The single most important consideration our Congress and our President should

have when deciding how to balance the federal budget (And, this consideration should
apply to state and local political budget issues as well.) is how every proposal will effect
the health and well being of the middle class of this country. So much talk time and
fussing is being spent on whether the dollar is headed for hyperinflation, whether the
continuing deficits will bankrupt the country, etc., when these are only symptoms of the
disease.

The disease is the potential decline and destruction of the middle class. This
nation does not want that. In spite of far right thinking that thinning the middle class will
drive up competition for jobs and reduce labor costs, making the United States'
production and manufacturing companies more competitive on the world stage, thinning
the middle class is a major social, political and economic mistake. It is a mistake only
people so blinkered by greed and allegiance to the dogma of "free trade' could make. It is
a mistake made by the intelligent myopics in our society. The intelligent myopics are that
group in a society who are smart enough to BS and bedazzle the majority but are so
intensely focused on a narrow objective, in our case maximizing the return on private
capital to the exclusion of all else, so as to lose sight of the unintended consequences of
such a short sighted policy. Unfortunately, this is the group that has dominated national
economic policy for at least the past six decades.

Even more unfortunate is the lack of appreciation this group has of the critical
importance of maintaining and expanding the middle class in the United States. Things
did not fall apart in this nation during the Civil War and its aftermath because there was,
in the Union states, a vibrant middle class. Likewise, after that war, perhaps for the first
time, there was an emerging and vibrant middle class in the rebuilding Southern States.
Things did not fall apart during the Panic of the 1880's because the nation was anchored
by a vibrant and optimistic middle class. Things did not fall apart during the Great
depression for the same reason.

Now we are lead by a gaggle of men and women who have no experience outside
of government and finance. These folk believe the middle class can be restored if we just
protect the banks and other financial institutions and the value of the ownership in those
banks and institutions. They believe that the critical thing of importance is the
preservation of wealth. Therefore, the resources of the nation have been put to that use
above all else.

Reality is exactly the opposite. The banks and financial institutions in this nation
will remain healthy only if the middle class remains healthy. The banks and financial
institutions in this nation can grow only to the extent that the nation's middle class
prospers and expands. Let's be clear, banks and financial folk do nothing other than
shuffle money. They do not make anything. They do not create national wealth. They
don't create any wealth. At most, they simply aggregate wealth and rake a large chunk of
wealth off the top while doing so.

This is not to say that the Goldman Sachs of the world will not continue to grow
and prosper as the United States middle class dwindles and shrinks. It may and probably
will. It just won't do it here. It will continue to grow and prosper from investments in
nations where the middle class is vibrant, growing and optimistic. These nations will not
be the ones with the lowest tax rates or the strongest military or the least regulated
economies. These nations will be the ones that follow policies that foster middle class
prosperity and growth.

No doubt, in the service of short-term profits, the Goldman Sachs of the world
will immediately begin to simultaneously pump their devil's elixir into whatever host
nation's neck they sink their parasitic fangs while sucking the life blood from it as well.
No doubt they will, over time, be able to buy the national governments of those new hosts
as they have done here and, in so doing, they will begin the process of draining those
nations of vitality and vigor, as they have done and are doing here.

Indeed, their here work may be done and it may be time they moved on. Whether
or not that proves to be the case, we should look at the potential to turn this train wreck
around.

The current budget crisis is a pretty good place to start. Rahm Emanuel borrowed
a line from Saul Alinsky, who probably borrowed it from someone else, that says, "Never
waste a good crisis." Not withstanding the fact that Emanuel and his, then, boss,
President Obama, did exactly that, the sentiment is still a valuable truth.

In solving this "crisis" the President and Congress can elect to swap it for another,
worse, crisis or really use it to turn things around. To accomplish the latter our leaders
should measure every proposal to bring the budget under control by whether or not the
proposal will help or hinder the prosperity and expansion of the American middle class.
If it does, vote it in. If it does not, vote it out.

This consideration should be far more important than our relative military might.
As it is, we spend more on "defense" than all the rest of the world's nations combined.
Maybe we could scale back to no more than the cumulative total of all the other nations'
of the world expenditures on military. If thing get really tough deficit-wise, maybe we
could consider spending no more than seventy-five percent of the combined total of the
rest of the world. That still sounds like quite a bit of money relative to all the folks out
there we may someday need to fight.

The truth is scaling back to the seventy-five percent number would probably bring
the budget into balance. But, maybe that is unrealistic. Maybe, the world will dissolve
into chaos if we try to do that. Maybe we have to continue to play policeman to the Earth.
If so, isn't that a service? Are we the only nation benefiting from that service? Jesus, I
hope not. If so, it isn't doing us a great deal of good.

While we are busy policing the world, keeping the sea lanes open, making sure
the air traffic paths are open to all, in short, making international globalization of the
economy possible, our economy is headed to the crapper. So, somebody else is benefiting
from all this policing. Why don't we ask them to help defray the cost. After all, if we just
keep borrowing the money from China and India, money they make in international
commerce our military makes possible, sooner or later we will be working for them in an
even more overt manner than we are now. If we charge them, we can use the money to
pay back what we have already borrowed from them so they could take away all our
markets and have the money to lend us. Seems fair to me.

If they choose not to pay a service fee then we scale back. Provide policing action
for our businesses and let the rest go. Then they can build their own forces up and take
care of their own interests. Either way, our budget gets balanced.

Okay, I hear the grousing already. "If we pull back militarily and China and India
and God knows who build up their military to shoulder some of the load, we will lose
control and soon there will be three or more major regional powers with whom we will
have to contend."

The grousing is correct, to a degree. Unfortunately, we are now on a trajectory we

cannot sustain. If we continue to follow this course, we will have to eliminate most, if not
all of the social services network that sustains the social fabric of the nation. In the end it
will still not be enough. In the end the current path leads to economic collapse and civil
disruption and distress. In the end we will be a powerless, toothless shell of a power
unable to protect ourselves or anybody else. Better to demand payment and, if we don't
get it, pull back and let other nations share the burden. If the global economy is so
important, other nations will step up. They will step up and become more militarily
oriented, even so, we can still be strong, economically and militarily, and first among our
peers.

So, my first proposal is that we put the health and well being of the middle class
before the "needs" of the military. However, that is not enough. We need to expand social
services to the middle class. Things like a real national health care service, not that
pathetic, sick joke Obama has foisted upon us. We need free or seriously subsidized
higher education for everybody whether there is a "needs base" or not (Believe me, the
way costs for higher education are escalating, everybody is needs based.). Most
importantly, we need a thorough reworking of all out trade treaties. We need a system of
fair trade, not free trade. Only by migrating to a fair trade system can we rebuild an
economy that creates blue collar jobs a man or woman can have and still provide for his
or her family while leading a middle class life.

Why shouldn't we make this migration? There has never really been any such
thing as free trade. What we have is a system that defines "efficiency of production" in
very narrow terms. Where the return on invested capital (sometimes return on all capital
is substituted) is the only measure of efficiency of production. In other words, wherever
the most profit is to be had from the making of widgets that is deemed the most efficient
place on the planet to make widgets.

There is no accounting for the social costs, environmental pollution, exploitation

of child labor, etc., in this calculus. There is no accounting for human costs, either in the
nation losing the capital and jobs or in the nation "gaining" them. There is no accounting
for the damage done to the social fabric of either nation. Return on capital is easy to
calculate, all the rest is not. Therefore, to keep it simple, the international tradesters
calculate only that which is easy and precise.

The only thing wrong with this notion of efficiency is it leads to destruction and
catastrophe. It not only does damage to human systems, it results in damage to the
world's physical environment as well. Since Bangladesh, to pick a name, is not required,
in order to compete for industry, to intelligently regulate its industry to protect the
environment, it does not do so. Why would it? Environmental regulation is a common
problem that, as global warming proves, affects the entire world, not just Bangladesh.
Why would Bangladesh want to deal with global issues that result in local costs if it does
not have to? Likewise, for reasonable and fair labor laws and wages. Why suffer the costs
of those when you can get the money and the jobs and the payoffs and what not without
worrying about all that?
 If developing nations do not have to compete fairly and on a level playing field
with other nations, why would they voluntarily suffer the costs of doing so? If, however,
such nations did have to follow some reasonable international standard of regulation and
wage and hour and labor protection laws in order to compete in the world market, they
would do so. The current measure of "efficiency" punishes everybody, developed world,
undeveloped world and those caught in between. Even in nations, like China, that are
powerful players in international commerce, workers are finding it is proving a poor
bargain having to sacrifice breathing in return for a job.

The protection and expansion of the American middle class, and similar policies
in any other country, is good for everybody. It promotes civil order and stability. It
promotes fair trade and the social/common benefits that derive from that. It makes it
possible for a middle class American family to be headed by one or two blue collar
workers and still have a middle class life and future.

The rich, separated from their context and environment, really aren’t important.
They are like a queen bee ensconced in her hive. She has a dominant position, that is true
and, if she isn't efficiently replaced, the hive would be lost without her. However, she can
be replaced but she could not survive a day without a vibrant, working, functioning hive
supporting her.

All those fat, bitchy Queens preening about in the halls of the financial world, in
Congress and the Treasury Department are greedy for more and more honey while the
hive dies. Time to put them on a diet or let them find another hive to pollute.