Therefore….?

^^^
I disagree with you. Neo-liberalism is precisely ” the general response of corporate capital to the crisis that began in the 70’s, which was, one way and another, to “solve the crisis at the working people’s expense ” . Reaganism and Thatcherism are Neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is _not_ confined to foreign policy. It has domestic and foreign aspects.

During the 1970′s, for multiple reasons, there was rapid inflation in California home prices. Under the laws then in force, this meant that homeowners, including retirees on fixed incomes, found their homes being reassessed annually and their property tax liability climbing much faster than their ability to pay (or the general rate of inflation for that matter.) The outrage over this was readily translated into anger at the supposed beneficiaries of tax-funded government generosity, i.e. the Black poor, who for reasons no one could explain were believed to enjoy special favor from “the politicians.” (I heard variants of this argument from my white fellow-railroaders all through 1978.)

Into this situation stepped Howard Jarvis, a lobbyist for an association of commercial real estate owners. He and others crafted Proposition 13, which promised to freeze or roll back assessments on real estate, with reassessment taking place only when property changed hands. Of course most of the benefit went to his corporate clients, since commercial property turns over much more slowly than private homes, but he had tapped into a combination of economic desperation and racist vindictiveness, and the measure passed with a large majority. Thirty years later, though the negative effects are obvious (the best book is Paradise Lost, by longtime Sacramento Bee reporter Peter Schrag), 13 is still regarded as sacrosanct in California politics, and polls show most voters still support it–even those who barely know what it provided, or that it’s the reason a simple court filing fee jumped from $14 to $300, or that local governments (barred from raising property taxes) have been forced to offer lavish inducements to “big box” retail (a fortress of anti-unionism) in order to collect sales taxes, or that California schools and roads, once among the nation’s best, are now a national disgrace… I could go on.

Is this “neoliberalism”? I don’t think it is. It’s part of the general response of corporate capital to the crisis that began in the 70′s, which was, one way and another, to “solve the crisis at the working people’s expense” as European leftists used to put it in those days; neoliberal economic policies in foreign investment, credit, and trade also are part of this general solution. But I think they’re distinct, and are oriented on different sectors of capital. Prop. 13′s supporters didn’t, and don’t, care about Argentina’s debt service; they mostly think “foreign aid” is another case of brainless largesse to the undeserving. Their politics is a nasty brew of spite, greed, and self-righteousness, what I’ve come to think of as the “foot-stamping” response to social problems: don’t tell me a lot of details, dammit, just shoot somebody or lock somebody up and make it go away. There was a rival measure in 1978, supported by organized labor, the Democrats, local government officials, PTAs etc., that would have amended the State constitution so commercial property could have been taxed at a different rate than homes; most voters found this not only too complicated but also emotionally unsatisfying. The Jarvis enthusiasts wanted more than tax relief, they wanted tax revenge, and by God they got it, good and hard.

Neo-liberalism , as generally defined, includes domestic capitalism. Neo-liberalism is privatzation overseas, and privatization in Detroit, domestically. I wrote papers years ago on how privatization in Detroit ( not only domestically, but locally) was part of neo-liberal privatization globally. Privatization started with Thatcher _domestically_ in Britain. Neo-liberalism includes deregulation of banking , _domestically_ in the United States. When the Reaganites deregulated _domestically_, that was part of neo-liberalism.

Neo-liberalism includes the reduction of welfare, welfare _de_form is a component of neo-liberalism. Gingrich’s “Contract on America ” was part of neo-liberalism.

_Neo-liberalism_ refers to both international and national (domestic) capitalist poliicies starting especially with Reagan’s presidency. Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics.

^^^^^
CB: Tax cuts for the rich, Reagan’s Laffer curve, rightwing tax cut revolts, as in California Prop some number, Howard whathisname, are neo-liberalism. Barry O has spoken against the Bush tax cuts for the rich and for tax cuts for the middle class. This is anti-neo-liberal rhetoric.

Obama as spoken ( talk is cheap) against tax breaks for corporations who runawayshops and still get tax breaks in tax haven. Tax havens for runaway corporation is neo-liberalism, thus this is speakng out against neo-liberalism.

This article discusses possible outcomes for the Clinton faction:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JF03Aa01.html

This mealy-mouthed CNN article counts the delegates and popular vote three different ways, aiding Clinton:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/02/democrats.race/index.html

YK

PS I refuse to vote for the Republocrats/Demopublicans, so I’m more interested in the social politics of these electoral machinations.

PPS I further maintain that the relative dead-heat of recent electoral contests is due not only to direct manipulation but also to the increased presence of financial sector cash, which hedges bets through campaign money to create relatively zero risk to themselves.

Obama has now formally resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ. I’ve never seen an entire church thrown under the bus before. No doubt soon to be joined by Tom Hayden and the cheerleaders at “Progressives for Obama”. It’s getting pretty crowded under there.