The Beltway Beast review by the San Francisco Book Review

According to a Gallup poll in October 2013, only 26% believe that two major parties adequately represent Americans, and 60% of Americans think a third party is needed. This book is designed to be a platform for the 74% of Americans who are yearning for an option outside of the two-party monopoly.

And so, Munir Moon succinctly states the purpose for his excellent, thoughtful book. There is a bit of a trend recently in books that look to re-invent the clearly flawed political systems in the Western democracies. (You may disagree with that statement, or at least the latter part of it, but do keep reading.) As I write this review, the number one best-seller in the UK is Russell Brand’s Revolution. Brand calls for a boycott of all established institutions, including a refusal to cast votes in elections contested among elite parties. So in many ways, both Moon and Brand are coming from the same place while heading in only slightly different directions. (more…)

The Beltway Beast review by the FOREWORD REVIEWS

October 30, 2014 – The Beltway Beast: A Challenge to Our Democracy by Munir Moon is a concise look at a litany of problems with the American political system—and a glimpse at a possible solution.

Moon’s main goal is to argue against political polarization. Rather than pointing a finger at one party, individual, issue, or belief system, Moon attacks the beast that is Washington, DC: “the Military-Industrial Complex, multinational corporations, lobbyists, media, and Congress.” If it feels like a lot to tackle in one slim volume, it is; but Moon puts all these oft-discussed issues in one place in order to prime Americans for his proposed solution: a third party.

Moon asserts that The People’s Party of America could help restore balance. The PPA, as Moon presents it, would be people-centered, focusing on “equality, fairness, freedom, and justice.” Throughout the book, Moon presents practical details behind those abstractions—but he doesn’t provide all the specifics, as this is to be an open movement, a community rather than one man’s opinion. (more…)

Flip Side of the Minimum-Wage Debate


Something that Washington does not want you to know about and hopes that nobody else will discuss during the minimum-wage debate is take-home pay after taxes for low-wage earners. Washington claims that Americans should be paid living wages so that they can live a decent life. However, it is not willing to give up its share of the booty that it would collect from the same low-wage earners it claims to help.

For example, the federal government will collect at least 15 percent of the increased income from those low-wage earners through payroll tax. In other words, if the minimum wage goes up by a dollar, the federal government will take away, directly or indirectly, at least 15 cents of that additional dollar from the working poor.

Asking large corporations, which are in business to make money, to pay additional wages is like asking them to be saints. Government mandates do not have a major impact on large corporations, since they will figure out a way around them. After all, they can rent lawmakers; one former senator famously declared, “My vote can’t be bought, but it can be rented.” On the other hand, politicians do not pay anything from their pockets either. They will just give the money to one group and take it from another, but not from the special-interest groups that finance their campaigns. (more…)

How Obamacare Might Affect Young Americans

One looming issue that President Obama did not address in last week’s press conference about the latest technical and bureaucratic snafus with the Affordable Care Act has to do with the act’s heavy reliance on America’s younger generation. Without young, mostly healthy people pouring money into the new insurance pool, the Affordable Care Act would not be, well, affordable.

Debt Denial: Stealing from Our Kids

Our handling of the national debt is like a grand, inter-generational Ponzi scheme that’s destined to drown our children and grandchildren in red ink. Our leaders like to call their strategy borrowing, but it is really tantamount to stealing — from our children, worse yet. Why? Because we have no plans to pay the debt. None. We continue to borrow just to make interest payments that are estimated to be $5 trillion over the next decade while doing nothing to pay down a staggering debt of $17 trillion.

Equally alarming, perhaps even surreal, is that party leaders who can hardly agree on the color of the White House can be found nodding their approval at the fiscal fiction “that deficits don’t matter,” as then-Vice President Dick Cheney told a disbelieving Paul O’Neill, the treasury secretary at the time.

Fast forward a decade to President Obama, the anti-Cheney, who was telling George Stephanopoulos on ABC that “we don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next 10 years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place.” House Speaker John Boehner, considering the President’s comments in a separate ABC interview, concurred that the crisis is not immediate. This pervasive Washington attitude is reflected in Office of Management and Budget’s 2014 projections that show the national debt haplessly climbing skyward through 2020 with no sign of coming down.

This state of affairs might qualify as a refreshing show of bipartisanship if it weren’t such a frightening denial of the most elementary budgeting principles. This chronic American deficit denial is not just a matter of money and economics. It’s a matter of national security, as Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned: “I’ve said many times that I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt.”

The reason for both the fiscal and security concerns is that the scenario we’ve created puts the nation at the mercy of its lenders, a list not so comfortingly topped by China, custodians of some $1.3 trillion in U.S. debt. Japan is a close second, followed by an odd conglomeration of creditors that includes oil-exporting countries and Russia, among others. If any of these nations want their money back, it’ll be like the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2008, when people continued to borrow more without any plans or means to repay the loans. Now it’s our government that borrows more and more, with no plans to actually pay off its debts, more than $5 trillion of which is owed to China and other foreign countries.

The Federal Reserve is virtually printing money, although not technically, by virtue of financial engineering that essentially takes money out of one governmental pocket and puts it into another, creating the potential asset bubble. But as with the sub-prime mortgage crisis that bubble could pop at any time if lenders stop lending, much as the banks did during the sub-prime crisis. The city of Detroit’s bankruptcy filing should serve as a sobering reminder of what could very well lie ahead for the country as a whole.

But our leaders in Washington continue to engage in fiscal denial by downplaying the size and significance of the deficit: They talk about it as a percentage of GDP, the Gross Domestic Product, even though a dollar of debt is still a dollar that we owe to someone — in our case trillions of dollars, owed to creditors both foreign and domestic. The logic is that if the economy grows, then the growing debt, as a percentage of a larger GDP, will still be relatively small, or, as the president said, “sustainable.” So we can just borrow more. But that leaves a projected shortfall between federal income and spending that goes on in perpetuity — and that is not sustainable, as our children will be stuck with it.

This ill-conceived approach to spending and managing debt, born in the 1980s and rarely altered since, is astonishingly contrary to the simple budget lessons we teach our kids: Try to live within your means. When a typical family falls on hard economic times, the first thing it does is freeze or reduce its expenses. There is no reason that the government cannot do the same, and now is the time: According to OMB’s 2014 projections, the U.S. can balance its budget by 2017, without any spending cuts, by simply freezing spending at its current 2013 level, a projected $3.69 trillion. In 2017, the federal government will take in revenues of $3.76 trillion, creating a modest surplus.

Unfortunately, such simple arithmetic eludes both political parties, whose members seem to prefer denial to developing a plan that at least starts generating enough federal income so that the U.S. can make interest payments without borrowing. Until that happens, our leaders are really just stealing from our children, and we can all recognize that this is unconscionable.