Now, that man over there — he’s the prosecuting attorney — and he couldn’t be happier today. He’s a happy man today, because today he’s going after a judge [President]. And if he gets him — if he gets him — he’s gonna be a STAR. He’s gonna have his name in this month’s ‘Law Review’ — centerfold — ‘Lawyer of the Month’.

Now, in order to win this case, he needs you [the jury], naturally. And you’re all he’s got, believe me. So he’s counting on tapping that emotion in you which says ‘let’s get somebody in power’. ‘Let’s get a judge’ [President]

However these proceedings are not about that. These proceedings are here to see that justice is done. And justice, as any reasonable person will tell ya, is the finding of the truth. And what is the truth, today?

As Arthur Kirkland (Al Pacino) goes on to explain, the “truth” is that someone has been abused (raped, tortured), and that the intention of justice is “to see that the guilty people are proven guilty and that the innocent are freed — Simple isn’t it?”

Only we have a problem here. Do you know what it is?

Both sides wanna win. We wanna win. We wanna win regardless of the truth, and we wanna win regardless of justice, regardless of who’s guilty or innocent — Winning — is everything.

In his big finish, Pacino exclaims: “That man there — [Dubya] — that man there is a SLIME! If he’s allowed to go free, then something REALLY WRONG is going on here!”

This memorable scene from And Justice For All¹ comes to mind every time I see an article or hear a speech about prosecuting George W. Bush — and the people who write those articles are right. I certainly appreciate their sentiment. Al Pacino is right. They’re all right about the abuse and the rape and the torture and the law — and they’re even right about the “slime”. But does being “right” actually change anything?

“What is the truth, today?”

The “truth” is that we live under a political and economic system designed to support the interests of less than half of a percent of the total population, and to hell with everybody else. Capital ownership “wins” and the rest of us lose because we dropped out of the wrong vaginas.

So which is more important: 1) that George W. Bush -is- a “slime”, or 2) that “something really wrong is going on here” -produces- “slime” like George W. Bush? Which problem demands more attention, the system itself or its defective products? By reducing this to a question of quality assurance in production we are forced to ask; what kind of a system produces “slime” like George W. Bush? Can such an obviously failed system be revised (”reformed”), or must it be replaced altogether? Has the time finally come for us to withdraw our consent to be governed by criminals? If so, how can we prohibit our political and economic systems from hatching intolerable “slime” like George W. Bush in the future?

I should pause here to explain I am not at all opposed to prosecuting George W. Bush. But how likely is the success of that mission within the same crooked system that generated, perpetuated and now fiercely protects him? Good luck with that. Our broken system leaves we, the people, with no recourse in this matter. There is no ballot box on this issue. There is no referendum. The “decider” has spoken. There will be no prosecution of George W. Bush, now or ever. It’s time for every “American” to understand the grave implications of this reality, and begin to respond accordingly.

I realize that “Arrest Bush” and “Prosecute Bush” and “Impeach Bush” seem far more exciting and sensational than boring stuff like “Fix The Damn System”. But the profound waste of resources seems an unjustifiable distraction from the root of the problem. As long as the energies of brilliant “progressives” are tied up in attacking George W. Bush, those people won’t spend any time thinking about building a new system that doesn’t generate criminals like “Dubya” or enablers like Obama. Rather than challenging the status quo, this melodramatic obsession with prosecuting George W. Bush seems to actually support it.

The President of the United States is not an agent or a servant of the people and we do not live under a “democracy”. So it seems silly to approach the problem from that naive perspective. As an agent and a servant of capital, the President is obviously not bound by the democratic process or even by the law. As such, pleading or reasoning or negotiating with him seems utterly pointless — let alone “prosecuting” him. Agents of capital don’t honor petitions or pay any attention to protests and marches unless those efforts present a viable threat to the interests of the owners of capital. This was the genius and the courage of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In addition to his nonviolent approach, he also knew where to grab them and how to yank. Sadly, this also happens to be the reason he’s dead.² I rest my case.

Meanwhile, the agents of capital seem very happy when we invest all of our time and energy in pursuits other than in building a new system that might inherently prohibit their crimes. As Rob Kall reminds us, Bill Clinton failed (refused?) to investigate and prosecute Bush Sr. for his Iran Contra illegal dealings. Moreover, President Bush Sr. actually pardoned everyone who had been found guilty of their crimes in that affair. Meanwhile, after a street in Odon, Indiana was renamed to “John Poindexter Street”, Bill Breedan (a former minister) stole the street’s sign in protest of the Iran-Contra Affair. He claimed that he was holding it for a ransom of $30 million, a reference to the amount of money given to Iran to transfer to the contras. He was later arrested and confined to prison, making him, as satirized by Howard Zinn, “the only person to be imprisoned as a result of the Iran-Contra affair.”³

Does this mean protest and petitioning is pointless, overall? No. But these efforts do seem misdirected, pointless and futile unless they actually do something to change how the system works. Our political and economic systems work just fine for the people they are designed to serve. The problem is that those people comprise less than half of a percent of the total US population. This is the system that made sure George W. Bush was President of the United States for two full terms without winning a single election. This is the same system that hand-picked a young black man from Illinois to placate millions of angry “Americans”, and it’s the same system that will ensure Obama dutifully protects his predecessor from any sort of “prosecution” — against the best interest of every “American” who supposedly “elected” him to office.

Most importantly, this system keeps everyone so busy trying to prosecute and petition and protest the symptoms of the problem that we don’t have any time, energy or interest to invest in building a new system that doesn’t generate those kinds of symptoms. With due respect for all the moral crusaders who insist upon extracting truth and justice from this fiasco — what exactly is the plan? With such adamant refusal from our newly appointed leadership, how do we intend to enforce all these “laws” that George W. Bush has so casually dismissed?

What consequences does Obama face for not prosecuting George W. Bush? Will “progressives” withdraw their political support? Seems to me, “progressives” were fairly divided about Obama long before he was appointed to office. So what exactly is a “progressive”, anyway — and what sort of threat do they present to the newly selected President? Obama has firmly denounced any attempt to prosecute Bush and his pals. How “progressive” is that? Where do we turn next? Congress? The Supreme Court? The same people who appointed Bush to the Presidency in the first place?

As Dr. King suggests, laws are meaningless unless they are enforced — or at least enforceable. Now a black President — one of the most popular Presidents in US history — deliberately ignores King’s admonition with his refusal to enforce those laws. This, if nothing else, should clearly indicate there is enough wrong with our current system to warrant its replacement with something that functions more effectively in the general interest.

Do I agree with Barack Obama that nothing should be done regarding the crimes of the Bush administration? No. Quite the contrary, it seems reasonable to expect Obama — out of a little courage and common sense if nothing else — to voluntarily begin proceedings against the previous administration. But exactly the opposite is actually happening. What does this tell us about our system and Barack Obama and the “new” administration?

Good lord, this guy was a constitutional law professor for 12 years!⁴ So if we, the people, are forced to prod, coax, beg, plead, whip, shame, lobby, coerce, bribe, or petition him to do his duty according to the law, then “something REALLY WRONG is going on here!” But according to Aziz Huq, it’s worse than most Americans even realize. Turns out the US Constitution does not in any way obligate Barack Obama to pursue the prosecution of George W. Bush. Quite the contrary, there is plenty of “constitutional” incentive against the idea.⁵ But wait — it gets better. Now, when the President signs a new law, he can also approve another document reserving his right to ignore the law.⁶

What’s wrong with this picture?⁷

1) Less than half of a percent of the total US population are passive claimants of economic wealth, who are also the most active daily participants in the democratic process.

2) The rest of us tend to be active daily participants in generating economic wealth, but we are also the most passive observers in the democratic process.

We, the people, consent to this crippling arrangement every single day we get out of bed and go to work and hand over most of the value (power) we produce to passive ownership. But as Thomas Jefferson famously suggests, any time we get sick and tired of the system, all we have to do is scrap it and build a new one.

Is “too big to fail” too big to exist? No. In fact, “too big to fail” strongly suggests that certain structures must exist. But public structures like our government do seem far too big and essential to be privately owned and controlled by a few passive claimants of wealth and power. The question of civilization is no longer “who decides who gets what?” The more pressing question is, “how can the democratic process become an integral part of daily living to answer this and many other questions?”

Genuinely democratic control of our government and its policy might have prohibited the terrible tragedies of the past eight years (200-years?), making prosecution of George W. Bush completely unnecessary. But genuinely democratic control begins in the workplace and is then extended to government — not the other way around. Under the current system, no amount of protest or petitioning will result in the prosecution of George W. Bush or anyone else in his administration. I wish I was wrong. But once again, the model is upside-down. It’s time to flip it over.

1. Pacino, Al. (1979). …And Justice For All. Columbia Pictures.
2. Douglass, James W. (March, 2000). “The King Assassination: After Three Decades, Another Verdict“. Christian Century.
3. Wikipedia. (May, 2009). “Iran-Contra affair: Convictions, pardons, and reinstatements“.
4. Annenberg Political Fact Check. (March, 2008). “Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?“. FactCheck.org.
5. Huq, Aziz. (January, 2009). “No Looking Back For Guantanamo“. Guardian.
6. Kellman, Laurie. (June, 2006). “Congress Questions Bush’s Claims He Can Ignore Laws He Signs“. Law.com.
7. Chandler, David. (May, 2009). “The L-Curve“.

“Humanity is waiting for something other than blind imitation of the past. If we want truly to advance a step further, if we want to turn over a new leaf and really set a new man afoot, we must begin to turn mankind away from the long and desolate night of violence. May it not be that the new man the world needs is a nonviolent man? Longfellow said, “In this world a man must either be an anvil or a hammer.” We must be hammers shaping a new society rather than anvils molded by the old. This not only will make us new men, but will give us a new kind of power. It will not be Lord Acton’s image of power that tends to corrupt or absolute power that corrupts absolutely. It will be power infused with love and justice, that will change dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows, and lift us from the fatigue of despair to the buoyancy of hope. A dark, desperate, confused and sin-sick world waits for this new kind of man and this new kind of power.”²

At the 23rd Annual Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Holiday Celebration in San Francisco staff members from the Martin Luther King Jr. Research and Education Institute had an opportunity to participate in the festivities and interact with those in attendance. Along with receiving bookmarks, buttons, pencils and a special note from Dr. King on political participation, attendees were asked to answer the question, “What would Dr. King want to say to Barack Obama?”³

But all speculation aside, Dr. King’s actual comments appear in his last book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? The admonitions from that book seem as well-suited for Barack Obama now as they were for Lyndon Johnson in 1967 regarding war, poverty, racism, apartheid, imperialism and all the associated wastes of human and natural resources. If these typical forms of injustice aren’t entertaining enough, they become even more surreal as Barack Obama now perpetuates them in the name of “Dr. King’s Dream”. Apparently, he thinks he can get away with this morbid and fraudulent strategy because his skin color is roughly the same as Dr. King’s. But somebody needs to draw the line here, and it might as well be me. I don’t see any other volunteers.

According to Dr. King, his dream came in two general phases: 1) abolish racial segregation, particularly in the southern United States, and 2) eradicate poverty worldwide. [2] The first four chapters of his last book discuss the successes, struggles and failures of phase one. The final two chapters and the appendix of his book outline his planned approach toward phase two. Dr. King was an extremely intelligent man, and the preceding is just a rough summary of his well-organized book.

But nowhere in Dr. King’s book is there any suggestion that the fulfillment of his “dream” might be the election of a black President who supports racist wars of economic aggression in the Middle East and the financial interests who sponsor them. He does emphatically insist that blacks must become politically involved, but not to advance the status quo or to “save Capitalism from itself.”⁴ The status quo doesn’t need any help. It doesn’t need to be “bailed out”. It needs to be challenged and, for the most part, dismissed. I doubt that anyone had a greater understanding of the “deep structural change” necessary to accomplish phase two of his dream than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, recent conclusions indicate he was murdered by his own government for daring to make such recommendations. [1]

Barack Obama is obviously intelligent enough to share Dr. King’s understanding. But he also seems to driven to evade the public responsibility that should accompany that understanding. Is he merely dodging a bullet, or does he honestly believe he can rewrite history to somehow revise “Dr. King’s Dream”? In his first ten weeks of office, when Obama makes decisions that are obviously not in the best interest of the people who elected him, it becomes brutally apparent that those decisions are in deliberate compliance with forces outside the democratic process. There isn’t much question about who or what those corporate forces might be. The question is, why does such an intelligent man continue to lead in the same failed direction as his predecessors after so vehemently denouncing their approach?

Moreover, why does Barack Obama think he can pursue a plunder-for-profit agenda in the name of “Dr. King’s Dream”? This is a sick fantasy that must be debunked and rebuked whether Obama plans to change his approach or not. If you want to lead this herd of stupid sheep to slaughter, Mr. Obama, then by all means do it. I won’t begin to presume I could possibly stop you. But don’t think for a minute that you can get away with blaming this painful fiasco on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or remotely associate yourself with him in the process.

Here’s Dr. King:

Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?
Excerpts from chapters 1 and 2:

The Assistant Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Hyman Bookbinder, in a frank statement on December 29, 1966, declared that the long-range costs of adequately implementing programs to fight poverty, ignorance and slums will reach one trillion dollars. He was not awed or dismayed by this prospect but instead pointed out that the growth of the gross national product during the same period makes this expenditure comfortably possible. It is, he said, as simple as this: “The poor can stop being poor if the rich are willing to become rich at a slower rate.” Furthermore, he predicted that unless a “substantial sacrifice is made by the American people,” the nation can expect further deterioration of the cities, increased antagonisms between races and continued disorders in the streets. He asserted that people are not informed enough to give adequate support to anti-poverty programs, and he leveled a share of the blame at the government because it “must do more to get people to understand the size of the problem.”

The legal structures have in practice proved to be neither structures nor law. The sparse and insufficient collection of statutes is not a structure; it is barely a naked framework. Legislation that is evaded, substantially nullified and unenforced is a mockery of law. Significant progress has effectively been barred by equivocations and retreats of government — the same government that was exultant when it sought political credit for enacting the measures.

The hard truth is that neither Negro nor white has yet done enough to expect the dawn of a new day. While much has been done, it has been accomplished by too few and on a scale too limited for the breadth of the goal. Freedom is not won by passive acceptance of suffering. Freedom is won by a struggle against suffering.

No great victories are won in a war for the transformation of a whole people without total participation. Less than this will not create a new society; it will only evoke more sophisticated token amelioration. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention. There is no other answer. Constructive social change will bring certain tranquility; evasions will merely encourage turmoil.

Power, properly understood, is the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political or economic changes. In this sense power is not only desirable but necessary in order to implement the demands of love and justice. One of the greatest problems of history is that the concepts of love and power are usually contrasted as polar opposites. Love is identified with a resignation of power and power with a denial of love.

What is needed is a realization that love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love. There is nothing essentially wrong with power. The problem is that in America power is unequally distributed. It is [the] collision of immoral power with powerless morality which constitutes the major crisis of our times.

Before this century, virtually all revolutions had been based on hope and hate. The hope was expressed in the rising expectation of freedom and justice. The hate was an expression of bitterness toward the perpetrators of the old order. It was the hate that made revolutions bloody and violent. What was new about Mahatma Gandhi’s movement in India was that he mounted a revolution on hope and love, hope and nonviolence. This same new emphasis characterized the civil rights movement in our country dating from the Montgomery bus boycott of 1956 to the Selma movement of 1965. We maintained hope while transforming the hate of traditional revolutions into positive nonviolent power. As long as the hope was fulfilled there was little questioning of nonviolence. But when the hopes were blasted, when people came to see that in spite of progress their conditions were still insufferable, when they looked out and saw more poverty, more school segregation and more slums, despair began to set in.

Unfortunately, when hope diminishes, the hate is often turned most bitterly toward those who originally built up the hope. In all the speaking that I have done in the United States before varied audiences, including some hostile whites, the only time that I have been booed was one night in a Chicago mass meeting by some young members of the Black Power movement. I went home that night with an ugly feeling. Selfishly I thought of my sufferings and sacrifices over the last twelve years. Why would they boo one so close to them?

But as I lay awake thinking, I finally came to myself, and I could not for the life of me have less than patience and understanding for those young people. For twelve years I, and others like me, had held out radiant promises of progress. I had preached to them about my dream. I had lectured to them about the not too distant day when they would have freedom, “all here and now.” I had urged them to have faith in America and in white society. Their hopes had soared. They were now booing because they felt that we were unable to deliver on our promises. They were booing because we had urged them to have faith in people who had too often proved to be unfaithful. They were now hostile because they were watching the dream that they had so readily accepted turn into a frustrating nightmare.

The line of demarcation between defensive violence and aggressive violence is very thin. The minute a program of violence is enunciated, even for self-defense, the atmosphere is filled with talk of violence, and the words falling on unsophisticated ears may be interpreted as an invitation to aggression. If a method is not effective, no matter how much steam it releases, it is an expression of weakness, not strength. When one tries to pin down advocates of violence as to what acts would be effective, the answers are blatantly illogical. This is no time for romantic for romantic illusions and empty philosophical debates about freedom. This is a time for action. What is needed is a strategy for change.

Beyond the pragmatic invalidity of violence is its inability to appeal to conscience. Power and morality must go together, implementing , fulfilling and ennobling each other. In the quest for power I cannot by-pass the concern for morality. Power at its best is the right use of strength. The words of Alfred the Great are still true: “Power is never good unless he who has it is good.”

Nonviolence is power, but it is the right and good use of power. In the guilt and confusion confronting our society, violence only adds to the chaos. It deepens the brutality of the oppressor and increases the bitterness of the oppressed. Violence is the antithesis of creativity and wholeness. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible.

Are we seeking power for power’s sake? Or are we seeking to make the world and our nation better places to live? If we seek the latter, violence can never provide the answer. The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, betting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder the hate. In fact, violence merely increases the hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

Hate is just as injurious to the hater as it is to the hated. Like an unchecked cancer, the hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Many of our inner conflicts are rooted in hate. This is why the psychiatrists say, “Love or perish.” I have seen hate expressed in the countenances of too many Mississippi and Alabama sheriffs to advise the Negro to sink to this miserable level. Hate is too great a burden to bear.

Of course, you may say, this is not practical; life is a matter of getting even, of fighting back, of dog eat dog. Maybe in some distant Utopia, you say, that idea will work, but not in the hard, cold world in which we live. My only answer is that mankind has followed the so-called practical way for a long time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos. Time is cluttered with the wreckage of individuals and communities that surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way.

Humanity is waiting for something other than blind imitation of the past. If we want truly to advance a step further, if we want to turn over a new leaf and really set a new man afoot, we must begin to turn mankind away from the long and desolate night of violence. May it not be that the new man the world needs is a nonviolent man? Longfellow said, “In this world a man must either be an anvil or a hammer.” We must be hammers shaping a new society rather than anvils molded by the old. This not only will make us new men, but will give us a new kind of power. It will not be Lord Acton’s image of power that tends to corrupt or absolute power that corrupts absolutely. It will be power infused with love and justice, that will change dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows, and lift us from the fatigue of despair to the buoyancy of hope. A dark, desperate, confused and sin-sick world waits for this new kind of man and this new kind of power.⁵

1. Douglass, James W. (March 15. 2000). “The King Assassination: After Three Decades, Another Verdict,” Christian Century.
2. King, Dr. Martin Luther (1968). Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community?. New York, NY: Beacon Press, pgs 3-4, 66. ISBN 0807005711
3. Staff. (February 02, 2009). “What would Dr. King want to say to Barack Obama?,” The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute.
4. Obama, Barack (2006). The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishing Group. pg 155. ISBN 0307237699.
5. King, Dr. Martin Luther (1968). Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community?. New York, NY: Beacon Press, excerpts from chapters 1 and 2. ISBN 0807005711

The most general answer is that our current economic system – Capitalism – is by far the most formidable barrier to implementing a Basic Income Guarantee, hereafter referred to as “BIG”. Richard C. Cook and many others throughout American history have effectively maintained that BIG is entirely possible, rendering homelessness and unemployment both unnecessary and inexcusable. Many others, especially those who now find themselves unemployed or homeless or both, certainly consider BIG desirable. Meanwhile, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. suggests, “deep structural change” will be necessary to implement a Basic Income Guarantee and to eradicate poverty overall.² This makes sense intuitively, but it also raises at least one other important question: Should “deep structural change” precede the implementation of BIG or follow it?

All this in mind, let’s briefly examine how our economic system works and explore how and why BIG might change that system to discover why a “Homeless March on Washington”, among other extreme measures, might become necessary to force its implementation. To begin, Richard C. Cook maintains, “People simply do not earn anywhere near enough to buy what the economy produces.”³ Others argue that “those who produce the goods and services of society are paid less than their productive contribution.”⁴

So what’s the difference? Do we overproduce, or are we underpaid? Is the glass half full or is the glass half empty? Does it really matter? Technically, it does. But in a general sense, it doesn’t — because either way the result is nearly always the same: Unearned income is siphoned from producers daily and hoarded by wealthy non-producers, eventually resulting in some form of economic crisis characterized by rising levels of unemployment.

A Basic Income Guarantee would convert the life-threatening conditions of “unemployment” to more livable and less fearsome conditions of “leisure”. Instead of working two or three minimum-wage jobs just to pay the rent and keep the family fed, Americans might work one part-time (or full-time) job, and still have plenty of time to spend with their families and for self-improvement like continued education or vocational training. Instead of living in fear of job displacement, every American worker would have a permanent safety net to fall back on in the case of job loss, illness, injury, maternity, etc. As a “birthright heritage” all American citizens, including children, would be guaranteed a monthly income to provide for their basic needs — regardless of employment status.

Moreover, Richard C. Cook suggests that technological advancement makes BIG an economic imperative:

“In an advanced mechanized economy, fewer workers are needed to produce the same amount of goods. This should result in a societal “leisure dividend” but instead puts people out of work and forces them to compete for the remaining service economy jobs. There are estimates that by 2030 robots will take over fifty percent of the jobs in the U.S. economy.”⁵

But others suggest unemployment is a structural feature of Capitalism.⁶ Like the supporting beams of a building, unemployment is not an accident that can or should be corrected or removed under the terms and conditions of the current economic system. As long as labor is a cost of production, employers are highly motivated to drive wages as close to zero as possible in order to maximize profit. Therefore, conditions of unemployment must remain as unpleasant and unattractive as possible to discipline the existing workforce and drive wages down. With these unspoken rules in place, workers are typically forced to accept nearly any sort of employment for any available wage in order to avoid the perilous conditions of unemployment. If unemployment or the fear of unemployment is removed, the system will collapse.

So in a very real sense, there is a lot of incentive under Capitalism for employers and political leaders to restrict or actually prevent people from getting their basic needs met. This is the main reason why the system itself — Capitalism — is the most formidable barrier to the implementation of Basic Income Guarantee. If unemployment is converted to leisure as Richard C. Cook suggests, then workers are no longer forced to sell their labor to employers in exchange for “wages” just to get their basic needs met.

Does this mean BIG is impossible? No, not at all. But once again, “deep structural changes” will probably be necessary for its implementation. In fact, author and professor of philosophy, Michael Howard, outlines some pragmatic advantages that might result from implementing a Basic Income Guarantee:

Work sharing would become more feasible, because a full-time job would not be necessary to make ends meet; this would tend to reduce unemployment. The coercive nature of the employment contract would be undermined: no one would be forced to work for wages out of economic necessity. A possible further consequence is a rise in income for unattractive, dangerous, or dirty work, because the economically desperate who now take such jobs at minimum wage would be free to refuse such work. Work conditions generally might be made more attractive, and work itself more intrinsically rewarding, as a way of attracting workers. A floor of income for everyone would make possible a deregulation of the labor market and greater flexibility and innovativeness in the economy.

⁷

Such results might seem very attractive from a labor perspective, but dubious or even threatening from an employer point-of-view. If workers are no longer forced to sell their labor to employers in exchange for basic survival and they are no longer willing to accept any wage that happens to be available, then employers risk losing absolute control of the workforce and wages and therefore profit.

So if structural change precedes the implementation of BIG, it will most likely be tinkering around the edges organized from the top down in the interest of employers and others who stand to lose the most from implementing BIG. As such BIG might never actually be implemented at all. We already see this in Barack Obama’s promises to “create more jobs” to save the failing “American middle class”. But for a number of reasons, Obama’s promises fall short short of the “American Dream”, even if he successfully implements them.

First, there is no clear definition for “American middle class.”⁸ So it’s very easy for Obama to issue any rhetorical claim in this regard when so many Americans with annual incomes ranging from $30k to $250k tend to consider themselves “middle class”. Second, Ralph Nader insists the “American middle class” is not the most urgent problem when easily 40-percent of American households live in “poverty.”⁹ Turns out every nation tends to measure and define “poverty” more clearly than “middle class,” as Wikipedia estimates at least half the Earth’s human population is forced to live in poverty under the dominance of Capitalism.¹⁰ Third, Barack Obama observes that the new jobs being created tend to pay far less than the old jobs that have been lost by American workers.¹¹ This corporate “race to the bottom” — driving American wages as close to zero as possible — is no more “accidental” than either unemployment or the current economic crisis overall. Moreover, Obama’s plan to “create more jobs” doesn’t “save the American middle class”, it merely forces more Americans of every skin-color and race further into poverty.

Conversely, if BIG is implemented immediately, then the needs of every citizen will be satisfied right away, forcing employers and other “leaders” to readjust accordingly. Some enterprises might be forced to raise wages. Others might go out of business. Still others might find they can actually reduce wages in proportion to the dividend provided by BIG. The smartest firms will reorganize more cooperatively — removing wages and employers altogether — to thrive within a new socioeconomic structure. In this view, Basic Income Guarantee could be an effective strategy to initialize or even “revolutionize” a needed transition from the instabilities and inherent contradictions of Capitalism toward more balanced and sustainable conditions of genuine Economic Democracy.

But all of the preceding information posits a fundamental choice: If American workers honestly prefer corporate domination, then American workers must also adjust their lifestyles to accept the lower wages that are currently being paid in countries like Mexico, China, India and the Philippines. If this seems unacceptable to American workers, then at least one alternative is to reorganize American workplaces more regionally, democratically and cooperatively to eventually reject the dominance of global corporations altogether.

There are probably more perspectives to be considered. Meanwhile, these seem the most urgent reasons for the implementation of Basic Income Guarantee to precede “deep structural change” rather than follow it. From any perspective, there is bound to be a struggle, as certain “Americans” jealously defend their “right” to passively draw income from their private ownership of securities and the employment of wage-labor. As such, a “Homeless March on Washington” is probably just a first step in a much larger struggle — some prefer the term “revolution” — for social and economic justice.¹²

In conclusion, the current economic crisis necessitates a nonviolent march of homeless Americans organized from all corners of the United States. As a matter of national security, how can Americans bravely protect their “homeland” from the rest of the world if they can’t even defend their “homes” from their own government?

The overall mission of a “Homeless March on Washington” is to transport and transplant “American Homeless Ambassadors” (AHA!!) to Washington, D.C. — the origin of their disgrace — so the accused can meet their accusers face-to-face, and so “The Deciders” in Washington can no longer evade the consequences of their criminal behavior. The central objective of a “Homeless March on Washington” is a combination of purchasing power and debt relief, arrived at through the “Cook Plan” including Basic Income Guarantee.

With financial support from their respective communities, American Homeless Ambassadors should set up camp in the streets and the parks and the areas surrounding the Capitol city, and remain there until a Basic Income Guarantee is established. If Americans can organize to protest a “stolen election” as David Swanson suggests,¹³ then Americans can mobilize against homelessness and unemployment in favor of a Basic Income Guarantee. If communities can support unemployed and homeless citizens within their own regions, then communities can afford to support a few of their homeless representatives in Washington, D.C. Moreover, if Congress can pass a bill in one week to “bail out” Wall Street, then Congress can pass another emergency bill to save “Main Street.”

A plan like this might not seem very attractive right now. But as the current crisis escalates, and more people lose their incomes and their homes, perhaps the idea will catch on. The purpose of presenting this article series has been to sow some seeds of reason into the minds of those who are as concerned about the future of humanity as I am. Until they come to their senses, our “leaders” in Washington, D.C. should receive a fresh shipment of American homelessness each month:

“East bound and down, loaded up and truckin’,
We’re gonna do what they say can’t be done.
We got a long way to go, and a short time to get there.
Well, I’m eastbound, jus’ watch ol’ Bandit run!!”¹⁴

1. Kendall, David. “‘East Bound and Down’: A Homeless March on Washington,” Dissident Voice.
2. King, Dr. Martin Luther (1968). Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community?. New York, NY: Beacon Press, pg 150.
3. Cook, Richard C. (04/26/2007). “An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform for the United States,” Global Research.
4. Schweickart, David (June 2002). After Capitalism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pg 36.
5. Cook, Richard C. (06/072007). “Poverty in America: Progressive Schemes to Reduce Poverty will Fail without Monetary Reform,” Global Research.
6. Schweickart, p. 97.
7. Howard, Michael W. (10/2001). Self-Management and the Crisis of Socialism: The Rose in the Fist of the Present. Rowman & Littlefield. pg 48.
8. Wikipedia (11/17/2008). “American middle class,” Wikipedia.
9. Nader, Ralph (11/2004). “The End of the Beginning: 2004 Concession Speech,” Mediazine.
10. Wikipedia (11/17/2008). “Poverty,” Wikipedia.
11. Obama, Barack (2006). The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishing Group. pg 174.
12. Ghista, Garda (05/03/2008). “Building a new world: Cathy Garger interviews Garda Ghista,” The Greanville Journal.
13. Swanson, David (10/20/2008). “A McCain “Win” Will Be Theft, Resistance Is Planned,” OpEdNews.
14. Reed, Jerry (1977). “East Bound and Down,” Nashville, TN: RCA.

Fox News: Guess who’s here? The Independent party candidate, Ralph Nader. This is his second run for the Presidency since he played spoiler in the close 2000 contest. This year he was on the ballot in 45 states plus D.C. This year he was polling about 1-percent. Ralph, you spoke to Fox News Radio’s Houston affiliate today, and said this:

Ralph Nader: To put it very simply, he is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

Fox News: Really. Ralph Nader — What was that?

Nader: It’s very simple. He has gone along with corporate power from the moment he entered politics in the State Senate — Voted for the Wall Street Bailout — Supports expanding military budget that is desired by the military industrial complex, and doesn’t really have a tax reform thing for the ordinary fellow in this country — Opposes single-payer full Medicare for all, because the giant HMOs AETNA and SIGNA do — Doesn’t have a living wage — He’s supposed to be respectful of the poor — hardly mentions them in his speech — It’s all the middle class — He doesn’t have a comprehensive program…

(Interrupted by Fox)

Fox News: … and you utter the words “Uncle Tom”? Are you kidding me?

Nader: Yeah… that’s the question he’s gotta face.

(Interrupted by Fox)

Fox News: He didn’t have to face it until it came out of your mouth! I mean, I just wonder if you don’t realize that you had a number of supporters out there. You were running a percentage this year, you were reduced to irrelevant, and I just wonder now if that’s what you want your legacy to be — the man who, on the night that the first African American President in the history of this nation was elected, you ask if he’s going to be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom.

Nader: Yeah, of course. He’s turned his back on a hundred-million poor people in this country — African Americans and Latinos and poor whites, and we’re gonna hold them to a higher standard. It’s just not an unprecedented career move, ya know, in the White House. We expect more of Barack Obama…

(Interrupted by Fox)

Fox News: You were reduced to complete irrelevance here. You weren’t able to play spoiler. Will you run again?

Nader: Look, I don’t like bullies like you. I can’t see you. You can pull the plug on me. I’m lookin’ at a dark camera…

(Interrupted by Fox)

Fox News: You said “Uncle Tom.” I didn’t say it, sir. With respect, I did not say it…

Nader: I said that’s the question HE has to answer. He can become a great President, or he can become a toady for the corporate powers that have brought both parties to their knees against working people in this country, and have allowed our country to be hijacked by global corporations who have no allegiance to this country other than to ship its jobs and industries to fascist and communist dictators abroad who know how to keep their workers in their place. This is reality here. This is not show business. It’s not celebrity politics. There are people suffering in this country, and we expect a great Presidency from Barack Obama, and we’re gonna try to hold his feet to the fire…

(Interrupted by Fox)

Fox News: I just wonder if, in hindsight, you wish you’d used a phrase other than Uncle Tom?

Nader: Not — at all. Do you know what the historic….

(Interrupted by Fox)

Fox News: Fair enough. Thanks very much. We’ll have a response from our panel in just a moment.”

Nader: Thank you…¹

Without getting excited or stuttering or being dramatic or raising his voice or missing a beat — without even raising both eyebrows (cuz he can only raise one) — Nader very politely shredded both Barack Obama and the interviewer to ribbons and mopped up the floor with both of them in less than four and a half minutes.

You’re one of a kind, Ralph. Good job. Thank God somebody in this country still owns a pair.

1. Ralph Nader, (11/06/2008). “Obama – Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom?,” Fox News.

But how can Americans who still hold their jobs and who still own their homes possibly respond to this urgent call for justice? Doesn’t the newly declared “American Homeless” sector seem far more qualified for Swanson’s job description? Perhaps this is true — but only with community support — and what community wants to support a “vagrant” or a “bum” who can’t even hold a job or make the house payments?

Moreover, doesn’t all the above indicate deeper structural problems than just a “stolen election”? Isn’t there something a little bigger than this to fight about — regardless of who gets “elected” on November 4, 2008?

Here’s what Swanson said:

“If your television declares John McCain the president elect on the evening of November 4th, your television will be lying. You should immediately pick up your pre-packed bags and head straight to the White House in Washington, DC, which we will surround and shut down until this attempt at a third illegitimate presidency is reversed. We may be there for days or weeks or months. But we must be there. We must be there by the millions. We must show each other, and the nation, and the world that we have had enough, that we will not stand for one more stolen election, that we will not give in to fear, lies, theft, and intimidation.”¹

Unfortunately, most Americans cannot respond to such a call, as they still have jobs and homes and families to tend to — at “home.” But a growing portion of the U.S. population, recently disenfranchised by their leaders in Washington, D.C., have already lost their jobs and their homes and in some cases much more.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 760,000 American workers have already lost their jobs this year alone.² Other reports indicate a slightly greater number of homeowners will receive a foreclosure notice from the bank before this year ends.³ So who is better qualified to head and maintain a march on Washington than the growing number of “American Homeless Ambassadors”, who have been forced to literally take residence in the middle of “Main Street”?

This article is not an attempt to change the minds of those who generally maintain a dim view of homelessness and/or unemployment. This article is intended to propose an action plan for those who already understand the underlying causes of the problem and its paralyzing affects. This article is intended to mobilize those who are already willing and able to move into action — “East Bound and Down”. This includes both homeless and non-homeless members of every community throughout the United States.

Regardless of who is elected on November 4, “deep structural change” achieved through community cooperative alliance is needed to prevent the chaos of unemployment and homelessness from ever happening again.⁴ The job-description outlined by David Swanson seems a perfect fit for millions of recently unemployed and homeless citizens from coast to coast. Likewise, the initiation and maintenance of this plan relies on non-homeless individuals and businesses nationwide who need to make their voices heard in Washington, even as they “hold down the fort” in their own communities. Overall, “East Bound and Down” seems like a latent opportunity just waiting for American communities to seize the day.

So here’s what we do:

Within each community nationwide, a standard flyer is distributed amongst the homeless that outlines the overall program, including the availability of “X” number of Greyhound bus tickets to Washington, D.C. Interested homeless individuals get their names placed into a drawing. Based on the results of the drawing, participating businesses and non-homeless individuals pool their funds to purchase bus tickets — and care-packages — and the “winners” of the drawing are suddenly on their way to a new “home” in Washington, D.C. Participating communities could hold this drawing monthly, to ensure that Washington, D.C. gets a fresh shipment of homelessness every 30 days or so.

The “care-package” highlighted above is essential. Without it, the whole program becomes little more than abuse. In addition to non-perishable food and other basic necessities, this care-package should include a debit-card, loaded once per week by the supporting community to keep the homeless participant fed and clothed properly during their indefinite stay in Washington. A return trip from Washington should also be a consideration, but none of the above should be guaranteed. All participation is voluntary and there are no contracts or guarantees. In fact, a signed disclaimer seems advisable to prevent any sort of legal liability.

While the plan is purely voluntary from every perspective, at least some level of discretion and common sense should be applied. In particular, interested communities should distinguish between 1) long-term chronic “vagrants” with a long history of “No Fixed Abode” (NFA), and 2) individuals who find themselves “homeless” as a result of recent economic events beyond their control. There are some obvious differences between these two sets of individuals, and the latter set are the people who need an opportunity to protest in Washington.

Some candidates are more qualified than others, and each community only needs to send a few volunteers per month to Washington, D.C. At least two per month (never just one) seems advisable regarding the “buddy-system” of safety. Over time, the limit for each community depends on the availability of funding and the “success” of the project overall. Anything more than ten might seem unmanageable, depending on the characteristics of the community and individual participants. But even with all of the above in place, a “Homeless March on Washington, D.C.” seems meaningless without an overarching “purpose”.

“What do all these homeless people want?” will be the first question from the White House.

While the answer to this question might seem obvious, and David Swanson’s “stolen election” might seem a good initial motivator, the polls tend to predict an Obama landslide. After eight years of Republican abuse, a Democratic landslide victory hardly seems surprising. Still, enormous socioeconomic problems remain, and neither presidential candidate proposes an effective “emergency plan” to rectify the damage done by “Wall Street” to the daily inhabitants of “Main Street”.

But an emergency plan to save the American economy has indeed been proposed, though largely ignored by power structures in Washington. After 21-years as senior policy analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, Richard C. Cook⁵ has outlined a plan that provides every adult U.S. citizen with non-taxable vouchers issued at the rate of $1,000 per month and $500 per month per child. These vouchers are to be issued regardless of employment status, and may be used for food, housing, fuel, communications media, utilities, and educational services.⁶ These are the nuts & bolts of the “Cook Plan” to resuscitate our failing economy with “purchasing power.” Details will be discussed in later installments of this series.

Meanwhile, if our “leaders” simply will not respond to any viable program for economic recovery, then a ready-made opportunity presents itself for millions of Americans to join forces — homeless and non-homeless together — to remind our leaders in Washington who it is they serve. No, it is not just the wealthy Wall Street tycoons and bankers. Rather it is every American citizen who is at risk from a series of bad policies, judgments, and wrongdoing on Wall Street advocated by irresponsible leadership in Washington, D.C.

The “inconvenient truth” is that growing numbers of jobless and homeless Americans happen to be available to get this job done. Nobody needs to leave job or home or family to participate in a “Homeless March on Washington”. Communities must simply coordinate their interests, their efforts and their people to get the job done. This in mind, let’s begin working together now to bring our leaders in Washington, DC, back to their senses, regardless of who gets elected on November 4. As Americans, we owe nothing less to ourselves, our families and communities, and to our country as a whole.

As singer-songwriter Jerry Reed suggests:

“East bound and down, loaded up and truckin’,
We’re gonna do what they say can’t be done.
We got a long way to go, and a short time to get there.
Well, I’m eastbound, jus’ watch ol’ Bandit run!!”⁷

1. Swanson, David (10/20/2008). “A McCain ‘Win’ Will Be Theft, Resistance Is Planned,” OpEdNews.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics (10/03/2008). “Economic News Release: Employment Situation Summary: September 2008,” U.S. Department of Labor.
3. Associated Press (10/23/2008). “Foreclosure activity rises 71 percent,” MSNBC.
4. 
   [4] King, Dr. Martin Luther (1968). Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community? New York, NY: Beacon Press, pg 150.
5. Cook, Richard C. (06/05/2008). “Crisis in America: Personal Reflections,” Global Research.
6. Cook, Richard C. (10/10/2008). “How to Save the U.S. Economy,” Global Research.
7. Reed, Jerry (1977). “East Bound and Down,” Nashville, TN: RCA.