“System Isn’t Broken … It’s Fixed”

The real problem with Donald Trump’s tax avoidance? It’s perfectly legal | The Guardian |

As a result, we have tax laws that subsidize risk and allow billionaires to amass perverse profits that have helped the top 0.1% of the population accumulate as much wealth as the bottom 90%. Trump may be the most imbecilic person that has ever run for president, but his tax shenanigans are the norm for people in his bracket. Billionaire-investor Warren Buffet flashed a spotlight on this absurdity in 2013 when he complained that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Meanwhile, working-class people – people who can’t afford a $50,000-a-plate dinner with politicians – are keeping the lights on in Congress with their tax dollars. It’s a system that Republican senator John McCain and former president Jimmy Carter refer to as “legalized bribery”.

…
According to a study by the Sunlight Foundation, for every dollar spent to influence politics, for-profit corporations received $760 in benefits from the government. In other words, the system isn’t broken, it’s fixed.

The problem is that this type of pay-to-play politics is business as usual – businesses and wealthy people manipulate laws to benefit themselves every day of the year.

…
We cannot depend on a slim majority of supreme court justices to solve the problem that they created in misguided rulings such as Buckley v Valeo (1975) and Citizens United v FEC. We need a 28th amendment to constitution that requires all federal elections to be financed exclusively by democracy vouchers – a $100 tax credit that every citizen of voting age will be able to donate to the politicians of their choice.  

So I came across a video from Bernard Sansaricq, former senator from Haiti, who has joined the Donald Trump campaign with his message about alleged bribery and corruption during the 1990s in Washington DC …

Haiti, 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist. – Dom Hélder Câmara

What does the government of the United States do when faced with a choice between supporting: (a) a group of totalitarian military thugs guilty of murdering thousands, systematic torture, widespread rape, and leaving severely mutilated corpses in the streets … or (b) a non-violent priest, legally elected to the presidency by a landslide, whom the thugs have overthrown in a coup? …

But what if the priest is a “leftist”? During the Duvalier family dictatorship – Francois “Papa Doc”, 1957-71, followed by Jean-Claude “Baby Doc”, 1971-86, both anointed President for Life by papa – the United States trained and armed Haiti’s counter-insurgency forces, although most American military aid to the country was covertly channeled through Israel, thus sparing Washington embarrassing questions about supporting brutal governments. After Jean-Claude was forced into exile in February 1986, fleeing to France aboard a US Air Force jet, Washington resumed open assistance. And while Haiti’s wretched rabble were celebrating the end of three decades of Duvalierism, the United States was occupied in preserving it under new names.

Within three weeks of Jean-Claude’s departure, the US announced that it was providing Haiti with $26.6 million in economic and military aid, and in April it was reported that “Another $4 million is being sought to provide the Haitian Army with trucks, training and communications gear to allow it to move around the country and maintain order.”

Democracy Enhancement (1994) by Noam Chomsky

Government statements and press reports tacitly conceded what had always been clear: that the U.S. has the means, far short of military intervention, to restore democracy in Haiti, but had no intention of doing so, and still does not. What has always been required is a clear declaration of intent to restore democracy, but that cannot be given, because there is no such intent. The military and their civilian allies understand that perfectly well.

In the following weeks, the U.S. banned commercial air flights and financial transactions, while leaving crucial loopholes open. Personal assets of the coup supporters were not frozen, so they can withdraw funds from U.S. bank accounts at will and transfer money to banks abroad, Administration officials acknowledged — a matter that may be academic, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Kweisi Mfume, observed, since “the dictators of Haiti have long ago moved their assets in anticipation of this.” The sanctions also permit the families that have long dominated the economy to hold on to the monopoly of the food trade that is a major source of their wealth, including the Mevs family, which is building “a huge new oil depot here to help the army defy the embargo,” French reported, adding that “Washington’s hesitancy in taking firm action against the business elite and the army is a result of a long history of close ties and perceived common interests,” if not fear of “a spate of embarrassing revelations made by Haitians in reprisal for a crackdown.”

After sanctions were finally imposed in May 1994, a U.S. diplomat conceded that the continuing failure to move against the richest families has left “a perception out there of sending mixed messages and having double agendas.” Other diplomats and Haitian experts agree that the decision not to target key civilian supporters of the coup is yet another mixed signal, noting particularly the relief granted the Mev, Brandt, Acra and Madsen families, who “still have a role to play,” a U.S. Embassy source informed the press, though they have made no effort to disguise their support for the coup. Washington is “imposing sanctions designed to strangle the country into restoring Aristide at the same time they are telling the people who backed the coup and are in business with the military in keeping Aristide out that they are free to lead their privileged lives,” another diplomat said. Haitian Senators who lead the anti-Aristide movement were not denied their permanent U.S. resident status, including Bernard Sansaricq, who played a leading role in installing the puppet civilian government with its new “president” Emile Jonassaint, appointed to replace Aristide.

Meanwhile, the serious work of undermining the basis for democracy continues unhampered. By the time Clinton took office, as Americas Watch reported, the terror had already decimated the popular organizations that would allow Aristide “to exert civilian authority,” even if he were eventually permitted to return.