Bera’s “Victory” is a Loss (12/20/16)

© by Mark Dempsey

As someone who, in previous elections, contributed to Ami Bera’s campaign, made calls on his behalf and flew a Bera yard sign, far from celebrating, I'm ambivalent about returning him to congress. Why? He won only in the context of a single election, but this victory is damaging in the long run because it degrades the Democratic brand. Bera is really Republican-lite.

Like most politicians, Bera is well-spoken and polite, yet his actions betrayed his constituents. Among other things, he voted to fast track TPP, and for the DARK Act. The latter prohibits local or state mandates to disclose GMOs in food--it passed and Barack Obama signed it. Although many people excuse Bera’s behavior as catering to his right-wing district, neither of these things are particularly right-wing issues, in fact the Trump administration promises to kill things like TPP.

 Worst of all, Bera sponsored an austerity-advocating "Budget Workshop" promoted by Republican billionaire Pete Peterson's Concord Coalition. Peterson was Nixon's Commerce Secretary and sponsors organizations whose primary function is to spread fear about the national "debt"--including the Concord Coalition, the Peterson Institute, "Fix the Debt" speaking tours, etc.

 The problem with reducing “debt” is that we have debt-based money. That's right, the money is debt. Reducing the "debt" reduces the money in the economy and the population's savings.
 Debt/money works this way: Your bank account is your money or your asset, but is a liability or debt from the bank’s point of view. When you write a check, you're assigning a portion of the bank's debt to the payee.

 Dollars are, in effect, checks made out to cash drawn on the U.S. central bank (the Federal Reserve). Currency is the Federal Reserve's liability--just like your checking account is the bank's liability. National "debt" is the amount of dollar financial assets out in the economy and an accounting identity with the population's savings. So who lobbies to make our bank accounts smaller? Answer: Pete Peterson and Ami Bera. Historically, what happens when government reduces this national "debt"? Households who need dollars to pay their obligations struggle. Their creditors don’t say "Fewer dollars are available now so we'll reduce your mortgage payment." Instead, they say "Pay your debt or we'll foreclose on your house."

 History confirms that waves of foreclosures and asset forfeitures are occur when reductions in "debt"/dollars occur. The last significant reduction was the Clinton surplus. The time before that occurred in 1929. Andrew Jackson even paid off the entire "debt" in 1835. What correlates 100% with the seven major "debt" reductions since 1776? Answer: A Great Depression-sized hole in the economy, from the Great Recession to the worst of these which was the Panic of 1837. When the amount of "debt"/money declines, an epidemic of foreclosures and defaults ensues. Plutocrats like Peterson pick up assets on the cheap, but everyone else suffers.

 Never mind sponsoring a Republican-authored workshop, Bera is promoting austerity at a time when it couldn't be more harmful. Both major political parties believe in this bizarre policy too and can promote such misinformation because a currency creators (government) are completely different than what we’re used to: being currency users (households). Supposedly "liberal" Clinton still speaks proudly of having reduced national "debt" even when the Great Recession followed his austerity!

 So yes, I'm actually saying there are worse things than losing, including winning with a turncoat. I apologize if this offends some Bera fans. He is nice, and polite. When I met him he was charming. I'm sure Benedict Arnold was too.