classical economics
for analysis,  forecasting
and policy design

Abortion and Fraud
JUSTICE GINSBURG, ABORTION & FINANCIAL FRAUD
By Wayne Jett
© July 13, 2009

    The top sidekick of mega-billionaire Warren Buffet, Charlie Munger, is a billionaire financier in his own right who made his early fortune in southern California as a lawyer, real estate developer and securities investor. Munger is also a father with eight children in the combined families of himself and his second wife. By most accounts, Munger’s children were important to him as indicated by annual excursions of the extended family to their lakeside compound in the Upper Midwest. This seems not to fit with Munger’s pivotal role as lawyer and financial angel in a long-running campaign to promote universal legality of abortion in the U. S.
    Discussing this apparent dichotomy with a biographer, Munger explained that he gave careful thought before committing himself to the abortion cause, but did so after concluding that concerns for human population growth were compelling. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U. S. Supreme Court now confirms that population control was, indeed, the primary motivation among early abortion rights supporters.
    During an interview with the New York Times published in its Sunday magazine on July 12, 2009, Justice Ginsburg stated:    
    “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe [v. Wade] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them.” (Emphasis added.)
Justice Ginsburg then explained that when the Supreme Court refrained from requiring use of Medicaid funds for abortion so poor women could access the procedure, she decided her original perception that the reason for legalizing abortion was as a means of population growth control was “altogether wrong” and the real point was that government should not make “that choice for a woman.”
     Leaving aside concern for an unborn child’s well-being, empathy for a woman as an individual may give rise to support for her discretion in choosing whether to have an abortion. Nonetheless, a later court decision whether federal funds must be spent for abortions does not change the truth – the pre-existing fact – about the motive force behind the drive to persuade the Supreme Court to eradicate limits placed on abortion procedures by state legislatures. The motive force, as Justice Ginsburg was in a position to know well, was the desire to reduce or to reverse population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
“We,” the Elite
    Clearly the drive for “abortion rights” did not come from within the target populations “that we don’t want to have too many of,” since Ginsburg’s statement is voiced on behalf of “we,” meaning those evaluating society’s proper goals. The question arises:  who were the “we” setting those aims in Justice Ginsburg’s recollection?
    Surprisingly to some, the answer is the same circle of influential elites so intimately involved in dominating the U. S. financial sector, the Federal Reserve System, Congress and the mainstream media. Yes, American society is dominated by an elite circle, or class, and these elitists had everything to do with bringing about and exploiting the historic financial and economic debacle of 2008-2009.
    When a circle of parties has financial capital so great that its sheer scale captures attention and affection of government officials at highest levels, that powerful circle and each occupant achieves the title “elite.” Others of the Middle Class may do their bidding, even embracing elitist aims and ideas as their own, and thereby they expand the elitist network. The influence of such a network is entirely capable of promoting and integrating into respectable society the premise that women of other (obviously lower) social classes should abort their unborn children, or at least such women should have unfettered discretion to do so.
Elitist Fears of the People
    Elites always have feared the common populace, and their fears escalated after Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798 used faulty logic to project a planet overrun by starving, ravaging humanity. Though Malthus was debunked by Henry George before the 19th Century was out, his conclusions remain accepted dogma of the elite. It is Malthusian thinking, in part, that is responsible for elitist sentiment favoring as many abortions as possible. Their aim is to reduce to the maximum extent the numbers of fingers and eyes capable of coming over the walls of their guarded estates in their future nightmarish scenario.
    The elites’ role relative to abortion is not an aberration either in substance or in the aggressive manner of its pursuit. It is, so to speak, of the same fabric as their overall approach to relations with society. Elite persons and families have been close to government power for centuries, and they have gained enormously from that connection through land grants, monopoly market charters and licenses, and in financing and provisioning wars and other government operations. As their stores of capital have grown, so has the strength of their tentacles of influence running deeply into governments worldwide.
International Financial Criminals
    The U. S. government certainly is no exception to the rule of elitist domination globally, and elitist policy in America is no more benevolent than elsewhere. Consider that, on April 23, 2008, the Justice Department and FBI in a joint release reported that “international organized crime” threatens “U. S. security and stability” by sending billions in illicit funds through the financial system, by “manipulating securities exchanges and engaging in sophisticated fraud schemes that rob U. S. investors, consumers, and government agencies of billions of dollars,” and by corrupting “successfully” officials in countries around the world as they seek “to influence – legally or illegally – U. S. officials.”
    Unless top federal law enforcement engaged entirely in hyperbole, those statements become more astonishing as they are mulled and weighed. International organized crime sends billions in illicit funds through the U. S. financial system. These sophisticated criminals manipulate our securities exchanges and engage in fraudulent schemes which rob billions from investors, consumers and government agencies. They have corrupted public officials in other countries, and attempt to do so in the U. S.
Searching for a Pattern
    Yet no one has been arrested, indicted or prosecuted. Does this not imply that U. S. officials, including law enforcement officials, are more deeply corrupted than officials in other countries?
    In 2000, Congress authorized trading of crude oil futures contracts in unmonitored markets, surely knowing that those futures contracts set the prices of crude oil on world markets. In 2008, the price of crude oil doubled while inventories rise and demand dropped. This rise in energy prices stripped hundreds of billions out of Middle Class family pockets and drove all economies into steep recession worldwide. Does it not imply corruption of public officials that no U. S. agency or Congress acted to stop this transparent manipulation of markets?
    On September 23, 2008, Treasury secretary Henry Paulson testified before Congress that the financial system was in crisis and he needed $700 billion with no strings attached to prevent the crisis from becoming a catastrophe. On June 15, 2009, Russian economist Anatole Kaletsky, writing for the London Times, opined that Paulson had misused an accounting rule (the mark-to-market rule) to destroy the share price of Fannie Mae and to bankrupt Lehman Bros., and that the whole world realized on September 23 Paulson did not know what he was doing when he testified in Congress . 
    Does it not imply corruption in U. S. public officials, if everyone recognized Paulson (formerly the brightest man on Wall Street) to be incompetent (if not malevolent), yet no one said so or even dared to get in Paulson’s way as he took $700 billion in tax revenues back to his Treasury office and disbursed it as he pleased?
    When the SEC allows financial firms such as investment banks, brokers and hedge funds to sell electronic account entries as shares of stock and to take the buyers’ money without delivering the shares (the essence of naked short selling), does this not imply that sophisticated criminals have succeeded in corrupting U. S. officials?
    The SEC official directly responsible for enforcement of securities laws prohibiting fraud failed for eight years to heed a whistle-blower’s proof of Bernard Madoff’s multi-billion dollar fraud operation. After Madoff finally revealed himself, that SEC official was drummed from office by withering congressional derision. But as she left office to take a highly paid position advising financial firms about avoiding prosecution for violating securities laws, she was heaped with praise by the newly appointed SEC chair.  
    Is this not evidence of successful corruption of U. S. public officials? Surely it is clear that the new strategy announced 15 months ago by DOJ and FBI for combating international organized crime has shown no public results in the U. S. to date.
Elitism, Abortion and Financial Fraud
    The list of public atrocities against social conscience is very long, and it is connected in important ways with elitist domination of U. S. public policy. An elitist mindset which aggressively robs Middle Class financial assets is easily able to accommodate a view that 2,000,000 abortions annually in the U. S. alone among the families “that we don’t want to have too many of” is not a bad idea. ~