As Herman Cain’s sexual harassment scandal continues to captivate the attention of every news medium, logically one wonders, what else don’t we know about Mr. Cain? The answer? That he is a businessman who is more interested in turning a profit than preserving jobs and championing benefits for private sector restaurant workers. And, not surprisingly, he has had a relationship with Washington for much longer than he would have us all believe.

In 1986 at the age of 40 Cain took over as president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. With the chain suffering an $8 million dollar loss in 1988 he did what any capitalist must do at a time of crisis in order to save costs – he closed more than 200 stores and laid off thousands of proletariats stating, “If I had been able to make a rapid initial assessment, I would have made all the cuts from the beginning. Later, after you spend a while working with some people, it gets difficult.” As Cain would so passionately justify, those men and women only had themselves to blame for being fired from low-wage jobs, oh and for not being rich.

By 1994 Cain was elected president of The National Restaurant Association (NRA). The NRA sounds friendly enough; protecting the common restaurant worker from things like government mandates requiring restaurant owners to provide health insurance to their employees working more than 17.5 hours a week. Traveling the country with his “one voice” campaign and making national headlines by opposing then president Bill Clinton on the effects of the mandate and the healthcare reform bill on small business owners, Cain became somewhat of a conservative “media darling.” In a 1995 article for “National Restaurant News” Cain dismissed rumors that he was entering politics at the time, but this rise into the national political scene became a foreshadowing of what was to come.

Under the leadership of Cain, by 1996 the NRA became one of the most influential lobbies in Washington, financing and helping to elect pro-business conservative lawmakers and protecting restaurant workers from additional ills of the government like raises to the minimum wage. It was in this year that Cain also became president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association’s PAC. Under the auspices of this PAC, Cain had the authority to donate almost $780,000 dollars to Republicans and even served as a senior adviser to Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign. Washington outsider status so you say? I highly suggest clicking on the link above for a barrage of even more fun “I’ve been cozy with Washington for longer than I would have you think” facts.

So just what will Cain have us believe? That he was unaware of sexual harassment charges, was a great champion of private sector jobs and benefits, and that he is not your typical Washington insider? It would seem that by doing some basic historical research, the facts speak differently. If he is to have any credibility, maybe it’s time to start speaking the truth.

Bill Clinton, the ultimate celebrity president.  How fondly we recall the late-night sax solos, the roguish grin, the rope lines.

No surprise, therefore, that Clinton is so at ease in a recent video celebrating the ten-year anniversary of the Clinton Foundation. The video stars a hapless bunch of celebrity strategists for the Foundation, including Matt Damon, Ben Stiller, and Kristin Wiig. Their total contributions consist of “everyone hold their breath for one minute to stop releasing carbon dioxide” and “Clinton Foundation softball team.” The President is the rimshot incarnate, revealing himself at the end to be both Sean Penn’s lunch thief and Kevin Spacey’s crank-call accomplice. It’s like Celebrity Jeopardy went to West Wing Camp. Imagine the behind-the-scenes reminiscences: Guys, remember that time when Carville stole Susan Sarandon’s panties and ran them up the flagpole?

To be fair, it is nice to see a political figure josh around after watching the Republican candidates huff and puff and blow each other’s illegally-manicured houses down. But the tagline for the Clinton Foundation, “fighting global issues through business-oriented solutions” gave me whiplash. I assure you that this reaction was separate from the fact that Jack Black was the one singing those words.

It’s hardly a secret that Clinton was the ultimate neoliberal. But it is worth remembering that in a political climate where government is still successfully framed as “the problem,” Democrats are just as guilty of promoting the marketplace as the appropriate vehicle for improving social welfare. Business-oriented solutions is a phrase that sounds great to hedge funders, oil sheiks, and corporate tycoons, many of whom are eager to believe they can make the world better without giving up any power or substantial resources. It’s a kind of thinking that leads people to think that private enterprise can do a better job at not just business but at saving the world too. But Mitt Romney is poised to benefit a lot more from that political framework than, say Bangladeshi farmers.

We should consider ten years of neoliberalism in the guise of philanthropy a thoroughly problematic legacy. Clinton, and the Third Way movement within the Democratic party, was what made it acceptable for boomers to reconcile their economic success with their socially liberal values. Once liberal values could become detached from economic equality, even self-purported liberals could promote and benefit from the very deregulation and concentration of wealth that has so corroded our country. The (I think it’s safe to say) presumptive Republican nominee would have us believe that our whole country needs a “business-oriented solution” to our economic woes. The movie star president who laid the groundwork for us to buy that line was not Reagan. It was the Democrat’s own beloved celebrity.

Former Governor Mitt Romney signed his Healthcare Reform in Boston’s Faneuil Hall besides the late Senator Edward Kennedy back in 2006, making Massachusetts the first state in the country to require that all its residents have health insurance. So, why is Mitt Romney trying to distance himself from perhaps his greatest accomplishment as Governor?

Having lived in Massachusetts for a few years, I became intimately familiar with MassHealth – Massachusetts own Medicaid. As a native New Yorker, I frequented various clinics in the Bronx and Brooklyn, and witnessing such a disparity between these two states was remarkable. The research clinics, medical advances, and level of care in Boston is extraordinary. Moreover, doctors take great care in getting to know their patients and addressing their concerns – I believe I have experienced what is known as “compassion.

Massachusetts continues to lead health care reform. Now, in an attempt to control its health costs – it spends 15% above the national average – Governor Deval Patrick is moving away from the fee for service system and towards a flat “global payments” plan. This plan would charge a flat global fee for the care of each patient, and patients would be charged a flat rate, rather than paying for each procedure. Providers also benefit by receiving higher payments for high-risk patients and bonuses for high-quality care. In this plan, doctors would not be compensated per procedure, confirming the notion that proactive care is less expensive in the long run than reactive care.

Having paved the way for national reform, health care reform in Massachusetts continues to serve as a litmus test for the rest of the nation. President Obama took notice and introduced the bipartisan Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Unfortunately, Romney’s greatest accomplishment has become one of his greatest liabilities as a candidate. Romney’s bill in 2006 included elements like the individual mandate, which requires people to buy insurance and is also in the federal plan, is deeply unpopular among conservatives. Also, having had President Obama acknowledge that there are many Republican elements in his federal bill, since “Romney’s team advised Obama’s team,” does not win Romney great applause among Republicans.

So, for the past year Romney has been trying to distance himself from the state healthcare reform he once championed. He has even vowed that as his first act as President, he will repeal ObamaCare. Now that Massachusetts is back on the headlines with Governor Patrick taking the lead and making bold changes in significantly reducing healthcare costs, Romney continues playing his game of dodge ball. But if this state succeeds, it will serve as a blueprint for how the federal government can put flesh on the bones of the PPACA framework. And if it fails, then at least we have learned something useful.

As for Romney, be proud of your accomplishments and defend the decisions you made as Governor, for it prompted national health care in a nation that is vastly uninsured or underinsured.

You really have to wonder why President Clinton is not remembered more fondly by these neo-Republicans. Their incessant whining about the federal debt and deficit is nauseating. Clinton actually tried and succeeded in squaring our national checkbook for the first time since 1957.

Watching the debates is depressing precisely because it is obvious that Clinton is not well regarded. The candidates’ hero is Ronald Reagan.

Yes, Reagan. The neoconservative-influenced president who doubled the debt and made Republicans so nervous that he inspired the phrase “voodoo economics.” George H.W. Bush’s label- for increasing government spending, ending financial regulations and cutting taxes for the wealthiest- has endured because time has shown that these were not good long term policies for promoting economic growth. George Bush, as president, was ultimately forced to raise taxes because of the record debt and deficit he inherited from his predecessor. Bush’s fiscal discipline cost him his reelection.

What do the neo-Republicans say about this? Only that Bush betrayed the Party.

Fast forward eight years. In 2000 George W. Bush won the presidency.

The disingenuous discourse at the time- and one that continues today- referred to President Clinton’s fiscal discipline and consequent budget surpluses as a mirage. Nevertheless, W. Bush’s justification for giving people their money back- that’s code for tax breaks for the wealthy- was based on the Clinton mirage. In the end America’s second neoconservative president more than doubled the national debt.

He added $6.1 trillion, bringing the total debt to $11.9 trillion by the end of his second term.

Fast forward three years. On October 16, 2011 candidate Herman Cain appeared on Meet the Press.

At 15:40 into the interview David Gregory asked whether Cain considered himself a neoconservative. The response- “I am not sure what you mean by neoconservative-” should send chills down the spines of Republicans. Of course he knows what a neoconservative is. Cain’s choice to not distance himself from the neocons demonstrates that they have become way too powerful in the Party.

Yes, the former clowns of the Republican Party are now calling the shots. The newfound influence of these neoRepublicans is the only way to explain attaching a Sarah Palin to a serious candidate like John McCain in the last presidential election. Or even why Herman Cain and Rick Perry are polling so strongly in this primary. This country needs Republicans to grow a spine, and soon!

The possibility that Obama will lose his bid for a second term is very real. It is crucial that Republicans take back their Party. We cannot afford another doubling of the debt because of a foolish adherence to unproven politico-economic doctrines. This will only strain the already precarious situation of the working and middle classes, and ultimately make the United States weak.

In a week when President Obama announced the U.S.’s final phase of official military pullout, scheduled for the end of this year, it seems appropriate to reflect on the alarming rise of unofficial military personnel deployment by the government in the course of the last 10 years of supposed war on terror.

Many of the people who have been fighting for us in the shadows—named in sterile, capitalist fashion as “contractors”—are not going to be coming home as part of the draw-down of the American presence. Although not everyone in the vague category of these privately employed contractors wields a gun, those that do are a quite large force working for the Pentagon, CIA, and State Department. And no matter the attempt to switch terms for (one assumes) better public relations, these folks are mercenaries, plain and simple.

Though used relatively extensively throughout the history of warfare, mercenaries have an infamous reputation. Since they owe their loyalty not to a state but to the company or leader who makes their living possible, mercenaries are difficult to hold accountable. In the war we are now waging, however, this is exactly what makes them so appealing to U.S. leaders.

When an agency/agent of the U.S. government acts, it does so knowing that, at least theoretically, there are rules that cannot be broken. These rules—and the potential to face independent investigation—are part and parcel of accountable, democratic governance.

Contractors operate in a gray area. They are not protected under international law in the same way as regular army personnel are, but that also puts them in a better position to ignore international law. And because they are so useful doing some of our dirty work, the government argues in domestic civil suits that they are protected, just like an agent of the state! So they are doubly unaccountable—no external investigations AND they can’t get hit in their pocket books. In Iraq, contractors have exploited their seeming immunity by escaping charges of rape, torture, and murder.

So although we are pulling our regular troops out of Iraq, I would have been happier seeing the mercenaries be the first ones out, rather than the ones left behind when the regular military leaves. We should be scrapping them all together. As our good friend Machiavelli pointed out, “Anyone who relies on mercenary troops to keep himself in power will never be safe or secure, for they are factious, ambitious, ill-disciplined, treacherous.” I think we have seen all of those adjectives from our “contractors” in the last 10 years.

The Solyndra bankruptcy debacle has left the solar panel industry sweating bullets, reminding everyone in America’s solar industry of the rising heat from abroad. In an effort to force the government to provide some shade, 7 solar panel firms filed a case with the International Trade Commission and Department of Commerce last week against anti-dumping practices of Chinese solar panels. I agree action must be taken. However it is of vital importance such retaliatory action be proportional to the violation and not cascade into an avalanche of protectionism.

No new earth shattering accusations have been made, just the ones nearly every American manufacturer has at some point raised. The Chinese government has imposed numerous restrictions on panels and parts, they provide massive low interest loans, practically gift land in large grants to domestic firms, hand out funds to state owned firms, and, of course, the manipulated currency is an additional 25-40 percent subsidy to exporters. Still, broken records can make good points – even if you can replace it with a new one from China for a fraction of the cost.

A great deal of research has taken place on the matter of government protection of infant industries. To do nothing is to forfeit and weaken our competitiveness in a particular field. But if we assist strategically and, most importantly, temporarily, protection can do wonders. This is how the West first got rich and it is how the Asian Tigers became worthy competitors. The US gets only one tenth of one percent from solar, with comparable figures worldwide. Solar easily qualifies as a strategically important infant industry and justifies some protection.

Already several of China’s largest firms are preparing to move operations to the US in anticipation, such as Grape Solar and Suntech. This seems to vindicate the approach.

But there is more at stake. Too much protection will weaken the US Solar industry by making it uncompetitive, drive up prices for consumers, and slow the transition from fossil fuels. If special interests see this as a new opportunity, more protection could be sought for non-strategic industries that could ultimately weaken the US economy. Not to mention we risk a trade war with the second largest economy.

Obama has been quiet since the Solyndra incident, especially with Evergreen Solar, another firm to receive considerable Federal assistance, wallowing in the misery of bankruptcy. All this talk of strengthening the economy, all this chat about making jobs, yet Obama has been too weak on the subject of international trade with China. At the same time Romney and Perry are overly blunt with their criticism, demanding immediate revaluation of the Renminbi and other policies which they do not understand the ramifications of. If Romney and Perry stick to what they actually are saying, then a trade war with China is likely.

Neither the president nor the Republican candidates are investigating the potential of imaginative international trade policy and incentives for investment. They must if the recovery is to strengthen.

Is Occupy Wall Street the new Tea Party? It’s the question dominating headlines as a regular source of debate. From president Obama to Republican Governor Chris Christie, many are saying that “in some ways, they’re not that different.”

Responses from the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been schismatic, to say the least. No surprise there. I imagine it’s sort of like telling Bernie Sanders and Sarah Palin that they share a grandparent. Amid a general atmosphere of dismissal and contempt from both sides, the objections from this election’s Tea Party heavyweights have been by far the loudest and most repugnant. They’ve also been the most distorted and self-righteous.

Their arguments hinge consistently on the idea of “civil disobedience” as a way of painting the protests as a danger to society. Last Thursday, Michelle Bachmann quoted a recent poll alleging that 98% of Occupiers support civil disobedience as a form of protest. She openly bared her contempt when the movement “tremendously counterproductive.” Matt Kibbe, vocal spokesman and CEO of Tea Party funding organization FreedomWorks, used similar logic in a rant published on the Forbes blog: “First, the Occupy protesters pride themselves on provocative resistance to law enforcement and in some cases violence. Second, they disrespect public and private property.” It’s an extraordinary exercise in selective memory and fear mongering. Theirs is a piety that warrants a closer look.

The thing that Bachmann and Kibbe seem to be forgetting is the very different conditions under which these two movements have developed. Unlike Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party has incredible funding. Why? Because America’s richest corporations and people have a huge stake in their platform of low taxes and freedom of accumulation. Sure, Occupy Wall Street has donations too, but these amount to pennies compared to what’s flowing through FreedomWorks. The Tea Party deals with their complaints against government by electing leaders with less responsibility. This means that they get the support of government officials, including high-profile politicians like Bachmann. Occupy Wall Street is a leaderless movement based on direct democracy over elected officials, which means they have to fight for the most minor political recognition.

For the Tea Party, these conditions allow them to fund demonstrations in huge spaces and rally thousands of protesters from around the country. They can rent port-a-johns for their convenience. They can rent sound equipment (they can even use taxpayer money if they have to). Since the law is made to protect capital (ie. the accumulation of money and territory), the defenders of private property won’t have any trouble from the police. They won’t be intimidated by NYPD in riot gear. They won’t be pepper sprayed, punched or carted away.

We must all fear civil disobedience. But what about hypocrisy? Bachmann and Kibbe seem to have forgotten that the original Tea Party movement actively encouraged civil disobedience. They’ve also forgotten the fact that the movement itself is founded on (and named for) one of the most famous acts of civil disobedience in American history.

All that Bachmann and Kibbe are proving is that disobedience simply doesn’t count when you’re acting in the interest of big money and politicians in power. They have the power to forget. Alright, so forget the similarities between the movements, and forget their ideological differences too. If the Tea Party wants to talk about recalcitrance and littering, that’s fine. But if that’s the game they want to play, they’d be wise to start by recognizing who made the rules.

Elderly poverty decline is one of the greatest success stories of the contemporary American Welfare State. Due to incremental raises in Social Security and Supplemental Security Income over the past several decades, the poverty rate for this age group declined by more than 15 percentage points from 25% in 1968 to just under 10% in 2010.

So, it seems that the plan to raise Medicare Part B premiums, offsetting a raise in Social Security benefits in 2012 shouldn’t be all that big of a deal. After all, the elderly can afford it.

The GOP candidates also see the elderly as well equipped to handle rising Medicare costs. Herman Cain has pledged to pare down Medicare entitlements to the bare minimum necessary, while Mitt Romney wants turn Medicare into a privatized voucher program. After all, the elderly can afford it.

Or can they? What tales can be told underneath the rhetoric of this poverty success story that conclude if the elderly can afford these rising Medicare costs? First, is the very real tale of the almost 3.8 million elderly Americans living underneath the poverty threshold for his or her family size and the 1 in 5 elderly Americans with family incomes at 150% below the poverty threshold, clearly unable to afford rising costs of anything, let alone Medicare.

The tale quietly continues to unfold when we explore the story of the poverty threshold. What the poverty threshold as defined by the Census Bureau doesn’t factor in is such things as healthcare costs. Using an alternative poverty measurement called the “Supplemental Poverty Measure” that does account for healthcare costs and other living expenses, the poverty rate for this age group jumps to 16.1%.

Comparative studies paint an even grimmer tale. A study done in 2006 by Daniel Meyer and Geoffrey Wallace, research affiliates at the Institute for Research on Poverty in Madison Wisconsin, compared the US to 11 other rich nations using a relative poverty threshold of 50% median household income. Based on this study, US elderly poverty levels stand at an astounding 28.4%, ranking second only to Ireland. Their study concluded that the generosity of old age insurance programs fall well short of those in other rich countries.

Finally, there is the personal tale of my 90 year old grandmother “living” in an assisted living home off of my deceased grandfather’s pension and Social Security payments, but still $1,200 dollars short every month on necessary round the clock medical aide assistance. Luckily, her daughter Pat is there to sign over her own monthly Social Security checks to cover these additional expenses. Even more lucky for Pat, she will also be the one to pick up the increasing premiums on grandma’s doctors visits.

By just skimming the shallows of elderly poverty using various measures, real numbers, and medical dollar signs, one begins to see the realities of this not so ever after story of the American Welfare State. Rising Medicare costs or proposed changes to the system will only cut deeper into the pockets of elderly Americans, while pushing more to the edge of poverty. Perhaps, after all, they can’t afford it.

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012, voters in the United States will go to the polls to select their President and members for the 113th Congress.

The ongoing presidential contest has already pitted President Barack Obama against potential Republican presidential contenders Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Buddy Roemer, Cary E. Johnson, Jon Hunstaman, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann.

To appeal to voters, it seems Republicans have made job creation their central political campaign issue. President Obama reacted hastily with a jobs plan, which was immediately defeated by the U.S. Senate.

Despite fate of the jobs creation proposal and other critical issues such as tax reform and the economy, Obama and Republicans continue to fundraise millions of dollars for their campaigns. Considering amount of funds already raised, who’s wrong or who’s right on issues doesn’t seem to matter to donors.

Obama has successfully fundraised in places even with the worst unemployment rates. The Associated Press reported that more than 600,000 people donated to Obama’s political campaign since July this year.  Obama campaign and the Democratic Party announced last week they have already raised 70 million dollars for the President’s re-election bid.

In contrast, all Republican contenders have raised roughly $52 million. The breakdown for leading contenders shows Cain with $2.8 million, Massachusetts Gov. Romney with $14 million, and Texas Gov. Perry with $17 million.

America is in crisis. Media reports and a September 2011 Gallup poll reveal “81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed,” and “82% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.” Public confidence in President Obama, government and politicians is falling. However, people’s political contributions keep pouring into presidential hopeful coffers.

Regardless of issues, crises and causality of this phenomenon in America, presidential candidates continue to successfully fundraise without having to convince voters of the validity of their plans to create jobs, and get the economy moving again. If amount of money raised is the sole indicator of who will win the presidential race in 2012, at this moment Obama has it in the bag.