Bush's True Mandate: Insuring the Rich against the fear of not making enough money

How much would it be worth to spend to have a President write you an insurance policy in case you don't make enough money? That has been the mandate of this president. Use the White House to promote policy to privatize wealth while the taxpayer covers any losses. Brilliant for some I imagine.

I have been writing about the continued vast socialization of risk and privatization of reward extensively and want to lay out the beginning research I am doing for a book to be written over the next two years. It is evident that the Bush years have marked immense economic deterioration of the United States, even if the stock market hit highs. Healthcare, social security, high debt load, falling dollar, and wage stagnation are apparent in spades. The media uses language that infers 'mismanagement of funds', 'errors in estimates of the projected costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan', where I contend the powers behind the Bush machine consciously raided the taxpayer. I plan to document this through analysis of the fabled line 'Follow the money': the basic premise I am curious about is who benefited financially from the Bush presidency and how much did they earn?

Recent reports estimate the cost of the two aforementioned wars to top $1.3 Trillion, when interest payments for all of the debt are serviced over x number of years into the future. To clarify: our children and their children's tax dollars will be paying back the loans this government took out to fund these wars. Much of the borrowed funds were then funneled directly into the private sector through massive contracts. Remember those delicious "$7 billion No-Bid contracts" that Halliburton relished, no thanks to an ex-CEO sitting in the VP's seat, of course.

The GAO recently acknowledged that 50% of the monies paid out in military spending in the wars goes UNAUDITED. This leads me to wonder how much of the overall military spending appropriations are audited, given it is 51% of our federal budget.

Our government has been simply writing endless checks of taxpayer dollars into the private accounts of corporations and other groups, in the name of fighting terror, an emotion against whom victory has never been detailed. Who will pay for all of it is clear: the next few generations. Who received these vast sums of money is a far murkier question, will almost zero coverage.

Another key example of this policy of socialization of risk and privatization of wealth is the current stance on disasters and insurance. After Katrina, Allstate and Statefarm wanted to raise rates for home-owners insurance in disaster-prone zones by 300%. Florida in particular limited the increases to 25% to the dismay of the private insurers, who in turn promptly ceased writing policies in those areas. Bush's brother then established a State insurance fund that would write policies for those homes, many of which were $1million or more in value. As this would play out then, if a disaster destroys the home, the State would pay out the value of the claim but if the owner sells, they alone keep any profit.

Likewise, this past week, a bill has been floated for a Federal Disaster Insurance plan rather akin to the Florida plan. Therefore, taxpayers from all state's would now contribute to cover losses of those who lived in disaster areas.

Of course, disasters can strike anywhere, and in theory, it may be a good idea. But shouldn't the taxpayers then benefit from any sales of homes covered by the federal policy? That would be too socialist.

If markets are free like all of the neo-cons want us to believe, then owners on coasts should pay private rates for the choice to live there. Why should the taxpayer cover the losses? Yes, there needs to be some regulation of insurers so they don't universally collude to raise rates indefinitely. But these plans benefit the wealthy whose real estate would be most at risk.

From school vouchers to tax breaks on capital gains, to costly wars, the Bush camp and the private machine behind it have in tandem not simply 'mismanaged the countries economic health' but have instead systematically privatized an never-before-seen amount of the public's money while socializing the risks associated. This is not conspiracy theory: it is in plain view. The numbers are right in front of us.

The debt burden of the US is not sustainable. Rising costs are facts. Rising interest rates on housing and consumer debt are facts. Wages have not increased, fact. Gap between rich and poor has widened, fact. Tax breaks benefited the rich more than the poor, fact, with little trickle down. Bush was not an idiot at the wheel. The benefactors of this unprecedented spending binge has masterfully orchestrated a massive money-grab, using the fear of attack as the premise for the taxpayer to mutely and blindly write the check, while millions are left uninsured or underinsured, food banks are failing, schools are failing (thank you underfunded No Child Left Behind), and infrastructure is cracking HERE AT HOME.

For investors: I am selling oil, buying the dollar, selling gold, in the shortrun. This scenario should lead to a short-term ease in global food prices and commodity prices. It will hurt US exporters/manufacturing which has been the only major support for the economy because of the battered dollar. There is more subprime fallout to be had. The FDIC is bulking up its staff to deal with bank failings they see coming in 2008-2009. Bernanke et al will have to raise rates to battle inflation which will hurt growth in US companies, and heading into Barack's first term, the best pill for the US economy is to swallow the pain quickly, go through a short recession, get all bank write-downs out in the open, and rebuild economic base.