund-raising lunch in Denver in late 1989. Mr Mizel's company is at the center of a federal investigation of Silverado S&L which had as one of its directors none other than one of President Bush's sons, Neil. Both Silverado and Mr Mizel's company (MDC) are being investigated by the honest politician Mr Gonzalez.
Neil Bush, the President's son, was a director of Silverado from 1985-1988, during which time the alleged artificial profit taking was occurring. Silverado's bailout alone cost the taxpayers over $1 billion.
Not only that, the man who provided the insider connection between
all these entities was none other than Michael Milken the junk
bond king. He provided the means for the entities to buy up each
other's thrift junk bonds. Should anyone be surprised?
Perhaps I should have warned the readers to wear knee high rubber boots when approaching politics for a closer view, because it's literally impossible to get a close look into the pig trough without being surrounded by some pretty foul smelling mire. {B126}
Keep your nose plugged, because I have to tell you that even George Bush's campaign manager, Thomas Loeffler (another Texan) solicited support from the Reagan Administration to appoint lobbyist Texan Durward Curlee to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Loeffler's client list was a virtual Who's Who of S&L owners, and Curlee was once executive director of the Texas Savings and Loan League. Again it's foxes minding the chicken coop.
Jay Leno, an American talk-show comedian had a brilliant suggestion.
Because there is such a shortage of prison space in America, why
not build a high wall around Capitol Hill and the White House
and convert the whole area into a State Prison!!
For starters, it is practically unthinkable for lawyers to admit guilt, and so even though an increasing number of Washington lawyers or their clients get caught red-handed, they, like Oliver North, take their chances at riding out the controversy, because history has proven that this approach works best. To weather the storm, some or all of the following tactics are almost always employed:
Why have these tactics come to be used so often, so successfully, and increasingly more openly on Capitol Hill? Mainly because these four tactics are the most successful tactics used in law today, and Capitol Hill is literally teeming with lawyers. Sixty out of 100 senators, and 186 out of 435 House members have law degrees, as have the majority of the Senate and House Judiciary Committee members. {B130} Needless to say, the lobbyists are basically lawyers as well. Congress, is little more than a fraternity of lawyers. Capitol Hill is to lawyers what Wall street is to MBAs.
Those who are forced to disembark from the gravy train are usually compensated by the elite for their past loyalty. The media elite quite often help out by promoting their books, or by tucking them under a wing as they did with Nixon in subsequent years.
The special interest lobbying and subsequent legislation that allowed for easy overnight wealth for S&L owners, and merger and acquisition players, will be extremely hard to top in the coming decade. Nevertheless, no one appears to know when to stop. As more and more S&Ls declared bankruptcy, Mr Wall kept the brakes on remedial action by insisting on lowball estimates of the potential S&L industry losses. When it became obvious that the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) could no longer cope with the enormity of claims payouts, Danny Wall was placed in charge of the new Office of Thrift Supervision which then had the job of disposing of the assets from the bankrupt S&Ls.
Evidence is now coming to light to suggest that the S&L bailout operation itself was taken as yet another opportunity to offer favors to the wealthy. As director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, Mr Wall was again in the driver's seat, ...talk about leaving the fox to mind the chicken coup. The plan he came up with was called the Southwest Plan, and just two of his deals should be enough to convince anyone that Mr Wall has made many friends among the economic elite.
The first case involves a Mr Ronald O. Perelman. (You might remember Mr Perelman as the billionaire who, according to Forbes magazine, made $750 million last year.) For this particular deal, Mr Perelman put up $315 million, of which $155 million was borrowed, to take over ownership of, among other things, First Texas Gibraltar, an S&L which had racked up its losses serving as a real estate speculation vehicle for none other than the former Democratic Party chairman Robert Strauss, whose very close social friend Mr Alan Greenspan, currently in charge of the Federal Reserve, was the gentleman who initially lobbied for Lincoln Savings and Loan to deregulate the S&L industry! Amazingly small world isn't it, and all so logically interconnected! {B131}
However, to get back to the point. For his $315 million investment, Mr Perelman received the following: good assets worth $7.1 billion; $5.1 billion in Federal guarantees to cover the thrift's bad assets; plus $900 million worth of tax benefits! Within a week, Perelman had sold $2 billion of FTG's dodgy assets which generated tax loss credits that saved him roughly $135 million in taxes. In short, the rate of return on his initial investment, in the first 90 days, amounted to roughly 80%. We should all be so lucky. The rest will be gravy. {B132}
The second case worthy of mention involves the sale to PMH Corporation of five S&L thrifts with 25 retail branches and about $1.3 billion in assets, for the paltry sum of $45 million. Like the deal to Perelman, the terms of the deal ensured that the government (i.e. the taxpayer) would absorb any of the thrifts' existing bad debts. In the first 15 months, $132 million of good assets were sold that more than easily recouped the initial $45 million purchase price. Most of the remaining assets are covered by government guarantee against loss to the new owners, and the estimated $40 million in earnings and tax breaks expected this year alone are pure profit.
Although these deals sound more like giveaways, many of the deals initially sanctioned by Mr Danny Wall were just as lucrative. Incidentally it is probably worth mentioning that Mr Grosfeld, the CEO of PMH's subsidiary, is director of several Blackstone Group funds. And, oh yes, the Blackstone investment firm just happens to be headed up by Mr Peter G. Peterson, former Secretary of Commerce, and by Roger C. Altman, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. {B133}
Unfortunately for the elite and the taxpayer alike, the S&L bailout deals appeared a little too much like additional gifts to the haves at the expense of the taxpayers, so that a special boondoggle committee may have to be set up to investigate the matter. The aspect that has made these bailout deals so beneficial to the lucky buyers is the tax loss credits that went along with the deals. In short, massive tax avoidance vehicles.
The impending Capital Gains Tax cut will be a variation on an already too familiar theme. The Joint Committee on Taxation says the capital gains proposal passed by the House on Sept. 28 1989 would cost $35 billion in lost revenues over the next 10 years. The recipients will be almost exclusively the richest 10%. In the House, 64 Democrats who theoretically owe a fiduciary responsibility to the bottom 90% voted for Bush's tax cuts. {B134}
Because politicians, both Republicans and Democrats alike, come
mainly from the richest 10 percent and have small personal fortunes
to protect, they are eager to create tax shelters. After all,
exemption from taxes is still one of the best vehicles
available for amassing and retaining wealth. The tax reforms of
1981, which relieved the elite of so much of their tax share that
budget deficits and widespread social program cutbacks resulted,
were passed for exactly the same reason. As long as the Congress
is controlled by lawyers, the rich will continue getting richer
while the poor become poorer.
In reality, Congress is made up mainly of lawyer/politicians who have never known hunger. Few if any have worked for the minimum wage. Few if any can count even one blue collar family as belonging to their circle of friends. Due to the lack of meaningful contact with the nation's poorer citizens, Congress manages at best an academic appreciation of the day to day hardships endured by the people to whom they owe a fiduciary responsibility, but with whom they have little or no real social contact, except for a brief period immediately prior to elections.
American democracy as it functions today does not represent the will of the majority, nor does it satisfy the needs of the majority. Instead, Washington is controlled by lawyers who have cunningly transformed the supposed seat of democracy into an arena in which representatives of the elite, can compete to amicably decide how best to share both foreign and domestic resources. Lawyer/politicians act as the intermediaries to minimize disputes among the special interest parties. Politicians and special interest groups (lawyers, and more lawyers) fit together like hand and glove.
The "quid pro quo" relationship works so well that in both 1986 and 1988, 98% (ninety-eight percent) of House members seeking reelection, were successfully reelected.
Considering the amount of political corruption that came to light during that same period, a 98% percent reelection rate, which now threatens to translate into life tenure for the elite's chosen politicians, exposes yet again how easily and effectively democracy can be manipulated. {B135} The electorate don't choose their representatives, they only get to choose between candidates who are pre-selected by the elite using the campaign support process. America is run by the Golden Rule - Them that's got the gold, rule.
One of the factors contributing to the 98% reelection rate among House members traces back to a long standing privilege enjoyed by incumbent members. Members of Congress are allowed six taxpayer sponsored mass postal mailouts per year to constituents in their election ridings. These mailouts are used primarily to enhance and increase their public profile for reelection purposes, but it is openly acknowledged that these mailouts give incumbents an obvious unfair edge over first-time candidates.
Furthermore, it appears that the reason House elections are held every two years is not to ensure a healthy turnover of people's representatives (as the public are led to believe), but to ensure that politicians are constantly in need of seeking campaign support from their wealthy special interest benefactors, and also to ensure that they can be gotten rid of quickly if they don't play ball.
With all its obvious flaws, the lobby system is unfortunately
only the first of many factors which negate democracy in America.
The next factor involves the existence of deals made in private.
What most voters are not aware of is that the most important bills (about 20% of all legislation) go through a little known back room bargaining procedure that can and often does effectively negate the decisions reached previously by both the House and the Senate. This vital step involves passing the bill on to a third group which effectively wields more power than either the Senate or the House independently! The group, known as a House-Senate Conference Committee, which is made up of selected members from both the Senate and the House, can insist on meeting behind closed doors. They can take a bill which had already been passed unanimously by both houses, make additions and alterations as they wish, and resubmit it back to each house for a take it or leave it vote. For example, during one such conference committee session, Mr John Murtha (chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Sub-committee) added a clause into a defense-appropriations bill that would give the Speaker of the House the exclusive use of a military airplane at all times! Neither House had debated or voted on that clause. {B136}
To make matters worse, Senate-House conference committees purposely take no minutes, so that no member taking part can be held singularly responsible for having voted for or against any of the changes or additions. Through some unwritten but powerful dictate, decisions reached by this Third and more powerful "back room House" are practically never rejected.
On average, only once in a hundred times does a bill, which has been mauled over by this Third House, get rejected by the House or Senate!!
The existence of covert back room deal making is not new, but then neither is special interest lobbying. With regard to "Special Interest Lobbying", this is the court of last appeal. Behind closed doors, members can once again trot out demands that had been rejected by a majority of either or both lower Houses, ...or amend proposals that had enjoyed overwhelming approval by both Houses! In short, this group has the power to veto the will of the people by vetoing the will of both House and Senate!!
Would the bottom 90% of the nation be so willing to refer to American democracy as the "beacon of democracy" if they knew that the combined will of their elected representatives plus the will of the Senate can be rejected in some smoky back room by a small group of politicians who are by nature prime targets for special interest lobbyists?
I think not!
In 1934, Republican Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska, who had by that time already served 40 years in congress, considered the existence of this power group undemocratic. He had this to say,
"The members of this 'house' are not elected by the people, the people have no voice as to who [conferees] shall be. ...No constituent
has any definite knowledge as to how members of this conference committee vote, and there is no record to prove the attitude of any member of the conference committee". {B137}
Every time I recall that a proposal can receive a majority approval from both the House and the Senate, and survive a further undemocratic mauling by a House-Senate conference committee, and yet can be vetoed by an actor from Hollywood, I feel sad for the generations of Americans who have struggled so diligently for a democracy, but who have instead been saddled by a feudal oligarchy.
Unfortunately, a Presidential veto is not what it appears either,
for the simple reason that the Presidency itself exists in a domain
of power that lies beyond the realm of democratic influence. At
the Presidential level, the elite exercise a far more direct and
insidious influence.
Not surprisingly, this incredible takeover requires some background explanation.
Prior to the Second World War, the American elite had not yet exposed the magnitude of their colonial appetite to the world. When the United Nation Organization was formed just after W.W.II, America still appeared to stand as a role model for many 2nd and 3rd World nations who were eager to throw off the yoke of colonial exploitation. After all, America appeared not only to have thrown off the yoke herself, but to have become a dominant military and economic force in the process.
As a result, the United Nations became a forum not only for cultivating American allies, but for stemming the growth of Communism, which many 3rd World countries had begun to view as an increasingly good role model for throwing off the burden of colonial exploitation prior to W.W.II.
Because a significant portion of America's industrial machinery had been redirected away from consumer goods and into military hardware for the war effort, America began trading military supplies to all the countries who felt that independence also meant an ability to defend their national borders.
And so a slow process began whereby the poorer nations either took loans from America to buy her military hardware, or alternately, they entered into economic co-ventures with America's economic elite to allow them to share in the supposed development of the poorer country's natural and human resources.
It took decades for the 2nd and 3rd World nations to gradually acknowledge that the American elite were not the saviors they had made themselves out to be, but simply a new colonial power that had been only too willing to fill the void left by European colonial powers as they abandoned their colonial holdings.
The poorer countries were being pushed to the brink of bankruptcy simply to meet their interest payments to the Western elite banking community. Increasingly, nations were forced into more and more economic agreements for the exploitation of their resources in an effort to afford the interest payments on their outstanding debt.
Gradually, the mood in the United Nations changed, and it became a forum of voices complaining against Western economic exploitation. Neocolonialism was in fact alive and well. The colonialists had all gone home, but the economic exploitation had remained, and many countries were even economically worse off than under direct colonial rule.
As the American policies grew increasingly unpopular within the UN, the elite sought ways of limiting the power of the UN to act independently. Consequently, America began defaulting on its financial commitments (i.e., its membership dues) to the UN.
In the early seventies, a far more troubling situation suddenly arose that threatened to reduce the power of some of the elite's most powerful members. With nearly a trillion dollars in outstanding loans (to the 2nd and 3rd World countries) at stake, the elite with banking interests were in serious potential trouble.
Fearing a domino effect might happen if even one country defiantly
refused to pay its loan repayments, the elite went into action.
The result was the Trilateral Commission, the most powerful economically
oriented organization ever formed to shape the planet's future,
and the closest entity possible to a global board of directors
overseeing the feudal based societies.
The Commission's creation was begun in 1973 when its instigator
David Rockefeller, who was chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank,
appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski (who had previously been the director
of the Research Institute on Communist Affairs), to select the
more than 200 future members.
The members were chosen from the top executives of the corporate and banking worlds, and included business interests such as Chase Manhattan Bank, Bank of America, Barclays Bank, Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., Bank of Tokyo, Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., Sony, Seiko, Bendix Corp., Hitachi, Hewlett-Packard, Texas Instruments, Shell, Exxon, Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., John Deere & Company, Caterpillar Tractor, Toyota, Fiat, Datsun, Coca-Cola, Sears, Roebuck & Co., etc.
Don't be surprised if you have never even heard of this organization, its members have cooperated to purposely maintain its almost non-existent public profile. After all, the public would have an impossible task criticizing the actions of a group it didn't even know existed.
To deal properly with the threat of foreign countries defaulting on their loan repayments, the TC had to somehow get control not only over the foreign policy but over the nation's purse strings as well to be able to deal directly with the banking problems abroad. They wanted control of the budget and the interest rates among other things. But seeing as the President appoints these unelected people, the Trilateral Commission first had to have one of their sympathizers or members elected President. To do this they took under their wing several good potential Presidential candidates, including Jimmy Carter.
The reason Carter made such an excellent choice was that as a Southerner, he had no real connections or contacts with the Northern Establishment. Consequently he would predictably and gladly accept backing and continued support from such an auspicious group of international big shots as the Trilateral Commission.
As they had successfully planned, after Carter was elected, he appointed the director of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as National Security Adviser. After all who else would Carter pick as his foreign affairs expert than the man who had purposely helped him write his foreign policy campaign speeches.
It should also be mentioned that Z. Brzezinski was not the only Trilateral member that Carter appointed to his administration, but he was the most important. It is probably also worth mentioning that the Trilateral Commission membership also cleverly included some red herring members to give the appearance that the Commission had the interests of the entire nation at heart. But the policies and legislation that emerged during that administration left no doubt that some members were only perfunctorily included to avoid bothersome criticism within the ranks.
After the commission's members had taken office in the White house, a stream of special interest legislative policies were enacted that greatly benefited the interests of the Trilateral membership.
As David Rockefeller's own special interests lay within the field of banking, and because foreign countries, who had taken out massive loans from U.S. and other major banks were now threatening to default on their loan payments, it is not surprising that a rash of measures that provided what amounted to free loan insurance for the banking club soon emerged. The following examples will provide an insight into how the banking interests alone were aided by the commission's presence in the White House.
The World Bank, which had always been a tool of the elite's interests, was given a huge contribution from the American taxpayer. This money could then be doled out "as required" to the foreign debtor countries who looked most likely to default. The American taxpayer had effectively started paying the Third World's interest payments to major US banks! So far the government has guaranteed, with taxpayer's money, $30 billion of the World Bank's 3rd World Loans. Potential future debt for America's unborn. {B138}
Because of the elite's close economic connections with the dictators of the world, legislation was even voted down that would have prevented loans going to countries with abysmal human rights records. These countries too had to be kept eligible for ongoing loans to ensure their ability to maintain interest payments to U.S. banks.
To facilitate the implementation of their economically related foreign policy changes, a committee to review national foreign policy was reorganized to include the previously excluded Secretary of the Treasury. By doing so, the machinery to ensure government of the economic elite, for the economic elite, and by the economic elite, got a permanent shot of oil.
To achieve all this, the Trilateral commission simply had to extend campaign support to a small town peanut farmer, and a Democrat to boot. Why have there been so many wars when you can completely take over a government with such silky legal smoothness? Real chess games require more chess strategy than this.
In case you're tempted to think that the Trilateral Commission was a phenomenon of the 70's, think again! Ronald Reagan was up to his ears in Trilateral Commission appointees!
THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION HAS BEEN RUNNING THE COUNTRY!!
The process of forming an integrated global Feudal empire
began in earnest with the formation of the Trilateral Commission.
Since its inception, the Trilateral Commission has funded numerous
studies which deal with key aspects of controlling whole populations.
Since the TC infiltrated the White House, it has collected a frighteningly
comprehensive pool of knowledge, all of which will be used to
establish the new global order.
The following incomplete list of Trilateral Commission book
titles should give a concerned reader reason enough to believe
that this elite group means business.
Based on information gained from these studies, the TC members are presently hard at work forming infrastructures to coordinate control of all the economic Feudal populations on an international or global scale, rather than just as independent national Feudal empires. As you read this, international contracts and legal agreements are being made by members of the new Trilateral oligarchy.
The Trilateral Commission's successful bloodless coup of the American democratic system draws attention to the fact that even the American President is rarely one of the elite, but normally only one of their functionaries. Whenever possible, the elite have preferred the position to be filled by someone (actors are ideal), who can memorize speeches written by specially trained speech writers, without having too many original thoughts or opinions of his own to confuse the situation. While Reagan has been playing the role, it has been convenient to hold press briefings under roaring helicopter blades, or not at all.
In contrast, John F. Kennedy may have had a few too many thoughts
of his own, and fallen out of grace with the elite. Despite coming
from a wealthy and established family, he was probably snubbed
by his peer group for being too much of an upstart who chose to
run the country according to his own dictates instead of strictly
following the elite's wishes.
It is the unelected advisers who take us into war. It is they who decree not only who gets taxed and by how much, but just as importantly who benefits from the tax money that is collected. They also raise and lower the interest rates. It is these men who most directly enact the will of the economic elite!!
They are not the elite, but they are rewarded so well either overtly or covertly that it is rare, if ever, that a person in that position goes against the will of the elite. To do so would be tantamount to giving up one's career, and jeopardizing the security of one's family.
Presidents can come and go, but the unelected policy makers can transfer from administration to administration, to provide security for the elite's long-term plans!
A prime example of these behind the scenes power wielders is James A. Baker who, within hours of Bush's victory, was named Secretary of State. In the 70's, he was not only Ford's campaign manager, but also his Undersecretary of State. In 1980, he was Bush's campaign manager who pulled him from the campaign in time to become Reagan's running mate. After the election, he became Reagan's (Bush's) Chief of Staff, and worked closely with both Ed Meese and Michael Deaver to control the White House with an iron hand under the watchful eye and direction of his old friend George.
After he had the White House power patterns fully established, he transferred to the post of Secretary of the Treasury in order to more directly work toward the elite's economic objectives. It was during his tenure in the Treasury, that most of the debilitating tax reforms came into effect, and during the same period that the country became the world's #1 debtor nation. Not only did his policies purposely accelerate the devaluation of the dollar, he also lobbied diligently to maintain loans to the defaulting debtor nations as a means of protecting the elite's banking interests.
James A. Baker is no small player. In fact, he has held these important positions during such critical times primarily because of his tremendous ability to lobby the press as well as individual members of Congress. Being from Houston, he is also a staunch defender of BIG OIL interests, and has proven to be one of their most influential and hard working lobbyists. His track record shows he has spent an inordinate amount of time cultivating relationships with members of the press. Because of his special lobbying abilities, he remains one of the most powerful men in politics today.
Another good example would be Mr Brent Scowcroft who now serves as George Bush's National Security Adviser. Unlike Mr Baker, Mr Scowcroft has preferred a less intimate relationship with the press and a lower public profile altogether. Even out of view, he has remained a very powerful figure in American politics ever since he served as National Security Adviser under President Ford.
Meanwhile the proliferation of unelected, unaccountable quasi government policy makers is making a mockery of a government the original Constitution was aspiring to achieve.
Of course the Treasury Secretary, the budget director, and the head of the Federal Reserve Bank all hold immense power over the American people, and so these men are chosen very carefully for their willingness to play ball with the elite, especially with regard to maintaining the status quo. These individuals all have advance knowledge of fiscal changes. Possessing their knowledge is a bit like knowing the winner of a horse race before the race begins.
It is definitely no accident that all the key unelected power holders are personally chosen by the president, ...the elite's most powerfully placed chess piece. This arrangement affords them untold advantages. For example, if the Federal Reserve Bank, which sets interest rates, were to quietly leak out information to sympathizers(i.e., inner circle bankers) regarding an impending monetary devaluation, those in the know could quickly transfer moneys or assets into foreign currencies and then, after the devaluation had occurred, they could buy back American dollars cheaply, and in the process, make an instant fortune. Paper transactions, that transfer assets within multinational corporations, can achieve this sort of transaction with the greatest of ease. This could have been especially true when America abandoned the gold standard.
Conflicts of interest, and the illegal use of insider information, influence peddling, etc., occur so frequently that they too, like many other immoral and unethical business practices have been woven into the fabric of the system.
Individuals like the Watergate plumbers and the Iran-Contras Affair participants cooperate readily in covert schemes because they know that even if the scheme is uncovered, the elite's total machinery will swing into action to assist and compensate the appointed fall guys. This never amounts to much of a problem because the attorney generals and the whole legal system are integral parts of the elite's machinery as well. Their level of confidence in the protection system afforded the elite's lawbreakers is shown by the fact that both of the above groups operated directly out of the White House.
By the time individuals have climbed to the summit of their fields to the point of qualifying to be chosen as the President's appointed cabinet members, they are being rewarded so well that, like the politicians, they too are interested in retaining the status quo. They too are interested in tax perks to protect their moderate fortunes. They are critically aware that their careers would be ruined by trying to initiate policy that would threaten either the wealth or power of the richest 1%, and so the system continues to favor the wealthy.
Perhaps this would be as good a time as any to at least have a
cursory look at the other two major lobby groups, besides the
banking elite, who have determined America's domestic and foreign
policy the most - the oil lobby, and the military industrial lobby.
A Closer Look at Lobbying
It is probably safe to say that one of the quickest and most dramatic
reductions to America's standard of living seemed to coincide
with the dramatic rise in the price of oil by the thirteen oil
producing countries who organized themselves to form an Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
At this point the reader should remember that it was Nixon's financing
of the Vietnam war by printing money without generating the wealth
to back the paper money that placed America's standard
of living on the slippery slope of decline!! It will take serious
study to determine to just what degree the price of oil rose,
as the price of gold had already done, to adjust to the fact that
the value of America's paper money had been recklessly undermined
and ultimately devalued by the rest of the world.
In any case, the elite went out of their way to make Americans see the OPEC oil merchants as THE TYRANTS responsible for America's inflation, higher prices, and consequently for her dropping standard of living. For all intents and purposes, the monetary devaluation heist was pulled off flawlessly. Most Americans still don't have the foggiest clue as to what really went on. It would be of benefit to elaborate on the issue.
For many of the American economic elite, the OPEC policies were a source of unforeseen wealth. So much so, that strong lobby groups formed to maintain both OPEC and its policies.
The owners of American oil companies couldn't have been more pleased. The anti-trust legislation that had been previously introduced to prevent the American oil companies from hosing the motoring public at the pumps, was no longer effective. OPEC could now be officially blamed for the exorbitantly high prices. In addition, the value of the oil reserves in America both in storage above and below ground went through the roof. Overnight all the lobbying power of the oil industry was secretly refocused to maintain the high prices and develop friendly relations with the Arabs.
The banking elite became OPEC lobbyists for several reasons. Firstly the OPEC members who were still developing their oil industries borrowed heavily from the major U.S. banks. Countries like Saudi Arabia who were already quite developed, now had excess capital which found its way into American banks as deposits. These deposits as early as 1977 totaled about 50 billion dollars. The Trilateral banking members quickly grew fat at the OPEC trough. They were able to borrow at reduced rates from the Arabs, and loan the money to Americans among others for substantial profits. The banks of course had a vested interest in maintaining the OPEC deposits. In fact many U.S. banks bought equity in banks already established in the Middle East.
Because corporations also borrowed from this cheap source of money, the number of pro-OPEC lobbyists continued to balloon.
Arab oil money quite literally poured into the States through Houston based Aramco Services Co., which was the American purchasing arm for the Arabs. In addition to billions of dollars of oil industry equipment, Aramco Services supplied billions of dollars of goods and services that were needed to upgrade overnight the standard of living in the oil rich Arab nations. Even though the products ranged from foodstuffs to hospital equipment, the major beneficiaries were again the largest corporations who were the only ones capable of supplying goods and services on such a grand scale.
The feeding frenzy at the OPEC trough also included a whole legion of consultants and lawyers who became beneficiaries and consequently lobbyists for OPEC. Those conscripted for service included such notables as Richard Helms the former Head of the CIA and former Ambassador to Iran; William Rogers, Nixon's former Secretary of State; William Fulbright, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee; and Clark Clifford, former Secretary of Defence, to name but a few.
In short, the 750 % increase in gasoline and home heating oil costs came directly out of the working man's pockets, travelled to the Middle East, and then got redistributed back into a minority of economic elite pockets, many of whom were members in good standing of the Trilateral Commission.
It is certainly no surprise that there was no end of lobbyists willing to support OPEC policies, and even the idea of an OIL SHORTAGE to help justify the continuing high price of oil!
Subsidies to the oil industry have cost the taxpayer plenty. In
fact one of their former tax avoidance deceits also cost the government
untold amounts of tax revenues. It's worth knowing about, and
it went something like this.
Because taxes paid to foreign countries could be deducted against
any taxes owed in America, oil companies arranged with the Arab
oil vendors to falsely designate as "tax", a totally
erroneous proportion of the price paid to the Arab producers.
Consequently, profits made by some American oil resellers were
offset by the amount of the purchase price falsely labelled as
taxes. The net result was a tax evasion of the highest order. Needless to say, the oil racket has increasingly concentrated
the nation's wealth in the hands of even fewer people.
It is probably worth mentioning as well that in the period before OPEC and the International Energy Agency, anti-trust laws were in place to avoid collusion between oil companies. Anti-trust laws relaxed the public's fears, but what the public didn't know was that even though the companies were prohibited from meeting together to discuss pricing strategies, etc., almost 2 dozen oil companies retained the same lawyer. One wonders how many palms got greased to keep that scam quiet.
Despite the horrendous windfall profits enjoyed by oil producers
when the price of oil went up, they still lobby for and
receive government (taxpayer) subsidies for oil exploration.
The disposal of three trillion dollars for the Strategic Defense Initiative (a euphemism meaning accelerated nuclear escalation), is in the hands of a legion of extremely powerful part time Pentagon consultants recruited straight from the private sector. Many previously worked within the Pentagon as government employees, whose loyalties were first and foremost to the nation and its best interests, but who were later lured one way or another to serve private industry. Their knowledge of the Pentagon's procurement methods, combined with having friendships with existing Pentagon procurement employees, makes them an invaluable private sector commodity, and herein lies the conflict.
A consultant doesn't bill himself as a conflict of interest balancing act, but he purports to be operating in the nation's interest while successfully balancing with one foot in private industry, one hand reaching ominously into the Pentagon purse, the other hand under the table clutching kickback payoffs, and his eyes riveted to his own bank statement. Armed also with a knowledge of the procurement system's vulnerabilities, the situation is ripe for procuring $10 washers and $620 toilet seats.
Corruption and conflict of interest are far from the real issue however. The degree to which private sector self-interests and their lobbying created the three trillion dollar Strategic Defense Initiative, is the issue that deserves the limelight.
The production and sale of war machinery in peace time has traditionally been one of the chief sources of wealth for many of the Chess Society elite. It is, therefore, not surprising that the present budget allowance for Star Wars is in the neighborhood of 3 trillion dollars.
Let's consider some of the advantages:
In addition, threats to job security are an ever present form of subtle economic intimidation keeping employees from exposing corrupt or illegal practices.
The elite have repeated over and over that the technological discoveries made through defense industry research end up benefiting the average citizen. However, despite the fact that 65% of our scientists are involved in war effort technology, the main improvements in living conditions for the bottom 90 percent consist of relatively old technology; motor vehicles, electricity, telephones, TVs, stereos, and dishwashers. Although pocket calculators and computers have ended up in many homes, the public derive little value from the enormous waste of physical, mental and natural resources involved in the shameful production of instruments for destruction, carnage and social devolution.
Discussions in the press concerning the benefits and synergetic effects of spending three trillion dollars on programs beneficial to mankind are conspicuous by their absence. They could be telling about unimaginable social improvements if the money were channeled into health care research; or on educating everyone to his or her capacity; or set to the task of eliminating needless human starvation; or funding the myriad of other worthy causes that would prove beneficial to mankind in general.
Another Golden Age waits quietly inside a Feudal cocoon for a
people with a sense of international brotherhood to set it free.
In Western Society, labor-oriented interests (whom the Congressional Democrats are supposedly representing) never truly ever get controlling power over their nation's destiny. Why not? because...
The economic elite exercise an operating control over the economy, the media, the legal profession, the military, the secret services, as well as the majority of congressmen to whom they provide campaign funding, no matter which party is in power.
Of course getting control means more than just winning a Presidential election, because the elite are as capable of using a Democratic president as a pawn for their purposes. The previous discussion of the Trilateral Commission under the topic of The Covert Takeover of America should have left no doubt about that. The infiltration by elected and appointed members of the government who swear allegiance to the Trilateral Commission makes it increasingly irrelevant which major party is seen to be in power at any given time.
Elections serve two main purposes. For the Republicans and Democrats alike, it is a time of arranging future rewards for the lower echelon business communities in return for their support. Secondly, they are festive events to cleverly create a happy atmosphere in which to reinforce the illusion that America functions as a democracy.
It is at least theoretically possible for labor oriented interests to "get
control" of the government, but important changes would be
required first. Legislation would have to be introduced to
eliminate the campaign support dependency of candidates and to
cut the ties between politicians and the media. Without
doing both of these, the job cannot be accomplished.
The level to which the elite have succeeded in their control of
both politics and the public mind, is attested to by the fact
that few people see anything wrong with a political democracy
that would elect as President, a Hollywood actor who made a career
of memorizing scripts and parroting them back, ...followed by
the ex-head of a secret service.
When George Orwell wrote "1984", it was the elite who took the most notes.
As long as big money effectively determines how the country is run, and even who rules the country, democracy will exist in name only. Through their influence over both the elected and appointed politicians, the low profile economic elite quietly dictate new policy and legislation that support their national and international business ventures. The Trilateral Commission provides a clear and excellent example of how such control is exercised. Members of the elite make international deals such as loans and economic co-ventures with the elite of 2nd and 3rd World countries like South Africa, Panama, El Salvador, etc., and then manipulate the people's representatives into adopting foreign policy that supports and protects their interests. The ethical and moral reputation of the American people is compromised when the deals involve the world's dictators and human right's violators.
Increasingly, the tail is wagging the dog.
International foreign policy is being shaped in response to lobbying by the multinational corporate body. Government has taken on the role of acting as an extension of the legal department of the corporate world. As well as successfully maneuvering it's members directly into powerful positions in the White House, the Trilateral Commission simply includes among its membership anyone whose help it needs.
The Webster's dictionary definition of Feudalism stands as a reminder for those who still think objectively:
...3: control by an entrenched minority esp. for its own benefit : social, political, or economic oligarchy.
Let there be no uncertainty about the following:
Attaining a proper democracy will require much work, and maintaining it will require even greater vigilance.
To refer to the existing hoax as Government of the people,
for the people, and by the people, ...borders on the absurd.
Let's say a country wished to elect a government of 100 elected members.
To eliminate the theatrics and monetary waste involved in current
election campaigns, and to prevent any party from requiring or
in fact being helped unfairly by contributions from the economic
elite, put all parties on an equal footing. First have each party
prepare a platform which makes clear its stand on all the key
issues of the day, and let the platforms be debated first nationally
by relevant party authorities, and then exhaustively in local
public forums.
A fund of money from taxes would be set aside for
televised interparty debates concerning the merits and flaws of
each others platform planks. At party election time, have the
party's previous contributions to society posted for all to see.
Make each political party prepare a written platform that if elected
will stand as a matter of record.
Then at each polling booth let the people initially vote for a PARTY (and its platform), ...instead of for a candidate. After a party is chosen by the most per capita votes in the country, the respective number of members of each party are determined by the relative ratio of total votes received. By electing a party by the number of per capita votes, the abuse of gerrymandering would be eliminated.
Let money from taxes, necessary to elect the 100 candidates, be then divided among the winning parties accordingly, to cover the cost of electing their members. The respective parties would then hold elections to field the appropriate number of candidates nationally. In other words, if one party received ten percent of the country vote, then that party had the right to elect it's ten candidates. Only those who had originally registered as voting members of that particular party would then be eligible to vote in the secondary "candidate" elections.
At CANDIDATE election time, have the candidates' previous contributions to the community, be posted for all to see. Make each political candidate prepare a written statement regarding his stand on the key issues of the day. If elected it would stand as a matter of record. Then each party would elect their representatives.
Once in power, the incoming party then has the right, not the obligation to replace ministers holding portfolios.
Ensure that a minister only holds a portfolio for which he has special qualifications and training.
Elected politicians should be considered ineligible unless they have a history of community service as opposed to economic self- service. This should be just as mandatory a condition for the unelected appointees.
Slowly elevate the role of elected official to a position of honor and respect by making the penalties socially devastating for serious abuse of public trust. Influencing peddling, at least 10 years.
Serious abuses of public trust by a President or Attorney General should carry a 10 year minimum sentence, not merely impeachment. Let's get rid of the Divine Right of Kings once and for all.
Strip a convicted elected official of his special pension rights.
************************************
And last but not least, it may come as a shock to some Americans, but:
In a real DEMOCRACY, its leader would not be able to veto the wishes of the elected majority.
The scandalous hoax being perpetrated on the American people by a mere handful of their most cunning, and I might add most respected citizens, is of epic proportions. So, before we go any further it would be beneficial to expose the hoax that makes all other hoaxes possible, ...Manipulation Of The Mass Media.
{B102} "Sad Salvador" The Economist (Nov 25 1989): p14
{B103} "Death Map" The Economist (Jan 14 1989): p40
{B104} "No doves here" The Economist (Apr 1 1989): p38
{B105} "Taming the dreaded Gerrymander" Insight (Dec 25 1989): p20
{B106} "How to end Washington corruption" Fortune (Dec 18 1989): p213
{B107} "Can you buy a congressman?" The Economist (Nov 18 1989): p25
{B108} "Gallos humor" Forbes (Oct 17 1988): p88
{B109} "Before the loophole closes" Forbes (Oct 2 1989): p239
{B110} "Frenzy on the Hill" Newsweek (Jun 12 1989): p20
{B111} "Heavy hitters of politics, 1988 edition" Forbes (Oct 24 1988): p72
{B112} "The rise and fall of special interest financing" Forbes (Oct 24 1988): p80
{B113} "Can you buy a congressman?" The Economist (Nov 18 1989): p25
{B114} "Can you buy a congressman?" The Economist (Nov 18 1989): p26
{B115} "Frenzy on the Hill" Newsweek (Jun 12 1989): p17
{B116} "Frenzy on the Hill" Newsweek (Jun 12 1989): p20
{B117} "Frenzy on the Hill" Newsweek (Jun 12 1989): p18
{B118} "The S&L mess - and how to fix it" BusinessWeek (Oct 31 1988): p131
{B119} Good timing, Charlie" Forbes (Nov 27 1989): p142
{B120} "DeConcini banks on voter loyalty" Insight (Dec 18 1989): p20
{B121} "The seduction of Senator Alan Cranston" BusinessWeek (Dec 4 1989): p82
{B122} "High-rolling Texas: The state that ate FSLIC" BusinessWeek (Oct 31 1989): p138
{B123} "An amazing tale" The Economist (Aug 26 1989): p66
{B124} "DeConcini banks on voter loyalty" Insight (Dec 18 1989): p21
{B125} "How one family handles its finances" Forbes (Jun 12 1989): p42
{B126} "Hi, Ho, Silverado" The Economist (Jan 13 1990): p78
{B127} "Humpty Dumpty" The Economist (Dec 9 1989): p23
{B128} "'Nuff said" The Economist (Nov 25 1989): p95
{B129} "DeConcini banks on voter loyalty Insight (Dec 18 1989): p21
{B130} "The plaintiff Attorney's great honey rush (Oct 16 1989): p199
{B131} "Greenspan's moment of truth" BusinessWeek (Jul 31 1989): p62
{B132} "The screwiest S&L bailout ever" Fortune (Jun 19 1989): p114
{B133} "Sweet deal" Forbes (Sep 18 1989): p96
{B134} "Why Bush's trickle-up theory is sailing through Congress" BusinessWeek (Oct 16 1989): p47
{B135} "Incumbents' real ace in the hole" Insight (May 22 1989): p22
{B136} "How to please Mr Speaker" The Economist (Nov 18 1989): p34
{B137} "Franking wins in the back room" Insight (Oct 23 1989): p21
{B138} Will the US be left holding the bag on Third World debt?" BusinessWeek (Oct 16 1989): p22
{B139} "The seduction of Senator Alan Cranston" BusinessWeek (Dec 4 1989): p82