RELENTLESS LIBERAL

The GOP Gets a Jump Start

2012-01-10T11:40:00.000-08:00

The Republican presidential candidate debates were combative and entertaining, attracting large crowds on site and millions of viewers on television. This was hardly due to the brilliance and ideas of the candidates who were unimpressive in word and deed.

Is this crop of candidates the best that the Republican Party can present to the nation to lead the world's prime superpower? Should we entrust our country to a retired pizza maker, or a barely literate governor of Texas, or a defeated senator from Pennsylvania. Those aspirants do not remind us of historic GOP leaders, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, as well as the other capable candidates nominated but defeated. Has George W. Bush set a new trend of mediocrity?

There is an alternative pool of very capable Republican leaders now running the nation's biggest institutions; Wall Street managers, business executives, university presidents, bankers, Senators, the 1% who actually run the nation. One would hope that the talented leaders of the US capitalist system would be asked or drafted to rescue the US capitalist government with whom they deal daily.

The debates gave the Republicans a temporary monopoly on communication with the electorate. It was their opportunity to present their agendas to the nation without contradiction – and they went first, opening the competition. Of course, no liberal values were offered by the GOP candidates. They had the opportunity to advocate their basic programs without fear of contradiction: smaller government, drastic debt reduction, cuts in governmental social services, large military budgets, worldwide military bases, lower taxes, less regulation of business, etc.

As the first to present programs, to set the tone and agenda of the conflict, the challenger has large advantages in the national debate. The defender must make special efforts at their own expense, just to get their arguments before the public without dramatic and entertaining debates. The Presidents Bully Pulpit is not likely to be as effective in the battle for public attention.

Going first does not always win arguments. But Obama and the Democrats will need to find a way to entertain, to amuse the electorate just to get them to pay attention. It is hard enough to get them to vote, harder to get their attention and response to the big issues. The Republicans have captured public attention at least temporarily. Now the Democrats need to play catch up to reorganize, reactivate and inspire the coalition that gave them the White House.

Gingrich Will Re-elect Barack Obama – In a Landslide

2011-12-18T11:18:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama is the luckiest candidate for president in the history of the United States. Struggling with unemployment and desperate business conditions, saddled with the costs of two wars he did not start, Obama appeared politically helpless as the constituencies that elected him in 2008 drifted away from him disappointed with his policies.

Zany Newt has reversed the political equation as Obama’s key supporters are terrified at the prospect of a wild Gingrich presidency. That possibility is reuniting the Obama coalition and has deferred complaints about his performance in office.

• Organized labor was disaffected about administration failures to support revision of organizing rules.

• Civil libertarians were stunned when Obama withdrew his threat of veto a Pentagon – funding bill that allows detention of American citizens without time limit, without charges and without trial.

• Advocates for the poor are unhappy about the failure to adopt adequate measures to rescue the housing mortgage crisis.

• No plan has been devised to put the trillions of dollars held by large banks into stimulation of the U.S. economy.

• Expensive and deadly military activity by U.S. forces continues around the world with bases in 140 counties and US troops moving into additional theatres in Australia and Uganda.

As the Obama coalition faltered, along came a most unlikely rescuer – Newt Gingrich, barely a survivor, left among the politically dead in the sleepy political summer – now the bad boy of the Republican presidential candidates. Showing once again his political dexterity with argument and repartee, brimming with confidence despite his past failures, Gingrich has captured the imagination of the far-right conservatives, of the haters, of the pseudo warriors who threaten the use of nuclear weapons and are committed to American Exceptionalism as a synonym for world hegemony. In the current campaign, Gingrich has solidified his political support among the GOP. A quick-witted excellent campaigner, he always makes his points as a debater and effective responder to accusations. A tough fighter, he always has an answer often based on distorted information and fueled by self adulation.

The Obama coalition is coming together again under the pressure and danger of the Gingrich threat. Complaints about Obama policies must wait until after the election and take second place to repelling the challenge. The voting turnout for Obama must be huge. The financial contributions must set new records. Gingrich’s candidacy has created a political emergency that must be repulsed for the safety of the nation, even the planet.

And if, like Mitt Romney, you have an extra $10,000.00, bet it on Obama. His winning coalition has organized once again and he will sweep to re-election, courtesy of Newt Gingrich.

Attention to The 99% Must Be Paid

2011-11-12T10:29:00.000-08:00

The unifying desire of the world movement known as “Occupy Wall Street “is absolutely clear. They want attention paid to them and their imprecise groping for a more equitable society. With extraordinary simplicity and without an explicit agenda, the 99% have placed their bodies on line before the world as symbols of the overpowering requirement to modify the dictatorship of the financial overlords.

Remarkably, this revolutionary movement originated in the poorest and least democratic societies on earth. One thousand years ago, the Crusaders tried to impose a different view of God and Man on the societies of Islam, but today’s challenge to the dictatorial financial overlords originated in the poverty-ridden squares of Cairo and Tunis. This latest revolt has found a ready market in the streets of the West.

The Western revolt is intentionally peaceful although it threatens the financial base of the 1%. Will the challengers develop ideas and programs without seeking the power to implement them? Will the style and strategy be consistent with its multi-ethnic and multi-religious origins and orientation? Consideration of alternate forms of economic and social orientation is a necessity for promotion of new approaches without the usual fratricidal conflict. Above all: attention must be paid to the breadth of the public protest sweeping the world.

The Occupiers, in Cairo, in New York or wherever have demonstrated remarkable self control. They have brought the protesters together while avoiding the fatal noose of infighting. At the moment the movement’s energy is primarily directed at keeping the forces of fusion alive, to focus on what unifies – that our system of capitalism is out of control and that our political system has broken down. Promoting more financial equality and overcoming the dictatorship of current overlords might include these considerations as part of the new agenda for the serious change demanded in the name of the 99% occupiers.

• Should some bankers be prosecuted for violations of current law?
• Should some bankers be sued to return unjustified unearned bonuses?
• Should there be limitations on outrageous bailout and corporate salaries?
• Should the federal government nationalize the banking businesses, operating as a public utility on a limited profit basis?
• Should government policy promote employment and industrial development as the primary aim of our business system as an alternative to private profit?
• Should new products and production systems be promoted with government risk while preserving the profits for new product development?

The Occupation movement has given us a method to experiment with new forms of economic organization geared to greater efficiency and a fairer division of the gains. It is no accident that this opportunity came at the heart of a world-wide depression. We must use it to improve our economy and make the rewards fairer. But first – attention must be paid. Public frustration at inequality and inefficiency has increased public anger to dangerous levels.

The Money’s Still Out There

2011-10-18T08:58:00.000-07:00

The amount of money parked in U.S. banks and financial institutions has risen to a two year high as banks hold back from lending to each other and from financing growth industries. Fears of contagion from Europe have now infected America inhibiting the development of new ideas and products.

Can America find its entrepreneurial spirit once again? Probably not, now that those business executives have found their way to the bailout window of the Federal Reserve Bank. Profits may be divided among the bosses but losses are likely to be socialized by government subsidy.

Equity investors are running scared, holding their breath during the stock market rallies. Any serious expansion of the labor force will require guarantees that will hold investors and companies free and clear of financial loss while they manage the wave of hiring.

Utilizing their experience and trained personnel, the dominant companies in each industry will be positioned to identify talented workers and management and break thru products while getting the political credit for employing the jobless on Uncle Sam’s credit card. And one of the rewards is likely to be a share in ownership of the subsidized company.

This is one jobs bill that will not hit a wall of opposition in the US Congress. It will satisfy the popular demand for a jobs employment bill. It will subsidize industry without government imposed management, it will take the political wind out of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it will have averted a Washington Spring demanding national reorganization toward economic justice and social equality.

And the money will still be out there, in the vault of the banks, while the US Treasury picks up the costs.

Living Outside the American Dream

2011-08-19T13:54:00.000-07:00

The Tea Party doesn't have a national headquarters or unofficial governing body. Nor is there a reliable count of its members, because there is no formal way for adherents to sign up. It is a collection of unrelated local groups: six people gathered in the living room to talk and complain over whiskey and soda.

Indiana has 72 such affiliates, many named after Johnny Appleseed. Name variations often include the phrase “small government”. The local groups buy Tea Party golf balls, Tea Party cigars and children's coloring books.

Loosely bound for serious political combat, this unimpressive group has 60 members in the US House of Representatives where they exercise their leverage in the Republican Party to change the focus of the nation from the crisis of widespread unemployment to cutting taxes and balancing the federal budget

Only a few months ago, the consensus in Washington, in the media, in the Democratic Party and in the White House located the American crisis and in the vast and growing need to create jobs for the millions of Americans living outside the American dream. This humanitarian goal has been replaced by the bankers’ issues: balancing the federal yearly budget and reducing the long-term federal deficit. A serious jobs program would put funds in the hands of the poorest. The current national dialogue does not include a serious jobs program to increase production and put funds in the hands of the unemployed. An effective program for deficit reduction would cut the military budget, increase taxes on the wealthiest and limit US military adventures around the world

The Tea Party agenda fits the ideology of the Reagan Republican Party supporting military intervention abroad and opposing social intervention for the unemployed at home. The masses of American workers are disappointed in the motivation of the Democrats that moves them to switch priorities from Social Security to deficit reductions, from a massive jobs program similar to the Roosevelt New Deal to a banker support program

What happened to Obama? In this moral and economic crisis, the media cry out in virtual unison, expecting the president to rescue his constituency as headlines scream, “As corporate profits rise, workers income declines.” As unemployment staggers the nation and social programs are cut, there is no FDR in this administration, so stop looking for one.

Voting Blocs May Decide the 2012 Presidential Election

2011-07-05T19:31:00.000-07:00

The political face of America is changing as immigrant groups, legal and illegal, build our population to at least 310 million - and rising.
As the presidential election of 2012 approaches, the prime question will be turnout, that is, which voting bloc will respond to which candidate.
Will the giant demographic trends already in place benefit President Barack Obama and his Democrats sufficiently to overcome the negative effects of joblessness and unresolved wars in remote lands?
The basic constituencies of the Democratic Party are minorities, working women, educated voters in urban areas, and younger voters. They are growing at a faster rate than other blocs.
Republicans achieve their largest voting potential among the white and upper income voters where Obama’s support has been weakening. These Republican blocs have been shrinking as a share of the overall electorate.
However, Democratic turnout dropped in the 2010 congressional election as the higher percentage of white voters and senior citizens overcame the Democrats demographic advantage.
Working-class white voters will be the key to the 2012 presidential election. US unemployment numbers will be the crucial figures - not the frantic and ineffective attempts to rebuild foreign societies thousands of miles from American homes.

The Wars on Libya

2011-06-11T11:04:00.000-07:00

The current attack on Libya by the United States is not the first. According to the authoritative Library of Congress, the attack is the second such war; the first was fought intermittently between 1800 - 1815 against the so-called Barbary States of North Africa led by Tripoli.

The war was never declared by the US House of Representatives as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress study analyzed the 250 wars fought by the US and reported that Congress declared war in only five of them: the war of 1812, the 1848 war against Mexico, the 1898 war against Spain, the 1917 World War I, the 1941 World War II.

The Barbary States regular source of income was piracy. The young US paid cash tribute as did European nations to buy immunity for their ships and cargoes. When the Pasha of Tripoli raised the price for American immunity, US refused payment, negotiations failed, US set up a blockade. President Thomas Jefferson persuaded Congress to authorize the building of warships that saw intermittent action until the US blockade was lifted, the US considered resuming payments, a US ship and prisoners were captured and ransomed.

In the final settlement, Tripoli renounced all rights to halt or to levy tribute on US ships. It was not a brilliant triumph and did not end piracy until US Admiral Stephen Decatur scored a significant naval victory over the pirates.

In recent decades, Libya’s pirate/dictator Moammar Qaddafi has engaged in domestic and foreign terrorist actions earning the enmity of the US and other victims. A few years ago, a settlement was reached that satisfied the US and other affected nations: acknowledgment and payment was made by Libya for the destruction of a plane and passengers over Scotland, the responsible criminals were remanded for punishment, and Libya surrendered materials and plans for the manufacture of nuclear weapons they had imported.

Some Libyan tribes have revolted against the harsh Qaddafi regime. NATO and US military forces are helping them, mostly by bombing government installations. US participation has mainly been firing powerful, Tomahawk missiles from US ships in the Mediterranean Sea – an act of war but without authorization from Congress. Congressional resolutions demanding that the president adhere to the U.S. Constitution have failed by close margins despite receiving votes from both Democrats and Republicans.

The attacks on Libya continue. Libya’s prime oil export has been diminished, affecting the world price. Libya's assets frozen in US banks amount to $29 billion. American actions against Libya were acts of war by all international standards and are parallel to US military actions now in effect against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where we are currently fighting wars authorized by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama in violation of our constitution.

Qaddafi and his regime can fairly be described as modern pirates who ought to be resisted militarily - but by methods that conform to our prized national document and heritage, the United States Constitution. Presidential wars are illegal in the United States and unwise everywhere else. Making war, wasting the lives of our youth, and spending the enormous cost are too important to be left to the responsibility of one person and his advisers.

While NATO and US intervention in the Libyan civil war is carried out in the name of human rights, it is not clear which intervening nation will benefit from the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime. And big money is at stake - from the oil funds frozen in the US and future revenues from Libya's oil wells in a world of diminishing supplies. The armed conflict in Libya has taken more than 1.3 million barrels a day off the world market, helping to support the current high price of oil.

Killing Bin Laden – An Opportunity Missed

2011-05-13T13:20:00.000-07:00

Osama Bin Laden was killed at the same time that a new model of Moslem change was emerging in the region, a model that is completely the opposite of Bin Laden's. Since January, popular uprisings have overthrown the dictators of Tunisia and Egypt, challenged rulers in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, and Jordan, the greatest change the world has seen since the fall of the Berlin wall. And this revolution was based on non-violence and the public participation honoring law and order in an exercise of peaceful democracy. In contrast, the seizure and killing of Bin Laden was an authoritarian response to the brutal enmity of September 11.

Few Americans are criticizing President Obama for his key role in planning and guiding the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Celebration was the order of the day, as most Americans felt an overpowering need to revenge the massacre when 19 criminals took the lives of almost 3000 innocents in a plot that benefited no one.

Some questioned the killing of the unarmed Bin Laden who did not resist seizure. Others questioned the immediate disposal of the body into the anonymity of the ocean along with the celebration of revenge. Perhaps the most effective critique was of the failure to seize Bin Laden alive, arrest him for his crimes, and then give him a trial on documented charges in accordance with established legal principles.

While there was and is more than enough evidence to convict Bin Laden of capital crimes in a trial, he would have the democratic right of self defense, Bin Laden's criminal acts would be explored and analyzed, his defenses examined. The whole world would be watching. Bin Laden’s supporters would examine his justifications against the teachings of the Koran and the accumulated legal experience of the centuries. The murderers of September 11 would face the cries and the descriptions of the victims.. The trial would be a profoundly religious, moral and educational event based on the accumulated legal tradition dating back to the holy instructions given at Mount Sinai.
Bin Laden could not escape retribution. His crimes would be delineated for Muslim and world opinion. And the world system of law would be strengthened at every human level if Bin Laden had been seized by US troops and kept alive for trial. The Israelis weren't afraid to keep Nazi murderer Adolf Eichmann alive after they captured him in Argentina. At his trial in Jerusalem he was accorded his rights, confronted with his crimes, did not deny his guilt, and paid with his life. The whole world was watching. The whole world learned the ugliness and destructiveness of anti-Semitism and religious prejudice. The courts, the evidence, the fair procedures, the rights explained and utilized were compelling examples of a democratic society.

Did we miss another rare opportunity for strengthening our legal system and promoting democracy?

Out of Libya

2011-03-20T18:57:00.000-07:00

Recently at West Point, President Obama’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that “any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.” Gates was opposing any US intervention – big or little - in the civil war in Libya – but here we go again.

At that time war talk about Libya came from the architects of the misbegotten Iraq war, Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, Paul Wolfowitz and his fellow neo-cons. Now the President has been persuaded by Senator John Kerry and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that we must fight a third war against a Muslim nation.
We were able to pressure the dictators who run the Arab League to support war against Libya even though Saudi Arabia has invaded Bahrain while denouncing Libya for defending itself against rebels in its own country. The Arab dictators rule their rebels with iron fists.
As we write this blog, eleven US warships and a cloud of airplanes are attacking Libya from the Mediterranean; US planes are bombing Libyan airfields and military installations. If Qaddafi does not surrender, ground troops will surely follow even though Libya is hardly a threat to the United States. With only 6 million people, a persistent rebellion and little industry, Libya is outgunned and outmanned by an enormous margin. However, Libya has 2% of the world's oil reserves, giving it plenty of cash and making it mighty attractive in some quarters. Since September 1, 1969 it has been ruled by Dictator Gaddafi in a brutal and dictatorial manner. In 2003, Libya improved its international relations somewhat, stopping biological chemical and nuclear weapons development, signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, accepting responsibility for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, UN sanctions were suspended; the US soon ended all sanctions, re-established diplomatic relations and began to purchase Libyan oil.

Libya’s military dictatorship is an outgrowth of its tribal rivalries and Gaddafi represents the dominant tribes centered around Tripoli. The perennially rebellious minority tribes live in or about Benghazi in Eastern Libya. The invasion by the US and its Allies is designed to change the tribal order, reversing control in a manner that virtually guarantees continued strife.

Although US forces are already on the attack, there has been no declaration of war by Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution so the legality of the war could be challenged. Of the 250 wars the US has fought only five have been formally declared. So much for our declared respect for the Constitution. No supporter of the US war against Libya claims that Libya threatens the US. Al Qaeda is not involved. The basis for the attack is stated as humanitarian, the spreading of democracy, the saving of Libyan lives. Opposition is based on the cost of the war at a time when US domestic expenditures are being cut. An attack for whatever reason on another Muslim country while we attack Muslim Pakistan with drone airplanes could stimulate anti-crusader attitudes and another attack on the US homeland. Once again it establishes US military intervention as the prime element in our foreign policy, concentrating US power in the presidency without traditional constitutional controls.

Libya does not threaten the US or our allies. Follow the advice of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The oil isn't worth the trouble and the loss of reputation. The tribes of Libya will have to work out their differences themselves.

Oil or Israel or Both

2011-03-12T18:26:00.000-08:00

When Egyptian youth began their occupation of the Cairo square, it was difficult for the Israeli public to take it seriously. They knew that the Egyptian army dominated the government, that the so-called dictator Hosni Mubarak served at army pleasure. One of the most popular jokes circulating in Israel during the first outburst of protest in Egypt read "Dear Egyptian Rioters, Please don't damage the pyramids. We will not rebuild."
Israel's seeming indifference in the current continuing crisis is matched by its indifference to popular outrage in almost every nation over its 44 year occupation of the West Bank territories once controlled by Palestinians. This indifference was sustained by its belief that authoritarian Arab regimes would keep their subjects’ rage in check and that the survival of the authoritarian Arab regimes would be defended under the United States security umbrella for geopolitical reasons and especially for the continuity of the oil business. The deference to the US was responsible for the stability of Egypt's and Jordan’s peace accords with Israel.
This functioning of power reaches beyond the limits of representative democracy into sanctified areas of corporate profits, national income and world hegemony. Hosni Mubarak is out of power but Israel may once again become the pariah nation in the region. If democracy becomes a way of life there, at least one of the nascent political parties will make demands of Israel. A change of government in Egypt, still undetermined, is likely to undermine Israel's strategic situation, even the degree of US support, as America might be forced to choose between Israel and the wildly profitable flow of Arab oil.

A Test of American Exceptionalism

2011-02-18T20:11:00.000-08:00

General James Clapper, Director of US National Intelligence, told a Senate Committee that his group was aware of the deep-seated problems and tensions in the Muslim Middle East nations long before the current riots.

The secret 18 page classified report was ordered by President Obama. It concluded that the area was ripe for popular revolt due to massive unemployment, the large impatient youth population, rising food prices, and corrupt government practices.

However, neither the White House, the State Department, the CIA nor the Defense Department was able to muster enough pressure on their Middle East allies to change policies to avert the current revolutions.

Has President Obama launched a similar study of the condition and attitudes of American workers, suffering from some of the same pressing wounds?

Unemployment in America is receiving media attention but not a serious program to solve the crisis - and the real numbers reveal a catastrophic decline in family income. While the official unemployment numbers are about 9% and not declining, worker income has been reduced even more dramatically because so many discouraged workers have stopped looking for work, so many qualified workers are working at wages far below their skill levels, so many are working part-time, that the accurate number of unemployment is likely at 25 million.

Figuring a typical family of four, the 25 million grows to 100 million people whose standards of living have been dramatically reduced even with government assistance. That is one third of the total 300 million population of the United States – an authentic crisis. How long will it take before there are popular uprisings in the US, uprisings led by the youngest workers, those with the most anger, perhaps with the most idealism, with the uncompromising determination and energy to stake out positions in the public square and to maintain their demands until the nation takes care of all its citizens?

The richest nation in world history can do no less. The land drained by the mighty Mississippi should take inspiration from the revolution of the land of the ancient Nile. Not to respond would be a negative redefinition of our proud tradition of American Exceptionalism. We like to think of ourselves as a new kind of nation, a unique model for the political world, the proverbial City on the Hill. This crisis is a test. Prove that we are as noble as we say we are. The whole world is watching.

Protecting US interests in Egypt

2011-02-07T16:44:00.000-08:00

The Obama administration's official position on the Egyptian uprising has been changing almost daily. Their immediate response was to back President Hosni Mubarak, to the dismay of the protesters. On January 27, VP Joseph Biden went so far as to insist that Mubarak was not a dictator. Then that position was reversed, President Obama himself abandoned Mubarak saying it would be better if the transition process began now and not in September. Today, February 7, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned against a hasty exit for Mubarak, saying that moving him could threaten the country's transition to democracy.

At the same time, all administration spokespersons insist that these decisions must be made by “The people of Egypt”, even though it appears that the United States is pushing Egypt in multiple directions according to the numbers and strength of the protesters in the Egyptian square.

The US ought to follow its own advice and stay out of the internal Egyptian crisis except as it affects basic US interests. It has massive clout with Egypt because of its $2 billion a year support of the Egyptian military and economy.

The US could protect its interests by insisting that it would support a new government if the following conditions were met: The 1979 peace agreement Israel would be continued. The Suez Canal would remain open to all shipments of oil regardless of origin. Egypt would continue to cooperate with the world community in the struggle to eliminate terrorism. Egypt would adhere to United Nations prohibitions against the use of torture.

The US would have a policy that met international norms and protected its vital interests The US would affect Egyptian foreign policy without intervening in local political combat. The path for cooperation between the two nations would be clear. The US would have a coherent policy based on its own needs not relying on the number of protesters in the Egyptian square. The uncertainty of US policy would be eliminated. The world’s only superpower should protect its interests without waiting to measure which way the wind was blowing.

How to Reduce Deaths by Guns

2011-01-10T19:28:00.000-08:00

For the safety of all Americans, the purchase and use of firearms must be controlled and regulated by the federal government in a uniform system applying to all gun owners in all states. Qualifications for ownership and use should include: passing a written test, a physical test, and a medical test as well as training in use of firearms.

A fair and workable system should have as a basic principle that every gun owner should have a reason to have a gun: military, security officer, police, hunter, target shooter. There should be uniform regulation in all states so that a person cannot buy a gun in one state but then take it to another state to evade regulations.

Enforcement should be the responsibility of the local police chiefs, who know the angry and unstable people in their area, who have self-interest and motivation because their officers are most often in the line of fire. All guns should be stored in the local police station, signed out for use, and then returned to the police station. No guns should be allowed at home to avoid children or unauthorized persons having accidents, to avoid the use of guns as a tool to settle an angry argument, to avoid gun use in a vehicle during road rage, to avoid availability during mental depression.

The cost of installing such a system would be far less than the current cost of gun incidents. It would give law-enforcement another tool at the local level where most crime and accidents take place.

Legitimate use of guns under safe procedures would be protected, even encouraged - but murders, suicides, and deaths by gun accident and errors would be reduced dramatically.

General Petraeus Says.......

2010-12-28T10:40:00.000-08:00

The broader counter insurgency strategy of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, and the Karzai government of Afghanistan,is "to win over the population with good government and economic opportunity", as well as with improved security.

Modern, literate, supremely powerful United States of America has some of the same problems as backward, illiterate Afghanistan, riven by civil war and tribal rivalries, occupied by 150,000 soldiers from Western nations bearing different religions, technologies and cultures.

The 100,000 American troops represent a nation with a string of problems, conditions that need solution –“to win over the population with good government and economic opportunity”. Some of the evidence can be found in the latest public opinion polls showing that only 27.6% believe the direction of the country is correct, 65.8 believe it wrong. 74% disapprove of the performance of the U.S. Congress. And President Obama has a job approval rating of 45.5% versus disapproval of 47.9. Americans have serious political differences that we solve ourselves without foreign interference, interferences that we would totally reject as outright imperialism.

General Petraeus has said repeatedly that there are merely 50 to 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Interfering in the Afghan civil war diverts us from our prime problems at home. Thank you General Petraeus, for reminding us of our primary responsibility, "to win over the population with good government and economic opportunity." – in the United States of America.

The Drama in the Wikileaks

2010-12-22T09:09:00.000-08:00

Wikileaks is a sensation, providing an unprecedented view of backroom bargaining by embassies all over the world, harsh assessments of foreign leaders and insider views of nuclear and terrorist threats. Like its predecessors the Obama administration says the diplomacy must remain secret. Wikileaks says all governments abuse secrecy by hiding facts and negotiations that should be made public. Here are a few examples:

• American and South Korean officials have discussed the formation of a United Korea should North Korea's economic and political troubles cause the North to implode.

• The US has offered political and large financial incentives to many countries to persuade them to take some of the prisoners now held in Guantanamo Bay Jail, untried and therefore unconvicted.

• When Afghanistan's vice president visited the United Arab Emirates this year, local authorities discovered he was carrying $52 million in cash. Perhaps for a drug deal?

• China's Politburo directed the invasion into Google's computer systems in China. Other cables said that China has broken into US government computers, those of US allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses.

• American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for CIA officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan.

The drama in the Wikileaks cables often comes from diplomats' stories of meetings with foreign figures, as well as games of diplomatic poker, the raw use of US power, and US assets spent profusely on legal and illegal strategies.

The Nuclear Weapons Debate

2010-12-02T18:49:00.000-08:00

The atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed my life. I dedicated myself to the elimination of atomic and nuclear arms to preserve planet Earth, to save the human species. Total elimination of the weapons and responsible international controls are the only political solutions. After I failed with ten presidents, I welcomed the Obama initiative and the New Start Treaty with great enthusiasm. I still do. But they are only a beginning. There will be serious problems along the way. This analysis points to some of them.

A world with fewer nuclear weapons, or a world with no nuclear weapons, would enhance the military power of the United States. As the only superpower, the US spends as much on its military as all other nations combined. It has more than 1000 bases in 140 countries, and the capacity to deliver significant numbers of troops and equipment anywhere on Earth within 24 hours. No other nation can come close to matching such immediate power and those who might are not building a counterforce.

Instead, actual or potential rivals seek protection from the US colossus by arming themselves with nuclear weapons to deter a potential conventional, non-nuclear, attack by the American juggernaut. A world without nuclear weapons would increase the power of the US to intimidate or destroy its rivals without fear of nuclear retaliation.

That is one of the reasons why virtually all American military leaders, past and present, as well as experienced diplomats, support President Barack Obama's treaty with Russia that reduces the number of long-range nuclear weapons and provides for mutual inspection of arsenals. This agreement will make it easier to enforce the Non-Proliferation Treaty that discourages all nations and forbids other signatory nations from building their own nuclear weapons. These are important first steps toward a world without any nuclear weapons, steps that also affect the current balance of power between nations. It won't be easy to reach the goal of elimination, but humanity does have a plan, a plan approved by the military, the diplomats, and the moralist, a rare combination.

However, the endgame of no nuclear weapons will put the military control of the planet in the grasp of the US, a nation with only 5% of the human population obtaining military dominance over the other 95%. The only way this could be justified is to link it with the survival of the human species. It may be a choice all nations will have to accept. How long would US military dominance survive? If history is a guide, the other nations will unite to overcome US superpower. To prevent loss of hegemony, one would expect the US to resist the coalition of opponents before they unite.

There is another argument against the Obama scenario. There has not been a major war since 1945, perhaps because the major powers have nuclear weapons and the result would be mutual annihilation. If nuclear weapons were to be effectively outlawed and dropped from all arsenals, would the likelihood of non-nuclear war be increased? Would the absence of the nuclear weapons of mass destruction lead us back to our former habits, to the awful pattern of mass armies killing with pre-nuclear types of weapons? Would rejection of nuclear weapons require a total rejection of the use of force?

Is the human species capable of such a radical change in defying thousands of years of human history, misery and warfare? Don't be so quick to say no. The pace of human adaptation to change has quickened remarkably as more prompt adjustments are made to match changes in the environment and human understanding.

The Occupier in Afghanistan

2010-11-26T10:54:00.000-08:00

Disagreements between Afghan President Hamad Karzai and the US over how the war should be pursued burst into the open at a coalition summit November 20 -- 21. In a face-to-face confrontation photographed in Lisbon, Portugal by the Wall Street Journal, President Barack Obama rejected Afghan demands to curtail raids and airstrikes, telling Karzai that he must listen to American concerns.

In a speech to the closed-door NATO session, Karzai named "civilian casualties, detentions, lawless behavior by some security companies, and, at times, the NATO posture as issues of serious concern to the Afghan people."

After the talks, Obama said that he is sensitive to Afghan requests and appreciates Karzai is "eager to assert full sovereignty including control of security operations within his country. If we are ponying up billions of dollars, if the expectation is that our troops are going to be there to ensure that President Karzai can continue to build and develop his country, then he's got to also pay attention to our concerns."

President Obama acknowledged that the issue of Afghan civilian casualties has caused real tensions. Yet, Obama said, "He's got to understand that I've got a bunch of young men and women who are in a foreign country being shot at, having to traverse terrain filled with IED's, and they need to protect themselves. So, if we are setting things up where they are just sitting ducks for the Taliban, that's not an acceptable answer either."

Obama talks to Karzai as an occupier, setting its own rules, killing civilians when necessary, spending billions of dollars, suffering death and casualties to American soldiers, sullying the name of America while rescuing the un-willing, corrupt and complaining ally, fighting in another country’s civil war. Lest we forget, the Taliban did not attack us on September 11, 2001, but here we are ten years later, sitting ducks for the Taliban who are proud to be fighting against the invading foreigner 7,000 miles from home, the foreigner prepared to waste precious lives and resources until 2014 and perhaps beyond.

Toward Fairer Taxes

2010-11-22T19:40:00.000-08:00

On November 28, billionaire Warren Buffett will tell the world on ABC television that rich people should pay more in taxes. “I think that people at the high end - people like me - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.”

Buffett supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans to increase income taxes for those couples with $250,000 gross income - and so do I. And this may be the right time to endorse Pelosi for her effective and dignified leadership as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Capable and honorable, trapped in a situation of terrible unemployment, she can’t be held personally responsible for the political annihilation of the Democrats. Allowing the bankers to precipitate the crisis, was a national flaw.

President Obama’s deficit commission proposes raising the age at which one can receive Social Security benefits to 69 by 2075. A great many people in their 60s have lost or are about to lose their jobs and have little hope of finding another. Raising the retirement age would extend the period of receiving no income for many people approaching 70. The commission would end deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest while raising the gasoline tax, levying tax increases on the middle class while giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

Americans should not be stampeded into cutting increasingly critical Social Security protections. It's time to ask those who have reaped the benefits of runaway tax cuts and growing income inequality to pay their fair share, not cut Social Security. It's time to require income taxes on all earnings above $106,800. Doing so would fully address the projected shortfall for 75 years.

Showboating the Federal Deficit

2010-11-14T16:49:00.000-08:00

President Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility to suggest solutions to the nation’s fiscal problems. The commission was to be bipartisan; incorporating Democratic and Republican ideas with the obvious effect that the Democrats, at that time controlling the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House was surrendering their political advantage in advance of negotiations.

Then the President appointed two chairmen of the commission; Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chair has a big business background and a small government agenda; and Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chair, had been a US senator whose voting record was solidly cautious conservative.

It is no surprise that these Obama chairs led their commission to endorse proposals that would solve the long-term deficit by cutting back Social Security, Medicare and other social welfare programs. Thus the poor, the sick and the elderly would pay for the tax breaks and bailouts for the already wealthy.

In addition, the co-chairs are proposing a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases - tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that mean a lot to middle-class Americans, including the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest, raising the age of social security eligibility, increasing the Federal Gasoline Tax, etc.

The suggested changes would erase nearly $4 trillion from projected deficits through 2020 and stabilize the accumulated federal debt now hovering about $14 trillion. Half of this enormous debt is directly attributable to the tax reductions installed by President George W. Bush and the growing cost of the US military establishment that rules the world. Our country spends more on its military than all other nations in the world combined. We have more than 1000 military bases on the soil of 175 of the 192 member states of the United Nations Most of these countries buy US Treasury Bonds in spite of the big US deficit. Is there an element of compulsion here? Does China actually represent a military threat to the United States? For all the saber-rattling during the Russian-Georgia crisis, did anyone really think Americans were going to die for South Ossetia? The U.S. Navy has eleven large carrier battle groups structured to fight the Imperial Japanese Navy. The Imperial Japanese Navy?

Yes, the Bowles-Simpson panel seeks a cut in the military budget of $100 billion per year. Anybody want to bet on that reduction passing this Congress or any other Congress representing 435 congressional districts each with at least one juicy contract from the Pentagon?
They must be kidding.

US Secret War Expands Globally

2010-10-07T13:51:00.000-07:00

According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret US war against Al Qaeda and other radical groups. Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget and are deployed in 75 countries operating now. in the Philippines, Colombia, Somalia and Yemen in addition to continuing operations in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the under side of the national security doctrine of global engagement President Obama released in June.

The CIA drone attacks in Pakistan along with unilateral US raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen provide politically useful tools in this election year. Obama, one senior military aide said, has allowed “things that the previous (Bush) administration did not.” Special Operations commanders have also become a far more regular presence at the White House than they were under George W. Bush's administration.

The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from the White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said that the United States will not merely respond after the fact to a terrorist attack but will “take the fight to Al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia and beyond.” That rhetoric is not much different than Bush's pledge to “take the battle to the enemy and confront the worst threats before they emerge”.

.
In a report this June, the United Nations question the Obama administration's authority under international law to conduct such raids, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. One possible legal justification - the permission of the countries in question - is complicated in places such as Pakistan and Yemen where the governments privately agree but do not publicly acknowledge the attacks. While the Obama administration continues Bush policy, it has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the President in 2001 to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” he determines, “planned, authorized committed or aided the September 11 attacks.” However, many of those currently being targeted particularly in places outside Afghanistan had nothing to do with 2001 attacks. Should one person, even the President of the United States, have the unilateral power to commit the nation to war?
.

The New York Times reported a senior United Nation's official said the United States appeared to think that it was "facing a unique threat from transnational terrorist networks" that justified its effort. But that could quickly lead to a situation in which dozens of countries carry out "competing drone attacks" outside their borders against people "labeled as terrorists by one group or another."

Obama's Major Leaguers Strike Out

2010-09-30T07:03:00.000-07:00

Prepare to say goodbye to the highly touted economic and political teams that President Barack Obama put together to rescue the nation from the mistakes of the George W. Bush administration. These experts were assembled to give the relatively inexperienced new president the centrist policies that disappointed the eager voters who had jammed the polling stations to support the apostle of change.

Among the departing economists, please find Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House Economic Council, Peter Orzag, Head of Management and Budget and Christina Romer, Chair of Council of Economic Advisors. They will be followed by the political team led by hardnosed centrists, Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, and David Axelrod, architect of the winning strategy in the presidential election. Watch for the retirements of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Gen. James Jones, National Security Advisor, both holdovers from the Bush presidency.

This multi-faceted shakeup is an admission of failure to solve the problems of the nation. It promises a new approach, a new beginning closer to the expectations generated by Obama's charisma.

Some would blame the failures on the economic collapse and the administration’s political difficulties in passing corrective national legislation. But the Obama appointees, selected for their knowledge of capitalism's booms and busts as well as the difficulties of managing change in a nation of 300 million seemed to lack a coherent plan.

• They miscalculated the political effect of joblessness, of government spending, of the federal deficit, of the national debt.

• They came to power with the biggest public goodwill in decades but squandered it in delays and false starts.

• They proved unable to deal with the strategies of the Republicans in Congress
despite almost total political control of the House and Senate. Instead of winning compromises with elements of the GOP they settled for a media victory over “The party of NO”, forgetting that every compromise is made with opponents whose negotiation position is NO, until they agree. Hey failed to remind the electorate that the Bush administration launched two wars and a new entitlement – Medicare prescription drugs – while cutting taxes.

• They were unable to use the powerful financial and industrial institutions they saved from bankruptcy to pressure the Republicans in Congress even while they were bailing out these companies with trillions of dollars.

• They were unable to organize the committed army of Obama supporters in the presidential election into a grassroots organization to act as a pressure group on members of Congress and the media.

If the Obama administration is to survive the presidential election of 2012 giving Obama a second term, the replacements of the teams that struck out need to develop a relevant strategy. Unfortunately the new appointments will be made in the shadow of the 2010 congressional elections, almost sure to result in Democratic defeats. If history is the guide, replacements will be even more centrist than the original team. After Bill Clinton’s political defeat in the election of 1994, his policies swung further to the right but benefited from a business boom. Business and financial interests will demand looser regulation, fewer prosecutions, and lower taxes. Obama is already under pressure to appoint business executives, as though his outgoing aides Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin had not already worked for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Rest assured that neither Paul Krugman nor Joseph Stiglitz, both liberals, Keynesians and Nobel Prize winners, will be appointed.

The likely results: current policies will continue with new leaders, policies of mild economic stimulation, based on the political hope and prayer that another boom/bust cycle begins in time for the 2012 presidential election as it did for Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan when they got into trouble. Good luck.

The Democrats Fight Back

2010-08-16T08:21:00.000-07:00

At long last, the Obama administration has compiled talking points for Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. This campaign material is essentially defensive and does not reflect pride in the Democratic controversial legislation.

To offer hope for improving the economy: the Federal Open Market Committee is using proceeds from the Fed's vast mortgage-bond portfolio to buy long-term Treasury securities to increase the money supply by least 2 trillion dollars, thereby loosening credit and stimulating business activity. Warren Buffett objects, saying the move would lead to inflation. However, the policy change is a desperate attempt to revive the economy before November 2 and can be made without getting 60 votes in the Senate.

To offer hope for reducing the federal deficit: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced “a cut in the military budget,” then explained that inefficient programs would be eliminated, the proceeds used for “war fighting” with the result that the next military budget will increase by “only 1% over inflation”.

To offer hope for an end to the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: Dates have been set for withdrawals of combat troops “subject to safe conditions on the ground” but with the understanding that US residual military forces will remain to train native troops, to protect the US embassies and the private contractors hired by the US to support the residual forces.

To offer proof that the US will continue to pursue and destroy Al Qaeda, Taliban and other insurgencies: Members of Congress are urged to cite the Wikileaks report on the 92,000 secret documents as well as the CIA -inspired report on the “Secret Assault on Terrorism” that appeared in the New York Times to show that the US military effort has been widened to many more countries on two continents. Message: we will protect you no matter what it takes.

To offer proof that the governing Democrats are not liberals: Cite Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs who insists that the administration has no “professional lefties”, or people who “want to eliminate the Pentagon”, or desire “to have a Canadian health care system” imported to the US, or “relentless liberals” who were the base of the movement that put Obama in the White House.

Will these strategies help to reverse the current decline in the political fortunes of the Democratic candidates? Do they truly reflect the aims and ideals of the Party? Will they build the Party or blur the Democratic message and foster disunity? These questions must be answered to the satisfaction of the voters.

Can Obama be Re-elected in 2012

2010-08-01T18:57:00.000-07:00

As the November congressional elections draw closer, the conventional wisdom is that large Democratic losses in the Senate and the House of Representatives are inevitable parts of the political process, a reaction to the sweeping Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. Another view holds that the defeated party reorganizes itself and recovers some political power as the nation seeks a new equilibrium.

Yes, there have been political eras where this scenario played out, when the president's party suffered significant midterm losses, but there are just as many elections when this did not happen. And in every case, there were policy reasons for defeat of the president's party at midterm. In the current election, systematic interviews with Democratic and Republican insiders in December, 2008, found that none of them believed that the “inevitability” theory applied to the Obama administration even though it took office in the depths of the Great Recession.

Indeed, the election and inauguration of President Barack Obama was marked by a remarkable outpouring of energy, enthusiasm and passion for his ideas for hope and change. Obama has been unable to keep these feelings and attitudes alive in his own party. They have moved to the Republican opposition. The Tea Party activists are today the main source of passionate public participation with their rallies, public meetings and insistent demands while the people whose vigor elected Obama sit in sullen inactivity. Jay Leno says that “President Obama has a new message for the American people…. “Things could be a lot worse.” We've gone from “Change you can believe in” to “Things could be a lot worse.”

In this depressed political situation, the Obama White House seems to be prepared for the loss of the Senate and the House. Their victories in Health Care Reform and Financial Reform have not brought the enthusiastic popular support they expected. The necessary compromises and the talmudic details of the programs are not well understood and so far have not changed the lives of the voters. Obama supporters have been disappointed on these and other issues. They were expecting a great leap forward but received only a baby step.

Nevertheless, Obama is engaged in an endless summer of fund raising for Democratic candidates, appealing especially for big bucks. His cautious management style seems to preclude any serious effort to rev up his base to challenge the power of the elites who seem to dominate the United States, the military and the bankers. That would not be the style of Obama, a man who prefers loving to fighting.

It is within this depressing frame that Obama and his political advisers prepare for his reelection effort in 2012. They find Obama himself is more popular than his policies. He retains the loyalty of youth, minorities, labor and liberals. Although none of these constituencies are satisfied with Obama’s policies, they cannot allow the historic symbolism of his election to be shrouded in defeat and rejection.

Will Obama's basic constituency turn out to work and vote in 2012 as they did in 2008? Must he change his advisers and adopt more liberal programs in the face of the Tea Party and the elite’s opposition? Can he reduce unemployment and America's commitment to police the entire world? Or will our first bi-racial president be rejected, not for his race, but for his unwillingness to preside over a regime of serious change?

? Nationalize the Big Banks ?

2010-07-01T19:33:00.000-07:00

Politicians in Washington are mesmerized by Wall Street campaign dollars and terrified by being branded “socialists”. That seems to be the most likely explanation for the failure of the Congress to pass a second stimulus bill despite continuing high levels of unemployment -especially long-term unemployment - that are absolutely catastrophic for millions of families.

In fact, politicians are leaning in the other direction. Instead of a jobs bill, they are promoting deficit reduction. Instead of promoting stimulation of the economy there has been a stunning revival of Herbert Hoover financial orthodoxy: hard money, balanced budget, and deficit reduction.

Yes, long-term fiscal responsibility is important but cutting spending in the midst of a recession is more likely to lead to deflation of prices, business activity and jobs than to the inflation that worries the financial elite. Social stability is promoted by full employment policies, diminishing crime, sickness and chronic unhappiness. Didn’t we learn from bitter experience?

The same politicians have just completed a financial overhaul bill that will be known as the Dodd - Frank Act. The outcome of this so-called reform is particularly relevant to taxpayers who spent and pledged trillions of dollars to bail out the banking system, especially the five US banks with the most assets: Bank of America $2.34 trillion, J.P. Morgan Chase $2.14 trillion, Citigroup $2 trillion, Wells Fargo $1.2 trillion, Goldman Sachs $0.88 trillion. The 10 largest banks have $10.4 trillion in assets, equivalent to 80% of the gross domestic product of the entire US

The most important failing of the Dodd-Frank Act is that it does not resolve the biggest problem and the greatest danger in the recent financial crisis.. If any one of the largest banks falls into serious financial trouble, by mistakes or by excessive risk, the federal government would be compelled to rescue to prevent collapse of the entire financial system. The concentration of wealth and power is the greatest danger to our capitalist system.

The Act reduces proprietary trading and regulates derivatives but we have had regulators and regulations for 100 years of ineffectiveness as low paid civil servants are overcome by the richest financial institutions in world history. There are two ways to reduce the risk of “too big and too powerful to fail”. First, cut the enormous and interconnected financial firms down to size by requiring them to sell off their various divisions. Alternatively, let them remain large but have the federal government take them over to be treated as public utilities run by salaried employees without the tempting bonuses realized by anti-social risks and gambling with other people’s money. If the taxpayer assumes the ultimate risk by bailout, he should have the ownership as well as the profits generated by the rise and fall of the various markets, often manipulated by the big boys in their seats of power

Will We Ever Leave Afghanistan?

2010-06-22T13:48:00.000-07:00

American military forces have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001 under the congressional authorization to destroy Al Qaeda for its role in training the 19 criminals who attacked the World Trade buildings in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001, a date that will live in infamy. US military leaders now say that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are no longer in Afghanistan but probably in Pakistan. The enemy has become the Taliban, an insurgency movement dedicated to overthrowing the Karzai government in Afghanistan, a regime supported and financed by the US.

President Barack Obama has sent 30,000 more troops to reinforce the 75,000 already in Afghanistan, in his attempt to secure a military victory over the Taliban guerrillas, a victory that will ensure the survival of the Karzai regime now holding power by election fraud and wholesale corruption. After ten years of fighting, thousands of American troops killed or wounded and a trillion dollars spent, most Americans want to transfer responsibility for this civil war to the Afghan government. However Obama policies for ending this long war are notable for their contradictions. He promises to begin drawing down US forces in July, 2011, “responsibly” but not hastily, and “taking into account conditions on the ground.” These hedges will allow Obama to delay or eliminate withdrawal indefinitely while citing the promised date as policy. Obama hints of willingness to talk to the Taliban while stepping up a military campaign designed to eliminate them. This has inspired President Karzai to begin his own secret negotiations with the Taliban in preparation for the possible departure of the Americans.

This has been the longest war in American history, begun when the US economy was in full bloom and the financial cost was not a factor. Now, with the economy hurting and enormous federal deficits piling up, voters are asking why are we in Afghanistan, a forsaken land dominated by brigands over the centuries, with no economic assets beyond opium, with a population largely illiterate, hardly a factor in world politics. With an important US election just a few months away, the Obama administration finally produced a reason for US presence in Afghanistan by announcing that it had discovered $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits there, far beyond any previously known reserves and “enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself.”

It must be very difficult for soldiers to put their lives on the line with such a contradictory and vague policy. Who wants to be the last one to die for a mistake? And who will protect the American businesses who invest in the newly discovered mineral riches? And who will protect them from the war lords and native marauders?

The timing of the minerals story is curious, especially because this information has been available for years. In fact, the McClatchy newspaper chain revealed several years ago that the Chinese government had made a long-term deal with the Karzai government giving them mining rights to the biggest copper mine in the world and that the Chinese were being protected from Afghan brigands by US troops. Obama needs to explain why the Chinese get this prize investment when US casualties make the exploration possible. What was the deal between China and the US? Was the price China's cooperation on the nuclear crises with North Korea and Iran?

In any case, it looks as though the American voters are being manipulated. We are leaving Afghanistan – maybe - but if we stay there is a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. Will this be enough to the defer voter worries until after the November election? Will it take this issue away from the Republicans? The prime reason for the contradictory Obama policy is probably political. Leaving Afghanistan without a clear military victory is sure to inspire political attacks on the Obama administration as incompetent or worse, that it diminished US security by "losing Afghanistan", as though it was ours to lose.

Jobs or Derivatives?

2010-06-17T13:58:00.000-07:00

The United States needs another stimulus package to increase domestic economic activity which will generate more jobs and eliminate the remnants of the “Great Recession”. However, the Congress hesitates to pass the necessary legislation because the members are spooked by the rise of a competing worry, the federal deficit, now at $12.3 trillion and increasing by over $1 trillion for this year and the next.

These are not unimportant numbers but they should be placed in context: the accumulated deficit is equal to the lost revenues of the George W. Bush tax cuts plus the cost of the George W. Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without these very questionable expenditures there would be no federal deficit.

The proposed jobs bill is not questionable. It is required by the very high unemployment rate now almost 10% according to federal statistics but actually nearer to 15% when it includes the workers who have stopped looking for work, the workers who are forced to work part-time, and those working at jobs well below their training. As a result, we have a serious jobs crisis, a family crisis, and a humanitarian crisis that requires immediate amelioration before it leads to a social explosion.

The US economy and the federal government have other obligations, current and potential, that make the federal deficit look like small change. The Wall Street Journal reported on June 16, 2010, in an inside section indicating minimum importance, that, “Right now, US banks, mostly a few giants, have $276 trillion in over-the-counter derivatives….. Most of these derivatives are within commercial bank subsidiaries that enjoy federal deposit insurance. Thus, the banks effectively enjoy a government subsidy that likely distorts prices and allows them to hold too little capital against the derivatives…. The top derivative banks are so big the government would almost certainly rescue them - and their derivatives affiliates - if they are collapsed….”

The frightening $276 trillion threat posed by the derivatives is not getting the attention of the media and the Congress commensurate with the danger, nowhere near the worry about the $12 trillion threat and that's a pity. The $12 trillion threat is being used to prevent passage of a $1 trillion jobs bill that would boost jobs and business activity as it did during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

These contrasting choices highlight the most important issues this election year. There is no obligation for the federal government to guarantee any derivative investments (aka gambling). There is an obligation for the federal government to promote social and family stability through gainful employment policies.

Will the candidates for the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives respond to the political contributions of the bankers or the agonies of the workers and their families? Stay tuned.

Breaking Up the Super Banks

2010-06-12T10:51:00.000-07:00

What made this recession a "great recession" isn't only its depth and duration. Most importantly, it has forced changes in the role of government in the economy, in rules for finance and banking. In addition, and just as far-reaching, it has changed American attitudes toward spending and thrift, retirement and homeownership, as well as finance and government.

Public attitudes toward the super-banks may have changed the most. "Bailout" has become a nasty word describing the incestuous relationship between the banks and the U.S. Treasury. It is a scandal that certain bankers had a private window at the Treasury for their financial convenience when money was needed to bail them out of their gambling and mistakes. The unfairness of the government subsidizing the errors of a particular industry is obvious but it is compounded by the subsidizing of only a part of that industry, the super-banks.

Don't think that this favoritism is due to family connections or college chums or drinking buddies, although there are favorites everywhere, even in Hell. Surprise: there was also the profit motive. Banks deemed by the government as too big to fail can borrow money for normal operations at lower rates of interest. The lender knows that this borrower is virtually guaranteed by Uncle Sam. The hazard, always a factor, is greatly diminished because the US Treasury is just over the horizon to bailout the deal. As a consequence, business practices are distorted, extra risks are taken and super-banks profits are dramatically increased. They can afford more political contributions and lobbyists. The banks can use the extra profits to acquire other banks making them even more essential to the national economy.

The big banks that dominate the economy do not lack defenders in high places, defenders whose influence offsets the qualms of the average citizen. Heavyweights such as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, presidential advisor Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary and chief executive at Goldman Sachs and Citibank, would prefer strengthening regulation of banks rather than breaking them up by congressional law. Regulators can be pressured in a variety of ways; by the White House, by Members of Congress, by the prospect of future jobs, by the intricacies of the regulations, etc.

Finally, if the super-banks are divided so that they are not too big to fail, if a version of the New Deal Glass-Steagall Act of 1930’s was reenacted, separating commercial banks from investment banks, the question would remain whether that would be enough to prevent bank growth in unforeseen ways to the level that would command the subsidy of "too big to fail". We need to monitor these guys - in the public interest - to protect fair competition and to guard our national treasury.

Maintaining US Hegemony

2010-05-21T15:25:00.000-07:00

Robert M. Gates, US Secretary of Defense, wrote in Foreign Affairs, “The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon - that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire.”

This statement is close to admitting that the invasions were mistakes, that the dangers they were designed to suppress were not commensurate with the cost of suppression. One might then ask, why not bring the troops home at once, or as soon as logistically possible? Why plan on leaving 50,000 or more “residual” American troops in the occupied lands as an additional potential sacrifice in pursuit of a mistaken policy?

Gates continued: “In these situations, the effectiveness and credibility of the United States will only be as good as the effectiveness, credibility, and sustainability of its local partners.” Clearly, our local partners in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have these qualities. Their weakness requires US occupation and military sacrifice because the local elites do not have the power and ability to manage their countries nor the popular support to enforce their will.

The result was predictable: total reliance on the US military and US occupation forces. From time immemorial, these factors have always generated great increases in popular resistance. The foreign occupier violates native territoriality whether in Concord/ Lexington or in Jerusalem. The Tories were too weak to help the British occupiers of Massachusetts in 1776 and Herod could not control the Hebrews who revolted against Roman control of holy places..

The US had experienced this human phenomenon more recently. The leaders of South Vietnam made a mess of governing, alienated the population, crushed the subsistence farmers, created enemies of their regime as well as intense hatred of their American allies. After their complete victory in World War II, the allied forces were wiser, handing over power to the traditional elites in Germany and Japan, who were strong enough to manage their countries while taking general orders from the American conquerors who remained in the background – a strong contrast with Iraq and Afghanistan where the corrupt leaders alienated the local population. It is difficult if not impossible for a foreign occupier to rule without an effective native government to do its bidding. Such governments do not exist in Iraq and Afghanistan, another reason for immediate withdrawal.

Theoretically, as the only superpower, United States hegemony over Planet Earth can be maintained in a variety of ways. The current structure of military dominance relies on supporting the elites in the more than 140 countries where there are at least 750 US military bases. This military system puts the US in defense of ruling regimes in case of insurgency even without formal treaties. However, the military and financial costs may be too great even for the USA, a nation with only 6% of the earth’s humans but a grand 25% of the world's product. The military bases imply ultimate protection of the rulers and a degree of military occupation that inspires resentment of the US by local nationalists who will find ways of attacking the superpower.

But America has other traditions - of openness, of welcoming immigrants, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, of constitutional government, of breaking social and sexual and racial barriers. It does not need to follow the Roman model of military empire of crushing resistance wherever it appears. America’s soft powers, its leadership in assimilation, its remarkable prosperity, its richness in ideas and technology, give it the opportunity to break the Roman pattern of legionary discipline with a benevolent leadership that relies on economic, social and moral persuasion. Even the flaws of America, its aggressiveness, its occasional meanness, its arrogance, so perfectly reflect the best and the worst of the human condition – a sort of Paradise Lost – but remembered.

The Expansion of Presidential Power

2010-05-12T14:07:00.000-07:00

Presidential power is one of the mysteries of the American political system, certainly not justified or suggested in the United States Constitution. The last thing the framers of the Constitution wanted was a king, an American George III, with the power to tax, to levy armies, to initiate wars. Yet that is our current system and presidential power is growing as the democratic spirit weakens under the pressures of maintaining world-wide hegemony.

The ultimate presidential power: only the president can order the use of a nuclear weapon against an enemy he identifies, at a moment he chooses, for reasons he alone finds adequate. To give it practical effect the president is always accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase containing the authorization codes to fire one or all of America's nuclear weapons. The president is not required to consult anyone. Given the strength of America's nuclear arsenal, the president can destroy the entire human species and end all life on planet Earth. This enormous personal power has belonged to all presidents since 1945.

Now President Obama seeks to expand his solitary power to the domestic economic and financial sphere, seeking control of the money supply for his unilateral use and control.

This month President Obama plans to ask Congress to give him and future presidents the power to delete individual items from appropriation bills. Many previous presidents have sought to seize the power of the purse. Here is where it now resides. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..” subject to amendment by the Senate, the right of the president to veto, and the right of the Congress to override the veto.

That is why the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled a line-item veto unconstitutional. The constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws passed by the people's representatives, the Congress of the United States. Now Obama wants the Congress to surrender part of its primary responsibility.

This constitutional change is most often put forward by Republican presidents. The attempt by this Democratic president to increase his vast presidential power tends to prove Lord Acton's famous maxim that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Weakening our division of powers may result in greater efficiency, but would clearly diminish the plan of the founding fathers to guard against the usurpation of authority by any one of the three branches of the federal government. Take away the power of the purse from Congress and it would become little more than a club for debate, the direct representatives of the people would be shorn of any significant power. And who can guarantee that the White House will not make appropriations based in part on political pressures and electoral calculations as the Congress does now.

In fact, for many years, the executive branch has found ways to modify the intent of congressional appropriations. Sometimes the president and his minions failed to spend the money, sometimes they chose the contractors, sometimes they speed or slow the rate of expenditure, sometimes they modify the project in ways that transform it and leave it to the undermanned Congress to discover the discrepancies.

Finally, giving any president increased power over appropriations might increase the growing number of presidential wars. A Library of Congress study identified 234 military actions between 1798 and 1993 of these by US Armed Forces abroad. Only five of these wars were declared by Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress calls those not declared by Congress presidential wars. Three are being fought right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If presidents had appropriating power to finance more wars, we might be fighting in more of the 147 countries in which we have military bases.

Saving Obama and the Democrats

2010-05-04T20:23:00.000-07:00

Here is the problem for liberals: we need to protect the Democrats from the anger their policies have generated while pushing them to implement the promises they made to win the 2008 election.

The most unfortunate outcome in the November 2010 elections would be significant political gains by the movement led by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party reactionaries. A close second negative would be the takeover of Congress by the Republican Party committed to downsizing and disempowering government from its responsibility to protect the nation and the most vulnerable people from the wild swings of the capitalist market.

President Obama's policies make it difficult to rally the voters who voted for hope and change, his glittering generalities not yet implemented but of special importance to liberals. On March 29, Obama changed federal policy by allowing and promoting drilling for oil offshore California and the eastern seaboard from Florida to Virginia, violating the promises he made to environmentalists. Despite the terrible explosion and oil spill that now threatens vast areas of the US, Obama insists that he will continue the new drilling program once the current crisis has been overcome. The oil companies were preferred over the environmental groups,

In his State of the Union address on January 27, Obama confirmed his campaign promise by calling for repeal of the “Don't ask, Don't tell” DADT policy. Less than a week later, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee that repealing the policy that prevents gay men and women from serving openly in the military was “the right thing to do.” But that policy has not been repealed. DADT is still the law of land.

Obama promised to close the infamous torture prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba within one year. One of a half years later it is still open and functioning, a blot on the human rights reputation of the US, a negative symbol that encourages people all over the world to oppose US policies and interests.

Obama has continued the Bush policies of wiretapping without a warrant Americans and others suspected of criminal activity, violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA 1998) that requires a warrant issued by a federal judge. So much for adherence to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

While these are some of the Obama promises of special importance to liberals, all American voters are concerned with the lack of progress on reducing unemployment, restoring the economy, controlling the power of the big banks, the ballooning federal deficit and the endless war in Afghanistan. On all these, the record of the administration is weak

On each of these issues, millions of voters are disappointed and disillusioned. Even a confirmed centrist like Obama needs to live up to his promises and commitments and public expectations. There is sure to be political erosion in November away from Obama and the Democratic regime - and from constituencies that are not necessarily liberal. Isn't everyone an environmentalist to protect our beautiful homeland? Doesn't every American love and respect the Constitution?

Bailing Out the Gambling Financiers

2010-04-19T19:46:00.000-07:00

Why shouldn't banks be limited to a certain size that would not pose a threat to the entire economy? Why shouldn't they be restricted to specific activities that support personal savings and the financial needs of real businesses? Why shouldn't banks be forbidden to gamble with depositors’ cash, also known as other peoples' money?

It doesn't happen because the government is addicted to the tax revenues from the financial services and doesn't want the banks to go overseas. Let them go overseas: they won't find another country with the cash to bail them out nor the political vulnerability to their lobbyists and cash donations.

The subprime mortgage derivatives generated trillions of investment dollars by bank professionals who failed to research the package offered, failed to assess the viability of the sponsors, and ignored the underfunded reserves. Investment banks are a lot closer to spreadbetting indexes than your traditional gambling bookmaker as they simply let everyone else take the risk secure in the knowledge that the government will bail them out with taxpayer money. At least we should separate retail banking from the pure gambling that is often called investment banking. Another alternative would be to nationalize the banks. If the taxpayer assumes the ultimate risk, he should have ownership.

If Congress actually passes a bill forbidding bailouts but does not break up the enormous banks to a reasonable size, the next financial crisis will again be called a threat to the entire economy and the bailouts repeated. Never before has the intertwined relationship between big business and big government been so obvious to so many Americans. They are demanding change and they will get something that looks like change - but it won’t be adequate to contain the continuing crisis.

Abortion and the Health Reform Bill

2010-03-28T19:05:00.000-07:00

The advocates of a woman’s legal right to abortion under the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision were enthusiastic supporters of the Democratic Health Care Reform Bill. But they were appalled at the deal President Obama made with 13 US Representatives to obtain their votes in exchange for an Executive Order that weakens the rights of women for legal abortions.

With little fanfare, with no glaring lights or TV cameras, no East Room speeches, without a photo or a handshake, President Obama did not commemorate this Executive Order with twenty signing pens. The president of NOW, the National Organization of Women, said, “We wished he would storm the ramparts for every one of our issues. It really pains me to conclude that on balance this law is not good for women. It’s health reform has been achieved on the backs of women and at the expense of women.” Other leaders made similar statements.

The new law requires women to make premium payments on most of their coverage and a second, far smaller one, for abortion coverage. Advocates fear that the executive order will make it more difficult to achieve elimination of the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion. Hyde ought to be repealed because it penalizes women for a completely legal medical procedure – with the approval of President Obama.

There is another issue affected by Obama's Executive Order. In spite of the fact that abortion is legal in all three trimesters under clearly spelled out conditions and regulations, there is a national campaign of legal activities to discourage and intimidate women, doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, etc. from exercising their rights under the law. The systematic harassment sometimes violates laws when the “educational” efforts become threats and when doctors are murdered.

This anti-abortion campaign has been remarkably effective in making it difficult and expensive for women to exercise their right to abortion. In many communities, no doctors or hospitals will perform this service. Some women must travel significant distances to other cities and states, find a new doctor, bring along a friend or relative, make hospital arrangements, all at significant expense. Abortion services are not available in 87% of the counties of the US.

In the debate before the House of Representatives, virtually every anti-abortion speaker emphasized the sanctity of human life. Who could disagree with that principle and its application to the life and death of a child? But humanitarian and religious principles require that this principle be applied to all human activity: the life and health of the mother, the taking of life by the government by capital punishment, the existence of nuclear weapons that could eliminate all human life on planet Earth. President Obama's political arrangement on abortion has not helped to clarify these difficult issues and has encouraged the public campaign to deny legal rights to American women

No More Bailouts

2010-03-16T20:19:00.000-07:00

Americans have had enough of the nightmare of irresponsible big institutions getting bailed out by the US government using their tax dollars. The average citizen on Main Street should not pay for the risky and reckless behavior of corporate giants on Wall Street.

Bailout is the most unpopular word in the language today. In Texas, the Republican nomination for governor was decided when the heavy favorite, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, was derided as “Kay Bailout”, for her vote in the U.S. Senate.

Now, the Senate Democrats have proposed legislation to overhaul financial markets by establishing government scrutiny and regulation to almost any financial product, from payday loans to workers to derivative trades by investment bankers.

The bill's prospects are unclear. So far it has no Republican support and the lobbyists hired by financial interests are already on the attack. But their defense was destroyed when they took the bailout money to remain solvent. When they begged the US government to loan them trillions of dollars to save them from bankruptcy, they put themselves in the hands of the federal government obligated to make sure it never happens again.

Hence the absolute requirement for regulation of trading, for adequate capital, for consumer protection, for mortgage regulation, for transparent records, etc. When an institution needs a rescue to survive, it gives away part of its independence. If they are too big to fail because their failure will have negative consequences to the entire American and world economies, they must be restrained in conducting business in a manner that increases the risk of failure.

We all know that financial institutions and big business have enormous power in Washington. They will resist most serious reforms and effective regulation or at least try to weaken them. The battle will be a serious test of American democracy. If serious regulation does not establish controls over outright gambling with other people's money, over deceptive practices, over risk-taking for bonus payments, the nation will have capitulated to practices that could bring down the Republic.

We can't have anymore of this business of, heads I win, tails you lose. The national interest must be protected. No more gambling with depositors’ money with the assurance that the government will bail out the losses and a fat bonus will await the gambler if the house wins.

Military Influence in the US

2010-03-09T18:54:00.000-08:00

In this period of American military dominance, generals and admirals have acquired influence well beyond the battlefield. Four-Star General David Petraeus, chief of the US Central Command, oversees US military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest of the greater Middle East. He is the likely choice to become the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he will again be in the public spotlight. His recent lower profile was suggested by the Obama White House.

His extensive wartime experience and proven ability to negotiate on Capitol Hill have made General Petraeus a formidable political personality should he choose that venue after retirement. He regularly denies interest in becoming president of the United States, sometimes without being asked. He invokes the famous remark of William Tecumseh Sherman, the Civil War general who made the stunningly clear response to presidential ambition: "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." Other notable generals found the call irresistible: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight David Eisenhower, so far.

However, that is not the end of the matter. The ascendancy of Petraeus has come during a period in American history in which military leaders have acquired influence well beyond the battlefield. Petraeus and his counterpart commanders in the Pacific, in Europe and in Latin America meet regularly with the politically powerful in foreign capitals, as well as in Washington, DC. Some observers point to their clout as evidence that US foreign policy has become militarized under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It is difficult to deflect this argument when the US is engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is intervening in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, is authorized to chase Al Qaeda militarily into any or all of the 192 countries on earth, and operates 761 military bases in 147 countries.

America's Soft Power

2010-02-27T15:20:00.000-08:00

The United States cannot solve the problems of the world on its own, and the world cannot solve them without the United States.

As the world’s only remaining superpower, America has the ability to affect the behavior of other nations through coercion, economic strength and the power of attraction. Hard power relies on coercion and raw economic power. Soft power influences others through public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, exchange of ideas and culture - everything from Hollywood to Shakespeare to orchestras.

In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama informed all countries, friendly and unfriendly, that there was a new attitude in the White House. He advised those countries “on the wrong side of history” that the United States “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.

During his first year in office, Obama followed through by launching negotiations with Iran and North Korea on their nuclear programs, searching for common ground with Russia on arms control and missile defense, and softening economic sanctions against Cuba.

The jury is still out on whether the Obama initiatives will bear fruit, but it is a start and a welcome improvement from the George W. Bush reliance on hard power. But much more must be done to translate Obama’s effective rhetoric into a softening of policy, a softening more likely to increase the security of America and the rest of the world. If President Obama were to withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, then reduce the enormous US military budget, close some of the 761 US military bases in 147 countries, he would set the stage for America to inspire and lead the world by using the panoply of its soft power.

Dick Cheney’s Path to Bipartisanship

2010-02-17T12:31:00.000-08:00

President Obama has finally achieved the bipartisanship for which he has been virtually begging since his agenda collapsed in Congress in the first year of his term. And the Republican partisan who showed him the way was former Vice President Richard Cheney, the meanest gun in politics. In his recent exchanges with Vice President Joe Biden, Cheney opposed virtually every Obama policy except for one: Cheney approves Obama policy in Afghanistan.

Finally, Obama knows how to get bipartisan support: concentrate on military intervention abroad, For generations, the presidents of both parties have unified the nation by fighting undeclared wars all over the world. The parties draw together to support the US troops sent abroad to fight "Just" wars and to establish American military bases, a Roman strategy without the pizza.

Cheney's approval arrives just in time to help Obama replace his failed agenda to reform health care, to regulate financial institutions, to solve the crisis in unemployment. With the Congress in total gridlock over domestic matters, Obama will gain political approval from Republicans and Independents by concentrating on Afghanistan and Iraq, with Iran waiting-on-call followed by likely insurgencies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Priorities determine bipartisanship. Cut Medicare but capture Osama Bin Laden.

By the November elections, the Obama Administration will have united the nation against the Taliban. After overwhelming force has pacified Afghanistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will design governments for other foreign nations. They will not fret at military occupation accompanied by the rebuilding of their homes and factories at US expense.

This scenario should satisfy American voters for at least the next two elections, keeping us safe abroad but shaky at home. It is likely to gain the support of those who believe America should use its incomparable strength, the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Cheney will encourage Obama by his grudging approval. The Congress will provide the necessary trillions with only a rare dissenting vote. And President Barack Obama will have achieved his ultimate goal, the unity of the nation in support of the bipartisan goals of "Just" wars to rescue humanity and to persuade everyone to love him.

Soft Power vs. US Military Budget

2010-02-09T18:10:00.000-08:00

President Obama has proposed a freeze on 17% of the discretionary items in the federal budget over the next three years. These cuts affect domestic social expenditures that improve conditions of living in the United States. They are regrettable because they diminish US standard of living and reduce part of the government stimulus to our faltering economy.

At the same time, the President increased the US military budget significantly. His budget request for defense is 708 billion dollars but this number does not include spending for nuclear weapons and other military expenses tucked neatly into the budgets of other departments. In addition, every year the Congress makes supplemental appropriations to pay for current wars. The grand total for the year will be at least $1 trillion, spending more on the US military than all other nations on earth combined.

Since September 11, 2001, the Pentagon's budget has more than doubled in just nine years and a significant portion is spent outside the US to finance two unpopular wars and 761 American military bases in 147 countries. The size of America’s armed forces is about one and one-half million (1,500,000) and about five hundred thousand (500,000) are stationed overseas The people of every nation dislike military occupation by foreign soldiers. But American soldiers in foreign countries can give the rulers of these countries, dictators or democrats, a sense of security in the implied promise of US military support in crises. Is this an involuntary commitment to intervention? Does the American military presence inhibit those seeking change?

.
With President Obama's 2011 budget, 42 cents of every dollar the federal government spends will have to be borrowed. Foreign investors are lending us about half of our national debt and China and Japan provide half of that sum. China’s share is growing faster.

Some at the Pentagon are worrying that America's destiny, financial and political, may be in the control of a potential rival - and all without a shot being fired. Can we afford to be the policeman of the world? Are we overextending ourselves financially and militarily? Or do we believe that we can take unnecessary risks because we are too big to fail?

From the dawn of recorded history, no nation has surrendered its preeminence – and the United States shouldn’t and wouldn’t. Is there an alternative to our current outrageous waste of lives, money and resources? Joseph S. Nye Jr, Professor at Harvard University with hands-on experience in statecraft, advocates Smart Power, combining hard and soft power. "The United States can become a Smart Power by once again investing in global public goods - providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain on their own. Achieving economic development, securing public health, coping with climate change… all require leadership from the United States. By complementing its military and economic might with greater investments in its soft power, the United States can....... tackle tough global challenges.”

Barack Obama - The Bipartisan President

2010-01-30T19:40:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama is back in his campaigning mode where he is most comfortable, demonstrating his unthreatening personality, his good looks, his oratorical skills, this time not directed at his own election but to offer bipartisanship to the nation as a substitute for problem solving.

Some might say that his administration has been bipartisan from inception. How else can he explain that the most powerful positions in his government are filled by holdovers from the George W. Bush administration, Republicans all, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, Central Command General David Petraeus, to name only a few.

These appointments are easily understood if we listen to Obama's rhetoric. In his State of the Union address, his most pressing theme was an appeal to Congressional Republicans for bipartisanship help, this from a president with the greatest political power since FDR, controlling the White House, the U.S. Senate, the US House of Representatives by wide margins, soon to control the US Supreme Court with the next vacancy, the prime recipient of political contributions from Wall Street and corporate America.

This young and popular president finds it necessary to confess to Congressional Republicans at a meeting he requested, that he was not an "ideologue," that his health reform bill was not a "Bolshevik plot", that "the American people...... didn't send us to Washington to fight each other....., they sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done....."

Quite a defensive statement from the elected leader of Earth's only superpower.

President Obama knows that it is virtually impossible for the Congress to pass controversial legislation in an election-year, especially year 2010. Republicans, Democrats and independents are already complaining about failures to solve domestic and foreign problems in 2009, assigning most of the blame to the Democrats, the party in power and especially to the new and inexperienced president.

President Obama’s answer is bipartisanship, that the country's problems require unity of purpose and action, that he is ready, willing, even anxious to forgo political advantage to obtain the cooperation of the Republicans. And he can prove this by his unprecedented outreach to the rival party, his continuous praise of Ronald Reagan, and above all by his appointment of key Republican leaders to key administration posts.

Obama may even believe in bipartisanship rather than the political clash of economic and social interests expected in a democratic society. However, confronted with expectations greater than he can satisfy, Obama’s turn to bipartisanship may help the Democrats in the 2010 congressional elections and Obama when he runs for his second term in 2012. He may not be able to solve the nation's problems with bipartisanship, but he may be able to convince the voters to reassess the blame and to spread it broadly

Aftershocks from the Massachusetts Earthquake

2010-01-21T09:23:00.000-08:00

The Democrats in the White House say that Martha Coakley's political mistakes were the prime factors in her impossible defeat. There is some truth in that - but not a lot.

The Democrats in Massachusetts say that the Obama administration’s political mistakes were the prime factors in Coakley's impossible defeat. There is some truth in that - probably a lot. Scott Brown's prime issue was Obama’s health care reform bill.

During the campaign, Scott Brown said repeatedly that he approved and advocated water boarding of prisoners, a technique of torture that was dropped by the Bush administration after it was used for years. Neither the Boston Globe nor Martha Coakley passed this important information on to the voters.

Many Americans express their regret that there are so few women in the U.S. Senate. This was an issue in the Democratic Senate Primary but disappeared in the January 19 election.

Another disappearance was the viability of Ted Kennedy's legacy. He surely would have campaigned and voted for Coakley as his widow Vicki pointed out repeatedly. Yet the Kennedy endorsement was virtually ignored by the voters. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

Obama, Bush and Clinton all promised to end hyper partisanship but the votes on health-care reform show that Obama is the latest president to fail to achieve reconciliation. American government is dysfunctional even when a party has a strong majority.

The US war in Afghanistan was not an important factor in the Massachusetts election although Brown supported the invasion and Coakley opposed it. When there is no draft or a tax to pay for the war, there is a tendency to pretend that we are not at war at all.

President Obama's approval rating is down to 46% but the White House has an idea to get it back up again. Just bring back Bush and Cheney for a week.

The Political Decline of President Barack Obama

2010-01-15T14:04:00.000-08:00

The election in Massachusetts to replace Senator Edward M. Kennedy may turn out to be not as close as advertised. But it does highlight the political decline of President Barack Obama, only one year into his term. The Republican candidate, Scott Brown, is an inexperienced State Senator virtually unknown in Massachusetts and the nation only a few months ago, just like Obama was when he began thinking about running for president.

Obama is a gifted politician and he knows it. In his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” he wrote, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.”

Right now, he is disappointing all of them. Let us count the ways

Obama has failed in his courtship of the Republicans despite his appointments of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, two Bush Republicans running the most important sectors of our government. Obama’s concessions to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, his bailouts of the nation's banks and auto companies have not gained him a single GOP vote in Congress.

The progressives/liberals in the Democratic Party are disillusioned by the priority given to saving the big banks, the failure to control corporate bonuses in bailed out companies, the military surge in Afghanistan, the compromises in health care reform, the failure to close the notorious prison at Guantanamo, etc.

The independents are also slipping away from Obama. Their perceptions are dominated by his inability to solve problems, his predilection for talk over action, the lack of a serious plan to reduce unemployment, a seemingly endless series of wars without resolution, and above all the failure to get things done in Washington. The bewildering complexities of health-care reform and the long period of indecision on the Afghanistan War have caused a decline of confidence in Obama and his administration.

In this political crisis, Obama has significant loyalists: African-Americans, Latinos, liberals still hopeful. And many Americans are personally bound to Obama by his personal attractiveness, his remarkable powers of oratory, his intellectual capacity, and the symbolism of his election as a break through for racial equality. His charming personality, attractive appearance, and likability, all help to keep him afloat in this political storm. But we chose a new and gloriously different president out of hope for serious change. And he hasn't delivered that - yet.

The Pursuit of Happiness

2009-12-28T11:03:00.000-08:00

President Thomas Jefferson's likeness has a place of honor on Mount Rushmore for his great contributions to the development of the United States and for writing the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, especially the sentence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Upon a motion by Richard Henry Lee, the Continental Congress had appointed a committee to write a resolution of independence. Committee members were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston and Roger Sherman. The actual writing was entrusted to Jefferson; the revisions were made by Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, then by the entire Congress.

The document is based on the Theory of Natural Rights, developed by avant-garde philosophers John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Their rational and secular view of the world was based on general belief in human progress and the ultimate perfectibility of man acting rationally in harmony with the universe. The supreme importance of the individual in the rational organization of society was a major element in The Enlightenment, sometimes called The Age of Reason that transformed Western thought.

These ideas had already been used by the rebellious colonists. The Continental Congress declared in 1774, that “the inhabitants of the English colonies in North America are entitled to Life, Liberty and Property.” Note the word property as a basic right: the colonists were indeed worried about the danger that the British Crown might seize their property by eminent domain or confiscatory taxation.

Nevertheless, “property” was eliminated and “The pursuit of Happiness” substituted. Property was a specific and measurable asset. Happiness is a general term subject to individual interpretation, various levels of self-consciousness, unachieved desires, and limitless aspirations, more personal than the goals of society.

“Pursuit of Happiness” is not defined in the Declaration nor in the influential commentaries of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers that explained and analyzed the U.S. Constitution as well as the Declaration to the American public. While 18th century thinkers, such as Adam Smith regularly used “moral statements” about the conditions of social classes in economic policies, happiness was not a category, but the Charles Dickens accounts of English poverty did affect policy. It is difficult to think of young Oliver Twist in pursuit of happiness.

Declaring “Property” a basic right put the union of the thirteen colonies in doubt. For the Northern colonies it meant ships and shops and farms, even if some of the ships transported slaves. But for the southern colonies, the prime assets were their slaves, millions of them, the very heart of their assets and wealth of the social organization that made their economic system intensely profitable and put the white plantation owners in absolute control.

We must remember that slavery was the norm during most of human history. The perennial institution of slavery was undermined in the 18th and 19th centuries by the moral attitudes fostered by the “Enlightenment” and by Adam Smith's argument that free labor made better products at lower cost than slave labor.

The “Pursuit of Happiness” was intended to solve the political problem of keeping the thirteen colonies united, to encourage Enlightenment tendencies while avoiding the national decision about slavery in the United States - another in the series of compromises that would continue until the Emancipation Proclamation.

Averting Nuclear Annihilation

2009-12-22T19:47:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama has called for a major change in world policy on nuclear weapons, leading to eventual elimination. His initiative is supported by a powerful group of conservative and military allies led by former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and Democrats former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Sam Nunn longtime Chair of Senate Armed Services Committee.

These leaders recognize that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and dangerous ever conceived, that kill and maim without discrimination, the only weapons ever invented that could destroy all life on planet Earth. That must not happen. Disarmament is the only answer: If any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. Then, some day they will be used by accident, mistake, or design - the ultimate catastrophe.

In The Wall Street Journal and other venues, these conservative leaders argue for their dramatic reforms.
1. No first use of nuclear weapons

2. Immediate reduction of all nuclear arsenals

3. Immediate elimination of short-range nukes

4. Eventual elimination of long-range nukes

5. Guarding nukes and nuclear materials

6. Phasing out production of highly enriched uranium

7. Enhanced verification and enforcement procedures

8. Bringing into force the universal Comprehensive Test-ban Treaty to monitor and discourage cheating

Additional points about nuclear weapons

a. The US does not need to test nukes to maintain its current arsenal

b. The US and Russia own 95% of the world’s nukes and are cooperating in guarding inventories

c. The US and Russia have reduced their ICBM nukes to 2000 and are now negotiating further reductions to about 1600.

d. The US has not tested nukes since September 23, 1992, when Bush senior was president

e. For the CTBT treaty to go into effect, 44 specified countries with nuclear capacity must ratify. Of those countries, the following have not ratified: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and USA.

During President Clinton’s administration, the CTBT was sent to the US Senate for approval. It failed to reach the 67 votes necessary for ratification, but did attain a majority, 51- 49. In 2010, there will be another attempt to reach 67, hopefully by persuading seven Republicans to join 60 Democrats. Henry Kissinger et al should be helpful in this effort.

Some conservatives and military leaders believe that a worldwide policy of no nukes would be the most advantageous policy for the US, enhancing and protecting its status as the only military superpower with the capability to deploy overwhelming non-nuclear forces anywhere on earth in a matter of hours. It would legitimize US action against alleged rogue states and tighten control over the nuclear black market. It would support present US hegemony by eliminating the so-called suicide defense prepared by North Korea and Iran. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price that humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.

Several countries including Libya, Ukraine, Belarus, have given up their nukes as not worth the high cost of development and maintenance. Others have found the prestige of having nukes to be over-rated. And others have found themselves under an informal US nuclear umbrella: Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Israel, and others. And finally, nations that find US hegemony onerous and oppressive, with or without nuclear weapons, could ally themselves for resistance.

Over There, Over There

2009-12-10T15:15:00.000-08:00

By Jerome Grossman

President Obama is sending 30,000 more American combat soldiers to Afghanistan to join the 68,000 now there. This formidable force is serviced by an equal number of support troops providing the fighters with the necessary food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical services, chaplains, intelligence, etc. These support troops are also at risk but were not listed in the president's speech so the public does not know the actual size of the risk and the commitment.

Not to worry about the number of fighting troops; 30,000 is merely a down payment. General Stanley McCrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan will surely be asking for more troops to meet Obama’s deadline for victory, July 2011, the date that Obama says he will begin to withdraw U.S. troops.

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has a different view. At a news conference with the Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Karzai said, “For another 15 to 20 years, Afghanistan will not be able to sustain an adequate defensive force and will need to rely on the United States and other NATO countries for decades to come.”

And who is going to rule Afghanistan when the Taliban insurgents are crushed by US GI’s? The US puppet Karzai and his notoriously corrupt regime? Karzai’s brother, the big-time drug dealer and CIA agent? How many decades of US occupation before Afghanistan becomes a US protectorate?

The notion that the US homeland can be protected by occupying Afghanistan is flawed. None of the 19 criminals who perpetrated September 11 were Afghans. The plot was hatched in Germany and the weapons used were box cutters (to enter the pilot cabin) and credit cards (to pay for flight instruction at American airfields). Let me repeat, the 19 criminals were trained in America and were known by the FBI and CIA to be bad guys. The next attack on the US could originate anywhere, but our improved protection system will be our prime defense. And it has worked since September 11.

President Obama doesn't know how to end the war in Afghanistan so he is trying to pacify his main critics: the troop surge is for the military lobby and the civilian hawks who always find a reason to get into every fight, sometimes to spread US influence, sometimes to support US allies, sometimes to exercise US hegemony, sometimes just to show who is the boss.

The 19 month so-called exit strategy is also a political statement intended to pacify the Democrats who thought they were electing a peace candidate. But Obama says that war can be the road to peace, contrary to the views of his idols, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Obama has gained the support of John McCain and Karl Rove as well as a host of Republicans for his Afghanistan policy while losing many of those who regarded him as a modern-day prophet.

George M. Cohan, singer, dancer, playwright and American jingoist, understood this American tendency toward expansion made stronger by our enormous military power just as it affected previous super-powers. In 1917, he wrote the theme song for World War I, “Over There”, which might well apply to the US military effort in Afghanistan

Over There, Over There
Send the word, send the word,
Over There
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum tumming everywhere
So prepare,
Say a Prayer
Send the word,
Send the word to beware
We'll be over, we're coming over.
And we won't be back till it's over over there!

Razzle Dazzle on Afghanistan

2009-12-02T11:29:00.000-08:00

When President Obama told the nation his revised policy on Afghanistan, he indicated that America's mission in that country is not open-ended in duration, that we will leave when our objectives have been accomplished, and that the objectives are worth the sacrifices. Obama’s primary goal is the destruction of the Taliban insurgency against the corrupt Karzai government.

The president should have addressed the problem of corruption within the government of Afghanistan President Hamid KarzaiHamid Karzai and explain why the C.I.A. had his brother on its payroll. Did the C.I.A. foster the widespread Afghan corruption that we are now criticizing? The same brother, Ahmed Wali KarzaiAhmed Wali Karzai, is widely believed to be involved in the highly profitable drug trade. When this was called to the attention of Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton, she said, "Every country makes compromises, and it behooves you to be humble about pointing fingers." This was hardly a denial, and it fits neatly with her comfort with the Karzai regime despite evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election.

Another front requires a presidential explanation. The Obama administration prides itself on transparency in government operations but it hasn't told us about the U.S. Army providing security that will enable China to exploit in Afghanistan one of the world's largest deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its insatiable appetite for valuable raw materials.

This U.S. troop deployment protects the Chinese investment-the largest in Afghanistan's history-from the Taliban and the impoverished locals. It saves the Chinese from having to send their own troops abroad to defend their economic interests. We seem to have no problem doing just that-even keeping our troops there-under fire-for a decade. Remarkably, we are doing this favor for the Chinese in spite of the fact that a qualified American corporation bid but lost the contract. When Chinese President Hu JintaoHu Jintao recently had dinner with President Obama, did they discuss the quid pro quo for this remarkable cooperation? Should we know the deal? Does it have any connection with the continuing purchase of U.S. government bonds by China in spite of the decline in the value of the dollar?

Beijing faces enormous challenges in completing the project and gaining access to the estimated 240,000,000 tons of copper accessible through surface mining alone. Taliban-led insurgents are likely to harass the Chinese project for nationalistic reasons to preserve this valuable Afghan asset from the foreigners. It is estimated that this project development will take decades. Is this another indication that U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely? Was Obama’s promise to leave Afghanistan merely a traditional Chicago-style Razzle Dazzle Act put together by his closest political advisers, Chicagoans David Axlerod and Rahm EmanuelEmanuel to deflect criticism with hocus pocus?

One Third of the Nation

2009-11-30T08:50:00.000-08:00

One Third of the Nation
By Jerome Grossman

On January 20, 1937, in his Second Inaugural Address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said “I see one third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

Roosevelt, the wealthy aristocrat, was defending the economic and social policies he had introduced in 1933 in relief of the dire condition of the American worker. His New Deal established the federal government's responsibility for protecting farmers, workers, and the unemployed while actively regulating the economy to prevent another crash.

To avert national collapse, Roosevelt introduced legislation that he had worked for as governor of New York: minimum wage to lift purchasing power for those with bottom incomes; laws strengthening workers right to unionize thus raising incomes; unemployment insurance to avoid starvation; Social Security providing minimum income for the aged; farm policy guaranteeing a fair return to family farmers.

In retrospect, the Great Depression is a staggeringly unique event. But today's economic numbers show today’s workers in similar distress with about the same percentage of the population hurting, their situation made barely tolerable only by the Roosevelt reforms and initiatives.

Today the official unemployment rate is 10.2%. However, the unofficial rate accepted by most economists is 17.5%, the difference composed of workers employed part time in their regular jobs, those employed below their level of experience and training, discouraged workers unemployed for such a long period that they are no longer looking for work, and those formerly employed by businesses that have collapsed or moved abroad, etc..

Based on the 17.5% unemployment rate, figuring only one worker to a family, the number of unemployed are about 27 million workers. Assuming that each unemployed worker is the breadwinner for a family of four, the number of people “ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished”, is approximately 100 million, about the same percentage of our current population of 300 million as the “One Third of the Nation” described by Roosevelt.

Roosevelt and the social workers around him who helped make policy, Frances Perkins, Harry Hopkins, Harold A. Ickes, farmer Henry Wallace, focused on relief for “The Forgotten Man.”. They saved the banks from bankruptcy while installing serious regulations but spent most of their energies and assets on the workers. Today President Obama says his $787 billion stimulus is working but where are all the jobs? Since taking office, his administration, in contrast to the Roosevelt administration, has studiously avoided paying people to go to work, which could be accomplished by subsidizing private-sector employment or by creating new government paid jobs. There are programs in some states that financially compensate employees who cut their hours to prevent broader layoffs at their companies. Unemployed workers could be paid for going back to school to further their education and to learn new skills. The list of creative activities to support and improve the workforce is endless and requires only the will and orientation of the president’s advisers who seem to be more worried about Wall Street and banks “Too Big to Fail.”

Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the president’s chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers are not oriented in the same direction as Roosevelt’s Labor Secretary Frances Perkins and Relief Administrator Harry Hopkins, and that's a pity.

New Questions on Afghanistan

2009-11-20T17:14:00.000-08:00

New Questions on Afghanistan
By Jerome Grossman

When President Obama tells the nation his revised policy on Afghanistan, he will surely indicate that America's mission in that country is not open-ended in duration, that we will leave when our objectives have been accomplished, and that the objectives are worth the sacrifices.

The president should address the problem of corruption within the government of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and explain why the C.I.A. had his brother on its payroll. Did the C.I.A. foster the widespread Afghan corruption that we are now criticizing? The same brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is widely believed to be involved in the highly profitable drug trade. When this was called to the attention of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she said, "Every country makes compromises, and it behooves you to be humble about pointing fingers." This was hardly a denial, and it fits neatly with her comfort with the Karzai regime despite evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election.

Another front requires a presidential explanation. The Obama administration prides itself on transparency in government operations but it hasn't told us about the U.S. Army providing security that will enable China to exploit in Afghanistan one of the world's largest deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its insatiable appetite for valuable raw materials.

This U.S. troop deployment protects the Chinese investment-the largest in Afghanistan's history-from the Taliban and the impoverished locals. It saves the Chinese from having to send their own troops abroad to defend their economic interests. We seem to have no problem doing just that-even keeping our troops there-under fire-for a decade. Remarkably, we are doing this favor for the Chinese in spite of the fact that a qualified American corporation bid but lost the contract. When Chinese President Hu Jintao recently had dinner with President Obama, did they discuss the quid pro quo for this remarkable cooperation? Should we know the deal?

Beijing faces enormous challenges in completing the project and gaining access to the estimated 240,000,000 tons of copper accessible through surface mining alone. Taliban-led insurgents are likely to harass the Chinese project for nationalistic reasons to preserve this valuable Afghan asset from the foreigners. It is estimated that this project development will take decades. Is this another indication that U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely?

Is the Afghanistan War Part of Obama's Stimulus Program?

2009-11-14T10:26:00.000-08:00

Is the Afghanistan War Part of Obama's Stimulus Program?
By Jerome Grossman

For eight long months President Obama has been wrestling with the request of his commanding general in Afghanistan for at least 40,000 more American troops to reinforce the 68,000 already there alongside the 50,000 NATO soldiers. Virtually the entire foreign-policy establishment has been tied up in a series of eight long meetings on Afghanistan; papers have been researched, written, and discussed in excruciating detail.

As the nation awaits the president's decision, it seems clear that the enormous investment of time and study presages much more than a decision on the number of troops. The president must offer a game-changing strategy: either the application of irresistible force for victory within a reasonable time or a prompt exit strategy. The irresistible force might be assembled quickly by transferring U.S. forces now in Iraq to Afghanistan. The exit might be blamed on the corruption, ineffectiveness and drug dealing of the hopeless Karzai government.

Why has it taken Obama so long to decide? We should keep in mind that the Afghan war is not his prime problem. His administration will succeed or fail primarily on the economic situation in the nation, the level of jobs and business activity. Is there a relationship between the economy and Afghanistan? Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave a clue on November 12 as he commented on the president's many meetings on Afghanistan. Mr. Gates was talking to reporters on his plane en route to a Wisconsin factory that is churning out thousands of armored trucks for use by American troops in Afghanistan. Mr. Gates was in Wisconsin to visit the Oshkosh Corp. which is making 6000 trucks to help protect troops from improvised explosive devices (IED), which account for the vast majority of American and NATO casualties in Afghanistan. “Obviously, if the president makes the decision to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan", Mr. Gates said, "We would look at this in terms of whether we needed to buy more".

Is the war in Afghanistan indirectly part of the Obama stimulus plan to increase economic activity and employment? An exit from Afghanistan and the planned withdrawal from Iraq would mean wholesale cancellations of military contracts, expenditures that the Congress supports and welcomes. Such cutbacks would exacerbate the difficult business and employment situation. Will this be a factor in the Obama's decision? As a student of American history, he knows that FDR finally overcame the Great Depression with an armament program beginning in 1938-39 that stimulated the economy and put millions of workers back on the payroll. Will that be a factor in Obama’s decision about continuing the wars in Southern Asia?

Losing the Moral High Ground

2009-10-31T19:03:00.000-07:00

Losing the Moral High Ground
By Jerome Grossman

Last week Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spent three days in Pakistan defending U.S. Policy before a variety of groups. Some of the audiences were blunt and combative, reflecting the dramatic decline in popularity of U. S. policy. The Pakistani criticisms include U.S. interference in Pakistan's internal affairs, U.S. failure to allow Pakistani textiles into American markets in desired quotas, and the growing U.S. relationship with India particularly on nuclear matters.

But the issue that drew the most attention and anger is the U.S. use of unmanned drone airplanes to kill people in Pakistan, a program guided offshore by civilians from as far away as western United States. Some Pakistanis told Clinton that the program amounted to “execution without trial”. Others asked Clinton if she viewed these drone attacks as terrorism. “No, I do not”, she replied, but refused to comment further.

This CIA program is aimed at terrorism suspects around the world including countries where U.S. troops are not based. The program was initiated in the Bush administration, continued by Obama, and is now one of the fastest-growing programs of the U.S. military. After September 11, Bush signed a secret memorandum of notification giving the CIA the right to kill members of Al Qaeda and confederates virtually anywhere in the world.

Targeted killing has become official U.S. policy although the U.S. has a law forbidding assassination. The CIA furnishes the intelligence and selection of victims. It depends on the quality of the intelligence and whether cash bounties to informers and personal revenge influence the execution decisions. Errors in targeting have led to civilian deaths of innocents especially members of families of the targeted.

The CIA keeps broadening categories of the condemned, from Al Qaeda to Taliban to insurgents. Opponents of the program say that it is more effective `to arrest suspects than to kill-in order to obtain intelligence from them. Dead men tell no tales.

The CIA has farmed out the killing to commercial contractors who hire and train civilians to make the life and death decisions under pressure, a system that makes many uneasy. Other critics point out that the drone is not a decisive weapon but its use is likely to inspire hatred of America and even create more enemies seeking revenge. And as Clinton found out in Pakistan, a longtime U.S. ally, the drone program could cause America to lose the moral high ground, from time immemorial an important asset in rallying the nation, attracting allies, and deterring rivals.

No Health Reform Until 2013

2009-10-23T08:13:00.000-07:00

No Health Reform Until 2013
By Jerome Grossman

Most Americans are expecting big changes in our health-care system-and they want them fast. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll reported that 49% of the people responding expected people without insurance would get help in buying coverage this year or next. Twenty-five percent said three years, and 11% said “further in the future”.

Most of them will be disappointed. Even if Congress passes a bill this year, most changes are not scheduled to go into effect until at least 2013 or much later, according to the New York Times.

The lawmakers say change will take a long time, the process is complex, and delaying some changes will make the overhaul seemed less expensive and less upsetting. Remember: five-sixths of Americans now have health-care and some may not be eager to support the subsidies for the other one-sixth. In any case, the long and agonizing debate and the deferred 2013 target date certainly don’t indicate an emergency. But it is an emergency for millions of Americans.

The more likely reason for the delay is political. In the 2010 election, incumbent senators and representatives can run on their health care legislation, even though it will not be operational and therefore temporarily cost free. None of the inevitable errors and inconsistencies of the reforms will annoy the voters..

The delay in implementation will also please President Obama. When he runs for re-election in 2012 his historic achievement will still be cost free and complaint free. He will point out that he has accomplished what no other president could including Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson. Mount Rushmore will be on the horizon to match the Nobel Peace Prize.

Health-care reform in the U.S., whether it turns out to be inadequate and marginal revisions or fundamental change overthrowing the insurance companies (a miracle) will have to wait at least two elections before implementation. In the meantime, many Americans will suffer from the acknowledged inadequacies of our unique system of care.

Obama Needs to Deliver Change

2009-10-12T11:46:00.000-07:00

Obama Needs to Deliver Change
By Jerome Grossman

Obama's very effectiveness as a president is widely viewed as being in serious question. He is unable to convince people that the stimulus program is working. His health care reform program is under attack from a variety of interests. On the Afghanistan war, he seems indecisive.

Combined with his lack of executive experience, his seeming inability to resolve political problems affect his ability to govern. Obama’s quick trip to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago's bid on the Olympic Games-and then to be rejected-seemed to indicate poor staff work and a trivialization of priorities. Allowing General Stanley McChrystal to lobby the public to affect the president's decision on Afghanistan weakened Obama’s authority. A confident president would have fired the general as Truman did with MacArthur and Bush did with Shinseki. The situation blended into comic relief when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while fighting two wars and planning on a third.

Around the world, supporters of Obama worry about his failure to change Bush policies and to solve pressing problems. They see demonstrations in front of the White House by Obama supporters disappointed that he hasn't changed the “don't ask, don't tell” military policy as he promised in the campaign. And those who want an end to the Afghan war or least an exit strategy are acting out in Congress and around the country.

The New Statesman, an authoritative British publication lists the problems that Obama has not solved. The whole world is watching.

1. He continued the Bush policy on narrow definition of “state secrets”, keeping information from the public unnecessarily.

2. He has retreated on a government-run health insurance plan.

3. He has failed to persuade Congress to take a substantive action on the emissions that affect climate change.

4. He has continued the Bush trillion dollar bank bailouts.

5. He failed to control bonuses for the executives of banks.

6. He made permanent the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.

7. He has been unable to close the prison at Guantánamo; force-feeding operations have continued.

8. He has refused to release photographs of Bush administration “advanced interrogation” techniques and backed immunity for Bush officials involved in torture.

9. He has increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan and extended operations into Pakistan.

10. He has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass provisions of pills enacted into law.

11. Obama has failed to deliver to organized labor the changes in law promised for a generation.

Obama’s own supporters worry that he is not living up to his specific campaign promises and that when he tries to do so he does not seem to know how to use his power. Obama is a very popular leader of a party that won a landslide election in 2008. He has a team of centrist advisors headed by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, an experienced team that knows the political ropes and the pressures necessary to get things done in Washington. While they understand political hardball, they seem to be unwilling to use it to energize the serious change that Obama inspired in his sensational campaign. The alternative strategy would involve the development of a mass grass roots movement to promote very specific goals for peace and economic justice.

Obama Plays Hardball with the Russians

2009-10-09T09:28:00.000-07:00

Obama Plays Hardball with the Russians
By Jerome Grossman

In 1981, at the height of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president of the United States. He immediately heightened tensions using belligerent rhetoric attacking the Soviet Union as "The Evil Empire" while authorizing an enormous military buildup against "the focus of evil in the modern world."

A significant number of Americans were worried about the harsh negatives of the Reagan initiatives. One manifestation was the Nuclear Freeze Movement that sought to decrease tensions as well as the nuclear buildup by limiting all nuclear arsenals at current levels as a first step toward their eventual elimination.

Reagan showed his annoyance criticizing "the placard carriers", giving little credence to the groundswell of support for the freeze campaign that swept America in 1981 – 82. This grass-roots uprising was a major factor behind Reagan's March 1983 speech that initiated the missile defense program (SDI) that continues to waste billions of dollars in the military budget.

Among the protesters supporting the Freeze was Columbia University senior Barack Obama, who in 1983 published a plea in a campus newsmagazine for "a nuclear free world" opposing SDI and military industrial interests “with their billion-dollar erector sets."

Reagan's attachment to the concept of missile defense started a very expensive research program that has produced meager results while leading to continued wrangling with non-communist Russia over their installation in Eastern Europe. Reagan's SDI simply will not defend against a sophisticated missile equipped with decoys.

Obama recently announced that he was cancelling the missile defense shield installations in Poland and Czech Republic. He has been severely and incorrectly criticized by military hawks for this “unilateral” concession, but it wasn’t unilateral and it was a deal, not a concession The SDI system was always a bargaining chip and Obama was the first president who knew how to use it.
He eliminated the ineffective shield in Eastern Europe in exchange for much more valuable Russian concessions and cooperation on a variety of issues. Here are some of the particulars

1. Russia allows U.S. military flights over its territory, planes carrying soldiers and equipment to Afghanistan.

2. Russia allows Kyrgyzstan to give the U.S. an important military base on the Russian border.

3. Russia acquiesces to the U. S. training local troops in the state of Georgia with which Russia is at odds

4. Russia promises that it will not help Iran develop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the U.S.

5. Russia agrees to support the U.S. position on North Korea

6. Russia acquiesces in the expansion of U.S. influence in the Ukraine.

These are the Russian concessions we know about. There may be more. The media has failed to make the connection and to evaluate their importance in the continuing U. S. wars in Southeast Asia. At the same time, this change in U.S. policy gives a significant political victory to Russian leaders Putin and Medvedev, strengthening their positions at home and around the world.

When will Obama take political advantage of his coup? Probably during his 2012 reelection campaign when his record will be before the electorate and he will boast of his accomplishments on health-care and obtaining Russian cooperation. At the same time, Obama has fulfilled the promise he made at Columbia in 1983 to change policy on missile defense and to work for a world without nuclear weapons. Obama has proven that he knows how to play political hardball-at least with the Russians.

The Politics of Health Care

2009-10-01T08:14:00.000-07:00

The Politics of Health Care
By Jerome Grossman

President Barack Obama has been pushing hard for his plan to overhaul the health-care system: speaking to all kinds of audiences across the country; seizing every opportunity on television, radio, newspapers, magazines, Internet; meeting with countless group leaders including Republicans and conservatives. He is everywhere, talking to everybody.

Pay attention to one of Obama's favorite lines: "We have been waiting for health reform since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. We have been waiting since the days of Harry Truman. We've been waiting since Johnson and Nixon and Clinton. We cannot wait any longer."

That riff stimulates tumultuous applause, shouts of "Yes, we can", supporters shouting "We love you!" and Obama responds," I love you back!" If this sounds like a political campaign, that is because it is actually-the beginning of Obama’s campaign for reelection to a second term in 2012. You can't begin too early. Every president has used this strategy in his own style

Remarkably, Obama has maintained his popularity with the voters even when they disagree with him on the issues: unemployment, bank bailouts, handling the economy, the federal deficit, war in Afghanistan, closing Guantánamo, etc.. His favorable rating is 53%, good for these times of trouble and far ahead of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Leader Reid as well as Republican leaders Senator McConnell, Representative Boehner., and Senator McCain.

Obama's political advisors know that love is a many splendored thing that can dissipate if he fails to deliver. But Obama's prospects for resolving Afghanistan and unemployment, the two biggest problems, are dicey at best. Republicans will challenge him saying, "Nice young guy, but what has he accomplished? What national problems has he solved?"

Obama needs a stunning victory in his political bank account, a victory that directly affects every American, an accomplishment that has eluded every previous president of either party in times of prosperity or recession. In 2012, Obama will declaim the names of his predecessors who failed on health-care reform, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, while reminding the voters of his singular deed.

Health-care reform legislation is crucial for Obama: he must pass THE bill. That is why he is prepared to sacrifice content for political victory, better to pass a weak plan than no plan. Furthermore, Democrats have learned never to go to war against the combined forces of corporate America. Heeding the lesson of the Clinton failure on health reform, Obama has neutralized the pharmaceutical and insurance industries by negotiating concessions that will increase their customers and their profits while changing the system to include everybody. The White House has affirmed these deals so Harry and Louise are not campaigning against Obama's plan.

After many months of tortuous appeasement of the Republicans in and out of Congress under the rubric of bipartisanship, Obama has his deal but it is not with the GOP. He found that it is easier to deal with big business than to deal with the Republicans, out of power and cranky.

Obama recently told "60 Minutes" that if a health-care bill passes," I own it", but if it fails, the Republicans will own it. Fear not, America, there will be a health bill, it will be adopted by the Senate and House and President Obama will use it to prove his presidential mettle in the 2012 election.

Amateur Hour on Afghanistan

2009-09-27T08:17:00.000-07:00

Amateur Hour on Afghanistan
By Jerome Grossman

A clash is coming on U.S. policy in Afghanistan. President Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase there. One plan, advocated by Vice President Joe Biden, would "scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan." Greater reliance would be placed on drone airplanes attacking insurgent leaders and less on nation-building.

However, the 66 page classified report by the commanding general on the ground, Stanley McChrystal, assessed the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan "as a potential threat to the safety of American troops. “ He called for more troops and "other resources" that "would be required for victory." This approach is supported by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Can Obama resist the recommendations of his military leaders?

It is an embarrassment to the Obama administration that the secret report was leaked to newsman Bob Woodward and printed in the Washington Post. It forces the President's hand at a time when he is hard pressed to push health-care reform legislation through the Congress, giving the President another controversial issue to manage. It is hard enough to handle a single controversy. One observer called the chain of events and the leaked report, "amateur hour." Who slipped the secret document to Woodward? In the midst of the battle over health care, Congress must battle over troops again? Republicans are already on board for escalating the war, with more troops and money. The Democrats are divided but most want the administration to develop an exit strategy from Afghanistan.

It will be politically difficult for Obama, the leader of the only superpower on earth, to simply walk away from the war. But we did it in Vietnam, America is more secure and we gained a friendly customer. We have agreed to leave Iraq in 2011 and the political roof hasn't collapsed. If we leave Afghanistan to the people who live there, how would such a haven increase the danger in the United States? That case has not yet been made. We have learned how to protect ourselves: no attacks have been made on the U.S. since September 11.

The President’s sweeping reassessment has been prompted by deteriorating conditions on the ground, the messy and unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections, the widespread corruption, and the guerilla tactics of the Taliban. Nine months into his presidency and six months after announcing a new strategy, Obama is reconsidering his plan again. Does this indicate uncertainty?

The allies of the U.S. want out. At least half of the Americans polled have lost confidence in the war. There is division in the Obama administration. No strategy seems to work. Is it worth more American lives? Is it really necessary for American security?

Politically, the war is a loser. It is no longer the Bush war; it belongs to Barack Obama - to intensify or to end – halfway measures won’t do

Don’t Let Them Do It Again

2009-09-16T17:11:00.000-07:00

Don’t Let Them Do It Again
By Jerome Grossman

The same neo-conservatives who promoted the mistaken war in Iraq, are now urging President Barack Obama to greatly increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan and to stay there as long as it takes to conquer that country and defeat the native resistance.

Led by William Kristol, the same ideologues who insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass distraction and was involved with Al Qaeda, both not true, have sent an open letter to the White House describing Afghanistan as a "war we cannot afford to lose." Among the signers were a raft of prominent Republican politicians and military hawks as well as former Bush adviser Karl Rove and that "expert", former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

This effort comes as support for the war is falling. A CNN/ORC poll in August showed increased opposition to the war among 74% of the Democrats and 57% of Independents, with overall support down to 39%. Public opinion has been affected by the mounting U.S. death toll in Afghanistan, the multiple charges of election fraud, rampant corruption in the U.S. supported Karzai government, and the disinclination of the Afghan army to fight.

The American military forces in Afghanistan now number 62,000 in addition to the 70,000 contractors, mostly American, hired by U.S. corporations to provide food, clothing, shelter and other services for the troops. The suggested increase could bring U.S. forces and contractors as high as 400,000 at a cost that would exceed the trillion dollars we spent on Iraq. And we are still in Iraq in force. Our NATO allies won't help: they're cutting back their forces in Afghanistan.

Is the occupation of Afghanistan worth the effort? Al Qaeda is no longer there, Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, if he is still living. It is difficult for the only superpower, bestriding the earth like a colossus, to admit a mistake, but the cost in lives and money is too great for the miniscule benefits. America, go home from Afghanistan. Ignore the failed advisors that wasted so many lives in Iraq. Don't let them do it again.

Thank You, George Will

2009-09-07T15:37:00.000-07:00

Thank You, George Will
By Jerome Grossman

Suddenly, American popular opinion is turning against the war in Afghanistan. And the catalyst is the conservative columnist, George Will, who shook up the establishment by writing in his nationally syndicated column that U.S. “forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small potent special force units, concentrating on the porous 1500 mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.”

That change may provide an American “success”, whatever that might mean, but at least it is a start toward disengagement in Afghanistan, an end to the American occupation, an end to the futile attempt to create a democratic and effective central government that Afghanistan has never had in its entire history.

George Will tells us that the Afghan government is corrupt, inept and predatory, the nominated Vice President is a drug trafficker, and that the people yearn for restoration of the warlords. In the current election, charges of ballot stuffing and fraud come from all sides.

U.S. forces are being increased to 68,000 bringing the coalition total to 110,000, a deceptive figure that does not include the 100,000 civilian contractors who do the logistical work for the troops. George Will writes that “Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.”

President Obama insists that this is a war of necessity, to protect the U.S. homeland from another criminal attack like the tragedy of September 11 that killed about 3000 Americans. Yet those 19 criminals were armed only with box cutters and credit cards, learned to fly at U.S. airfields. None of the 19 were Afghan, 15 were Saudis. Osama bin Laden, if he is still alive, is hiding somewhere in Pakistan. The Al Qaeda organization is diminished to a criminal conspiracy without a base in Afghanistan.

It is hard to see how taking sides in the Afghan civil war by sending an American army would prevent a similar criminal act by 19 other criminals. Yes, we can defend ourselves by smart police work, by protecting our places of entry and our installations all over the world – and we have done so.

The war in Afghanistan is a waste of lives and money. Pulling out of Afghanistan will not damage U.S. power and prestige around the world any more than did our departure from Vietnam. And the enemy in Vietnam had potent allies: the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, bristling with powerful armies and nuclear weapons. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are rebels with rifles and roadside bombs, without significant allies, hardly an existential threat to the United States.

Where are the sensible Americans who agitated for ending the Vietnam and Iraq Wars? Are they intimidated by the so-called war on terror that commits our country to intervene on behalf of dictatorial governments challenged by revolutionaries?

George Will is not intimidated. His conservative analysis says that America will be safer if we pull our troops out of Afghanistan. Thank you, George Will. You are half right, but your recommendation for offshore bombardment with the inevitable killing of civilians is hardly the way to capture the hearts and minds of the Afghans. But at least you are heading in the right direction.

End Torture and Illegal Detention, Once and For All

2009-08-27T13:33:00.000-07:00

End Torture and Illegal Detention, Once and For All
By Jerome Grossman

Amnesty International USA reports on the case of Mohammed Jawad, detained by U. S. intelligence five years ago at age 12 to 17 somewhere in the Middle East, sent to Guantánamo Bay prison, beaten, subjected to sleep deprivation and intense interrogation techniques, told his family would be killed if he did not confess, denied access to a lawyer. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court gave Jawad his day in court, he was ordered released, all charges were dropped and this week he arrived home.

This small positive step is encouraging but the bigger picture remains deeply disturbing:

• The CIA Inspector General's report revealed shameful stories about mock executions, death threats to detainees family members, a power drill placed to the head of the detainee, water boarding, as well as other CIA use of torture
• The CIA finally released two classified memos that then Vice President Cheney had insisted would justify the use of torture. Far from justifying torture in terms of effectiveness, the memos offer little evidence that attacks were prevented by obtaining intelligence through torture.
• While the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate alleged torture is a positive step, the scope of this investigation may be limited to the actions of a few mid-level personnel while the evidence puts responsibility for torture much higher up the chain of command. We need an Independent Commission of Inquiry to get the full truth and to prosecute all the miscreants.
• A negative development: the Obama administration will continue the Bush and Clinton practice of international rendition-sending detainees to other countries for interrogation, outside of U.S. judicial review. Obama officials say they will ensure that rendition detainees will not be tortured in the future, as they have been in the past. President George W. Bush made the same promise to no avail. Why use rendition at all? So that we can repudiate the brutal interrogation methods after-the-fact?
• CIA Director Leon Panetta recently told House and Senate leaders that he had only recently learned of a secret CIA program to kill top Al Qaeda leaders with assassination teams outsourced to Blackwater USA, a private company. Panetta has cancelled the contract

We must always remember that torture of any living creature is immoral and a sin against any society-and if that isn't enough to deter, reference the Federal Bureau of Intelligence(F.B.I) that warns us that torture is an ineffective method for obtaining actionable intelligence.

Big Business Loves Health-care Reform

2009-08-19T08:41:00.000-07:00

Big Business Loves Health-care Reform
By Jerome Grossman

The liberals achieve their maximum political strength in the Democratic Party primary elections: they speak up at meetings, define the issues, make early political contributions, and rarely miss a vote. As political consciousness spreads slowly through the rest of the electorate, the liberal influence and vote diminishes in importance. They know that agreements on issues with candidates must be made early in the campaign and are likely to be modified under the pressures of the wider campaign.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton gave the liberals the health-care position they wanted: the transformation of the U.S. system of private insurance coverage to a single-payer expansion of Medicare that would include all Americans, a system paid for out of general tax revenues. Obama came the closest, saying that if he were to install a new system from scratch it would be single-payer. That was enough for the liberals to vote for him out of love and hope.

And indeed the Obama administration never proposed a health-care revolution challenging the insurance and drug industries. Such a challenge might have been successful if Obama was prepared to play political hardball, using political power to force compliance from Congress and business interests. Like Obama, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson won landslide victories in 1932 and 1964 gaining huge majorities in Congress. They knew how to use their political power generated by the landslides to force liberal legislation through an unwilling Congress by threatening the incumbents with loss of privileges, loss on their ability to pass legislation, loss of political contributions, loss of appointment of friends, etc. That was how they revolutionized the nation by installing the Social Security System, minimum wage, civil rights and voting rights legislation, Medicare, to name just a few, but not as defined by Chris Mathews on TV as merely talking tough.Chris Matthews worked for Speaker Tip O'Neill, a nice guy with no particular ideology whose idea of pressure was scotch and soda and a joke on the nineteenth hole.

Without hardball, President Obama will get a health-care bill but it won't be a revolution and it may not even be reform. His people have already made a deal with the pharmaceutical companies, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The industry will offer $8 billion a year in consumer savings for 10 years out of its current annual profits of $300 billion a year. Industry benefits: the barriers against importation of foreign drugs will be maintained; the government's ability to use its enormous purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices is off the table; the government will subsidize more drug purchases by seniors.

Insurance companies are similarly delighted with other elements of "reform". The government will require the uninsured to buy health insurance, subsidizing them if necessary. These millions of mostly young and healthy customers will demand few services, increasing industry profits far more than the cost of the Obama changes. The oldest and the sickest will be on Medicare, the poorest on Medicaid, the young and healthy new customers must buy from the insurance companies. Looks like a good deal for the health-care industry. And Obama’s lieutenants have discovered that it is easier to deal with big business than with the Republicans and their Blue-Dog allies in Congress.

The Devil in the Details

2009-07-23T13:16:00.000-07:00

The Devil in the Details
By Jerome Grossman

Despite President Barack Obama's brilliant performance at his primetime press conference on health care, Republicans and some conservative Democrats are balking at the details of the proposed legislation. But the devil is not in the details. It is in the commitment of the nation to the national health. The president needs to activate the conscience of America to take care of all of its citizens.

The president needs to challenge the country to declare that health care is a natural right of citizenship, like the right to an education, the right to vote, the right to police and fire protection, the right to military defense of the homeland.

Once that principle is established, the Federal Government can determine implementation by examining the best practices on cost and efficiencies in other countries. It is no secret that dozens of nations deliver health care to their people at half of the per capita cost in the United States while attaining better health results than the U.S. in the standard measures of longevity, infant mortality, hospital stays, etc.

The cost of universal health care is unsustainable to the average private citizen. That is why the cost must be assumed by the Federal Government. Health care must be a national enterprise because diseases often spread from those without care to the most cared for sectors of the population. What begins as a moral question becomes an issue of self-defense for the total society.

Our political and moral leaders must emphasize the social aspects of taking care of everybody. If Texas or Florida or California or New York or Massachusetts were invaded by foreign armies, would we not rally to repulse the invader? If any army of microbes invaded the bodies of the 50 million Americans without health care shouldn’t we rally to repulse the invader?

The devil is not in the details. The devil is in our failure to act as one people, liberty and justice and health for all 306,985,793 citizens. We can find the money to defend the health of 50 million Americans the way we found the trillion dollars we spent to defend 28,221,180 Iraqis and the trillion dollars we are spending to defend 32,738,376 Afghanis, 6,930 miles from Washington,D.C.

Eliminate Unemployment

2009-07-15T09:29:00.000-07:00

Eliminate Unemployment
By Jerome Grossman

7.2 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the recession. The effects of these layoffs have been horrendous on the workers and their families. The recession is making us sick, the employed as well as the unemployed. For most, losing your job means losing your health insurance. You drop your gym membership if you have one. You delay medical care to save the cost. You eat cheaper, less healthy foods. You roam the streets applying for jobs below your skill level, even part-time jobs at low wages just to bring something home. Your skills deteriorate. Your confidence in yourself, in your future and your country begins to melt away.

And it wasn't even necessary

At the office or factory that had trained you in their products and procedures, the decline in business was 20%, so 20% of the capable and trained workers or salespeople or executives were let go. All that experience, all that know-how put onto the street to worry and scrounge and beg the government or another employer for crumbs. Don’t break up an effective organization. Share the pain. Divide the available work among all workers. Prepare for a better future.

The cost reductions to the organization would be the same as the cost reductions realized with layoffs but the organization would remain intact poised for the eventual economic recovery. The cost to the government for unemployment relief would be much lower. Public and private morale would be higher. Increased hope and optimism would improve our mental and physical health. Crime induced by poverty and desperation would decline. Confidence would help to restore our economy. This is the America where we share the pain, help each other out, or do we?

Senator Frankenstein Goes to Washington

2009-07-01T15:27:00.000-07:00

Senator Frankenstein Goes to Washington
By Jerome Grossman

Minnesota finally has a new senator. Al Franken, a professional comedian running for office for the first time, overcame Norm Coleman, a professional politician

Franken has a national reputation in show business. In his unique comedy style he covered the 1992 presidential conventions on Comedy Central TV and has delivered his blend of humor, disrespect and analysis at many universities and corporations. He is never at a loss for words, comments, insults and jokes. Franken keeps the listeners awake.

Liberal Democrat Al Franken's best friend and his partner in show business is Ben Stein, a political mirror image, a hard-line conservative. Stein is an actor who was also a speechwriter for President Richard Nixon, and believe it or not, writes a column for the New York Times business section most Sundays.

In their performances, the pair is presented as Stein/Franken, because, as Al jokes, Stein is older and thus gets first billing. However, some critics say that a more descriptive name would be Franken/Stein as depicted in the original book and movie about a horrible creature composed of body parts taken from the dead and assembled by a scientist. Preparation for the Senate?

Of course, Ben Stein will not be a partner in the Senate, but the grimly humorless Republicans may choose to play with the Franken/Stein name of horror, making mistakes on purpose.
“Will Senator Frankenstein yield?”

Will the new Senator use his formidable nickname to intimidate his political opponents? Or at least get Senator Lieberman to behave? If Senator Al begins to strut around the Senate floor in imitation of the strung-together monster, will he be censured for disrespect? Or will the Republicans bring Vice President Cheney to shoot this caricature of a manufactured Senator? In any case, there will be no love interest in this movie as the Republicans try to get Franken to clown while he will be determined to be the most serious senator on the floor. A new day may be dawning in the U.S. Senate, a day with performances interrupting the tedium. And where is Senator Groucho Marx now that we need him?

Put another Frances Perkins on the Obama Team

2009-06-29T19:27:00.000-07:00

Put another Frances Perkins on the Obama Team
By Jerome Grossman

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked Frances Perkins to be his Secretary of Labor in 1932, she said she would accept only if he would support her social justice agenda: Federal relief and large-scale public works programs to help victims of the Depression, federal minimum wage and maximum hour’s law, a ban on child labor, and unemployment and old age insurance. The New Deal was born. These were revolutionary goals for the time, but Roosevelt agreed. “I suppose you are going to nag me about this forever”, he said. And she did, acting as his conscience when Roosevelt faced difficult political problems with his progressive agenda.

Perkins, born in Boston, raised in Worcester, Massachusetts in a middle-class Republican family, attended Mount Holyoke, majored in chemistry and physics, but a course in political economy changed her life. Sent into local mills to report on the lives of the workers, she was so moved by the experience that she became a social worker and reformer. She helped Jane Adams in Chicago's Hull House; worked with immigrants in Philadelphia, studied sociology and economics at Columbia before working for the Consumer’s League. Heavily influenced by the fatal fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City, she became a key reformer for worker safety, was appointed by New York Governor Alfred E. Smith to the powerful State Labor Board. When FDR succeeded Smith in 1929, he named her head of the entire department...

Her role in the famous first 100 days of the FDR presidency has been under appreciated. She was the strongest advocate for a federal relief program, led the development of the plan that was implemented, persuaded FDR to support large-scale public works despite his skepticism, fought for the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allied with Eleanor Roosevelt, she was effective in pushing her very political president to live up to his liberal reputation. Her imprint was so large that political opponents took to calling the FDR administration the Perkins New Deal. And she accomplished all this while being harassed as a liberal and the first woman Secretary of Labor.

President Barack Obama assumes office at a similar time of crisis: instability is in the air, large segments of the population are hurting, relief is needed at every level, unemployment is rising, banks are failing, and Wall Street has lost the confidence of the public. Relief and change are required, especially new approaches to rescue the workers at the sustenance level from the Hoover-like policies of George W. Bush.

But personnel defines policy and Obama’s liberal instincts cannot be implemented by appointees from the center, by definition. To achieve a national consensus, Obama’s selected helpers come from the center of U.S. politics, few from labor, almost none from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, some from the Republicans, most of them veterans of the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Obama needs advisers and appointees like Frances Perkins, people committed to rescuing the masses of Americans, whose horizons are not limited by corporate bailouts, who are willing to take approaches outside the conventional wisdom, ideas that will find ways to extend the benefits of the richest country in the world to all Americans. Obama understands this approach, the Perkins approach to social and political problems. He has repeatedly said that if he were constructing a health-care system for America from scratch, it would be single payer. Yet his multiple advisers are not even considering a single payer plan, not even putting a single proponent on the health care team.

Louis Gerstner, the former chief of IBM, praises Obama but criticized the way the White House handled restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler. “Who did we pick to figure out how to fix the automobile industry? We picked two investment bankers. It’s sort of like asking the arsonist to run the fire department.”

If Obama had Frances Perkins on his team, the president's proposals would be quite different.

About Health Care

2009-06-25T07:01:00.000-07:00

About Health Care
By Jerome Grossman

Dr. Marc Sklar, an endocrinologist in Washington, DC was quoted in the Wall Street Journal, “If we could prevent even a small percentage of people from becoming obese and developing these conditions (diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic problems) the cost of healthcare could go down far enough to cover everyone's insurance.”

Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and now at Harvard Medical School, wrote in the Boston Globe, “The reason our health system is in such trouble is that it is set up to generate profits, not to provide care. We rely on hundreds of investor-owned insurance companies that profit by refusing coverage to high-risk patients and limiting services to others. They also cream off about 20% of the premiums for profits and overhead.”

Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, wrote in the New York Times, “The insurance industry is busily lobbying Congress to block one crucial element of healthcare reform, the public option - that is, offering the right to buy insurance directly from the government as well as from private insurance companies.”

The United States spent more on health care than any other country as a share of gross domestic product in 2006, the most recent year for which totals are available. But the survival rates for American patients on infant mortality and population longevity lag behind other countries.

United States 15.2%
Canada 10%
Australia 8.7%
Brhain 8.2%
New Zealand (2003) 8%

Between 2000 and 2007, the 10 largest publicly traded insurance companies increased their profits 428%, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings

Since its founding, Mayo Clinic has paid physicians with salaries to avoid financial conflicts of interest in clinical decision-making, and to promote multi-disciplinary coordination of care. Less well known, was its principle of billing based on patient’s means.

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, says,” Democrats always blame the insurance companies, and Republicans always blame the trial lawyers….. A new system also requires tough malpractice reforms….. Cost containment is the Achilles heel of the Massachusetts Universal Coverage plan.”

President Obama said on June 18, “There are already a bunch of liberals who are disappointed because I didn't propose a single payer plan….”

Former Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.), Bob Dole (R-KS.) and Howard Baker (R-TN) on June 17 unveiled a bi-partisan blueprint for health-care reform that includes a public plan compromise and a requirement that all Americans must purchase insurance. All three men represent private-sector clients in the health-care debate.

The Washington Post wrote about health care holdings of federal legislators: “Nearly 30 lawmakers on committees drafting health-care legislation have financial holdings in the industry, totaling at least $10.8 million dollars and as much as $26.8 million.”

Dr. Abraham Varghese, professor at Stanford University, has written, “All the marvels of science, all the advances of medicine don't replace what patients want of their doctors and what most of us wanted to offer when we felt the calling to medicine: The opportunity to be fully present at the bedside, to bring the human comfort that only the presence of an attentive physician can bring, to convey to patient and family the unspoken promise, I will stay with you through thick and thin.”

The Crisis in U.S./Muslim Relations

2009-06-22T19:34:00.000-07:00

The Crisis in U.S./Muslim Relations
By Jerome Grossman

In Cairo, President Barack Obama addressed the world's billion Muslims preaching the values of political freedom, democracy and human rights. Remarkably, he virtually apologized for the repeated Western interference in the affairs of Muslim nations, citing the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 by the U.S. CIA and its British counterpart, then the installing of a dictator in that country. While this act of contrition was widely welcomed, it had already been performed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during the Bill Clinton Administration without improving the relationship. Iran was placed on “The Axis of Evil”.

If President Obama was promising a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East, it did not reflect the operating situation there. The U.S., under Democratic and Republican presidents alike has gone to war, sometimes to protect, sometimes to oust regimes in the area: e.g. in 1991 to protect Kuwait from Iraq, in 2002 to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq. Another rarely discussed U.S. intervention but high in the consciousness of Iranians is the support the U. S. gave to Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran in 1980. In this eight year war, Iran lost more than one million lives and suffered Saddam's repeated use of poison gas on civilians and the military.

Obama promises to change the historical behavior of the U.S. in the area. Will his preaching lead to the over-throw of America’s favored dictators? Apart from Israel, the countries we support there are dictatorships, any elections held are merely automatic endorsements of reigning corrupt dictators in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc. For generations, starting with the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our politicians, business leaders, military and intelligence staffers and diplomats have found it easier to deal with dictatorial establishments than with the messiness of prolonged negotiations involved in democratic procedures. Guarantees of military support or well-placed financial contributions often produce policies more quickly and efficiently.

Literal adoption of Obama’s good government recommendations would likely impede the U.S. system of dominance in the Middle East, opening it up to competition from other nations now frozen-out. The commercial position of the U.S. oil companies might be in danger. The price of oil might be driven to new heights. The Arab countries might decide to leave the U.S. dollar for better deals with rival currencies and to invest their surplus funds in venues other then American Treasury Bonds. Rival countries might try to play the game of bribing government officials. In a democracy, the possibilities for change and competition are endless when the pool of competitors is expanded.

The crisis in Iran highlights the possibilities for change in all Muslim nations by breaking established patterns of conduct. In Cairo, President Obama set forth the ideals that might not support the current system and world American hegemony. Is the U.S. prepared to sacrifice its preeminence for the ideals of openness and democracy? Will the dominant interests in America, big business and the military, allow such a sacrifice, such a transformation?

The Ayatollahs of Washington

2009-06-17T17:13:00.000-07:00

The Ayatollahs of Washington
By Jerome Grossman

As I write this blog on June 17, the streets of Iran's capital are jammed with demonstrators rallying to protest the country's disputed presidential vote. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians defied the country's religious leaders who have the final say on state matters demanding a new election replacing the election of June 12 tainted by charges of fraud and vote rigging.

The Ayatollahs of Iran have offered a limited recount, another concession to the sustained public rage, but reformist politicians would accept only a completely new election under the closest supervision. Public opinion in Iran may force such a solution despite the virtual dictatorial powers of the unelected religious leaders. The sheer size of the demonstrations has been impressive and the protests are not limited to students but include all generations and economic classes.

The United States of America had a similar crisis in the presidential election of 2000 when Florida's decisive 25 electoral votes would decide the contest. Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, filed suit in state court to begin a recount of ballots in several counties where voting machines were unable to determine the voter's selection. The Florida Supreme Court granted Gore's plea but the U.S. Supreme Court prevented the recount 36 days after the election and with that, Gore's chance of winning the presidency.

The Ayatollahs of Washington had decided and there was no appeal. Nor was there much of a protest. Hundreds of lawyers were involved in legal proceedings, thousands of media personnel carried the news reports around the world, but the American citizens remained remarkably calm. No marches in the cities, little anger on the campuses. The people were not involved despite the flouting of the Constitution, despite the closeness of the 5-4 decision, despite the pyramid of voting irregularities in Florida.

With all due respect to the government of Iran, the importance of their president does not compare with that of the U. S. president, controller of the arsenal of nuclear weapons, leader of a $14 trillion economy, commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world, controller of 737 military bases in 130 countries, whose word reverberates everywhere, almost the Emperor of the world.

The U.S. is the oldest democracy; proud of its inheritance, seeking to spread its values to other countries, but in 2000 it was passive. Iran, with a history embracing thousands of years, is a theocracy with a limited tradition of democratic elections mostly at the local level. Faced with the overwhelming power of the Ayatollahs and their control of the military and police, the citizens of Iran refused to accept this particular aspect of religions dictatorship. Whether or not they achieve their objectives, the Iranian people have shown how to overcome a government that has over reached and abused its power. Committed but pragmatic, insistent yet Gandhi-like in its tactics, they set an example of the use of people power.

Goodbye, General Motors

2009-06-10T18:52:00.000-07:00

Goodbye, General Motors
By Jerome Grossman

For decades I was loyal consumer of General Motors products. It all began when I graduated from high school and was accepted by Harvard College. My father, who had to leave school after the fifth grade to help support his family, was so proud that he insisted on buying me a tiny Pontiac, “A Harvard man should have a car." I was 16 years old.

The Pontiac had an unusual history. It had been totaled in a crash and then a friend of my father rebuilt it from scratch, painted it startling bright silver with red wheels. The tiny convertible with the exposed rumble seat made me a very popular Harvard freshman.

It also made me a loyal "Buy American" consumer supporting U.S. businesses and the workers of Detroit by purchasing GM products year after year. However, years later, my wife returned from her bridge game with a message, "My friends love the Lexus; why don't we try it."

My answer was a resounding negative: “We must support the American worker and buy American.” But the bridge friends had an answer: "Does your husband know that many American cars are assembled in Mexico, Canada, South Korea and China, where the work is done for two dollars an hour instead of 20?" So I bought my first Lexus in 2001. I still have that automobile and it is a dream, a loyal and healthy horse that seems to go on forever.

Now GM is in bankruptcy, rescued temporarily by the U.S. government. My feelings of guilt for deserting were assuaged when I learned that low wage countries will manufacture at least 25% of GM output under the rescue plan.

While the U.S. government will be the majority stockholder and will supervise the restructuring plan, President Barack Obama says that he does not want to run the company and that it should be operated on classic business principles.

I believe President Obama but some Republicans and conservatives warn of political interference in operations. They may be right. Already Representative Barney Frank, my own Democratic congressman, has intervened with GM management to extend the life of a parts distribution center in his district that was scheduled to be closed. The political motivation is bipartisan. Republicans are just as likely to protect jobs in their districts: Republican Representative Steve La Tourette of Ohio wants congressional review of company and government decisions on the automakers. In the U.S. Senate, Carl Levin of Michigan said he will do everything he can keep the GM plants there open, as will senators across the country.. Their political existence demands it.

Some think that the reduced GM will not survive for long, that the Administration is keeping it alive for political reasons and to keep the United Auto Workers functioning in election years 2010 and 2012. But the world has changed; too many unrectifiable mistakes have been made. General Motors, once the preeminent American company, may become as much of a relic as my silver Pontiac convertible with the startling red wheels

Expand the Supreme Court

2009-06-03T14:27:00.000-07:00

Expand the Supreme Court
By Jerome Grossman

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court reminds us that politics is paramount in a democracy even when the control of the highest court in the land is at stake. Exercised by both parties, the politics obviously seeks control of the court and also appeals to major voting constituencies for support.

In selecting Judge Sotomayor, President Obama weighed a number of factors. The most obvious were to nominate a “clean” person with a personal record above reproach, a history proving the highest legal ability, membership in a major voting constituency, a record of liberalism that would guarantee support of the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. In addition, Obama needed to be sure that the candidate had paid all her taxes. The President could not afford another tax delinquent after his unfortunate experiences with Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner and Katherine Sibelius.

The politics was easy. Nominate a capable Latino to recognize an ethnic group without a representative on the court, the fastest growing minority in the nation. This was actually a double benefit: to gain the appreciation of Latinos and to inhibit the Republicans from filibustering the nominee. President George H.W. Bush used the same tactic when he nominated Clarence Thomas, expecting little opposition to an African-American from the Democrats.

Representation in the leadership of a nation is a core value in a democracy. On the Supreme Court, there are six Roman-Catholic justices, two Jewish, two Italian Americans, far above their percentages in the American population. On the court, today, there is only one woman and one Protestant, far below their national percentages. Among these underrepresented groups there are dozens if not hundreds of qualified lawyers and judges. What are we to make of the fact that in the current court, five justices graduated from Harvard Law, two from Yale Law, and one from Columbia Law. Sotomayor went to Yale. Are all the abilities in the Northeast?

Some believe that there should be a larger Supreme Court to satisfy representation, to speed court action, to enable the court to hear more cases. Does the U.S. Constitution call for nine justices? It does not. Congress decides on the number by statute and has changed it repeatedly: 1789 (6), 1807 (7), 1837 (9), 1863 (10), 1866 (8), 1869 (9). Article 8, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that all federal judges retain office during “good behavior” and only one justice, Samuel Chase, was impeached in 1805.

We pride ourselves in our respect for the rule of law, a factor that has given the nation a high degree of stability. Of course, our record is far from perfect but in no other country does the highest court possess such far-reaching power including the interpretation of all congressional enactments and making sure that the federal and state laws conform to the Constitution. Expanding the Supreme Court might make it more representative and therefore even more effective. A Supreme Court with justices appointed to represent geographic areas, sexual populations, economic interests, etc. might unify the nation more than the current system of appeasement of political constituencies.

A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan

2009-05-23T20:42:00.000-07:00

A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan
By Jerome Grossman

On May 22, President Barack Obama addressed the graduating class of United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. He drew cheers when he proclaimed, " As long as I am your commander-in-chief, I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy and the well defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done."

Bravo. But I wish he had applied those sentiments to the United States invasion of Afghanistan. The President has dramatically increased the number of U. S. military forces there, has promised even more next year, and has warned of a multi-year commitment to a war already almost 8 years in duration.

• Is this war “absolutely necessary?”

• Do we have a “strategy” for fighting it?

• Do we have “well defined” goals?

• Do we have an exit strategy?

As recently as May 10, Hamad Karzai, the elected head the Afghan government, said, "Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan." When this was relayed to General David Petraeus, the American and NATO military Commander, he replied," I would agree with that." Obama's National Security Advisor Jim Jones said," I am not sure if Osama bin Laden is alive or dead." Prime Minister of Pakistan Zardari:, stated flatly," Osama is dead." On May 17, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Katie Couric of CBS that it will take at least two to four years before Afghan forces begin to take the lead in fighting, leaving unsaid when U.S. troops will leave.

Moreover, Karzai and Zardari have complained bitterly about U.S. military tactics, especially the use of air power resulting in the unnecessary killing of civilians and the consequent increase in anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What is victory in Afghanistan? Will it prevent another brutal tragedy like September 11? We should remember that this attack was made by 19 people, not one of them Afghans, armed with credit cards and box cutters. It is difficult to understand how the conquest of Afghanistan could prevent another group of nineteen from performing a similar criminal act. Defense of the U.S. mainland begins at home with effective police and immigration procedures.

U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, even Pakistan, coupled with our all-out support for Israel, might motivate some Muslims and citizens of those countries to irrational revenge, what the CIA calls “Blowback”, the unintended consequences of military action and especially of foreign military occupation.

President Obama, give us the answers to our questions. If you don't have them, at least separate yourself from the Afghan policies of George W. Bush and give us an exit strategy so that we can help these nations change their policies through diplomacy, economic help and our soft power while saving American lives and resources.

Why the Soviet Union Gave Up in Afghanistan

2009-05-16T18:25:00.000-07:00

Why the Soviet Union Gave Up in Afghanistan
This document is reprinted from Harper’s Magazine, June 2009

From a May 10, 1988, letter from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to all Party members. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan began on May 15 and was completed February 15, 1989. The letter is among documents related to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan published in February by the National Security Archive. Translated from the Russian by Svetlana Savranskaya.

The decision to invade was made when there was a lot of uncertainty in the balance of forces within Afghan society. Our picture of the real social and economic situation in the country was also insufficiently clear. We do not want to say it, but we should: at that time, we did not even have a correct assessment of the unique geographical features of that hard-to-enter country. This was reflected in the operations of our troops against small, highly mobile units, where very little could be accomplished with the help of modern military technology.
In addition, we completely disregarded the most important national and historical factors, above all the fact that the appearance of armed foreigners in Afghanistan has always been met with arms in the hands of the population. This is how it was in the past, and this is how it happened when our troops entered Afghanistan, even though they came there with honest and noble goals.
Babrak Karmal became head of the Afghan government at the time. His first steps in that capacity gave us grounds to hope that he would be able to solve the problems facing his country. Nothing new emerged, however, in his policies that could have changed for the better the attitude of a significant portion of the Afghan population toward the new regime. Moreover, the intensity of the internal Afghan conflict continued to grow, and our military presence was associated with forceful imposition of customs alien to the national characteristics and feelings of the Afghan people. Our approach did not take into account the country’s multiple forms of economic life and other characteristics, such as tribal and religious customs.
One has to admit that we essentially put our bets on the military solution, on suppressing the counterrevolution with force. We did not even make full use of the existing opportunities to neutralize the hostile attitudes of the local population toward us. Often our people, acting out of their best intentions, tried to transplant the approach to which we are accustomed onto Afghan soil, and encouraged the Afghans to copy our ways. All this did not help our cause; it bred feelings of dependency on the part of the Afghan leaders in regard to the Soviet Union, both in the sphere of military operations and in the economic sphere.
Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan continued, and our troops were getting engaged in extensive combat actions. Finding any way out became more and more difficult as time passed. Combat action is combat action. Our losses in dead and wounded—and the Central Committee believes it has no right to hide this—were growing heavier and heavier. Altogether, by the beginning of this month, we had lost 13,310 dead in Afghanistan; 35,478 Soviet officers and soldiers were wounded, many of whom became disabled; 301 people are missing in action. There is a reason people say that each person is a unique world, and when a person dies that world disappears forever. The loss of every individual is very hard and irreparable. It is hard and sacred if one died carrying out one’s duty.
The Afghan losses, naturally, were much heavier than ours, including the losses among the civilian population.
One should not disregard the economic factor either. If the enemy in Afghanistan received weapons and ammunition worth hundreds of millions and later even billions of dollars, the Soviet-Afghan side also had to shoulder adequate expenditures. The war in Afghanistan has cost us 5 billion rubles a year.

Netanyahu's New Strategy for Israel

2009-05-14T08:45:00.000-07:00

Netanyahu's New Strategy for Israel
By Jerome Grossman

As I write this blog, the new Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just left his meeting with Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, on his way to confer with King Abdullah of Jordan. On Netanyahu's schedule are additional meetings with leaders of the other authoritarian Arab leaders, all clients of the United States: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates.

Netanyahu has an important message for them, as original as President Richard Nixon's recognition of Communist China or Ariel Sharon's withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. The message goes something like this. The critical struggle is not between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank. The critical struggle is between the current regimes aligned with the United States on one side and Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah on the other. The Iran group seeks regime change in the American clients, the overthrow of their governments and the installation of religious insurgent governments or Shi'ite leaders.

Netanyahu would continue: Israel, on the other hand, has no such ambitions. Israel, also an ally of the United States, has no interest in the thousand year battle between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Israel has no desire to change the leadership in the Sunni countries. Furthermore, in response to Arab suggestions, Israel is prepared to ease the condition of the Palestinians on a triple track:

1. Political: To renew peace negotiations with the Fatah Palestinians

2. Security: To strengthen Palestinian police with training and authority

3. Economic: To increase the number of jobs in Israel for qualified Palestinians

Please note that there is no mention of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state which the Arab dictatorships and the Obama Administration support and which Netanyahu strongly opposes.

Netanyahu's strategy is to exploit the Arab fear of Iran’s military power and its subsidization of the insurgency movement against the Arab dictatorships. Complicating the future of the region is the agreement that the U. S. move its military from Iraq by the end of 2011. If and when that happens, the two biggest military forces in the area will be Iran and Iraq, both ruled by Shi'ites. The Sunni regimes will be vulnerable and may be forced to seek a better relationship with Israel, a dominant military power and the one backed by the U.S. as far as the eye can see.

The Saudi 2002 peace plan promulgated by Saudi King Abdullah remains an intriguing possible basis for U. S. - Saudi cooperation on the Israeli - Palestinian issue. Abdullah's proposal was endorsed by the entire Arab League at its 2002 summit. Israeli President Shimon Peres and then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have referred to it favorably, and Barack Obama praised Abdullah for making the peace proposal.

Netanyahu has strongly opposed the Saudi plan. His diplomatic offensive may be designed to prevent the U.S. and the Arab states from implementing the Saudi initiative in whole or in part

Is Jon Stewart Just for Laughs?

2009-05-03T19:59:00.000-07:00

Is Jon Stewart Just for Laughs?
By Jerome Grossman

Peter Orszag is President Obama's Director the Office of Management and Budget. Only 40 years old, he is the youngest member of the Obama Cabinet assigned the responsibility of developing and promoting the president's budget. In the rescue of the U.S. financial system, Orszag, Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Lawrence Summers, the Director of the National Economic Council, are the most influential in determining policy. Of the three, Orszag may have the most liberal sensitivity.

Orszag recently appeared on "The Daily Show", the television program that offers the public Jon Stewart's version of raucous commentary, invoking laughter by skewering public figures and public policy, albeit in a non-confrontational style.In the warm-up Green Room before the program, Stewart, feigning innocence and ignorance of detail, asked Orszag, according to the New Yorker magazine: "This has nothing to do with the budget - it's this thing that I can't get out of my head. With all that bailout stuff, why are they bailing out the banks? Why not the borrowers? These mortgages went bad, and then they were securitized and blah, blah, blah. So why not fix the mortgages, not the securities?" When Stewart asked Orszag why the government didn't just bailout borrowers who have defaulted, Orszag replied, "The problem is, if you just focused on the people who defaulted you create this huge incentive to default.” Stewart looked at Orszag in astonishment, pointing out that the government is creating an equally huge incentive to default by bailing out the financial firms.

Behind all the complexities was a very simple fact. Monthly mortgage payments by millions of homeowners were what provided the money for the banks and financial institutions that bought mortgages from the banks and the Wall Street firms that created sophisticated securities based on these mortgages. Bailing out those who took out the mortgages would save millions of families from being foreclosed, would save entire neighborhoods, would eliminate the need for the bank bailout money, would revive the credit of the banks, would save the big bonuses paid to bankers, etc..

Why wasn’t this approach seriously considered? Politically and morally one would expect the Democratic Party officeholders to help the masses ahead of Wall Street. Are bailouts the special province of big business, highly paid executives, major donors to politicians and political parties? Is Jon Stewart right or is he just for laughs?

So What If Texas Secedes?

2009-04-30T08:21:00.000-07:00

So What If Texas Secedes?
By Jerome Grossman

Most politicians, analysts, and media are giving President Barack Obama good grades for his first one hundred days in office. With the general public Obama seems more popular than ever as measured by his standing in the opinion polls. And, in spite of the deepening recession, more than 50% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction.

A notable exception is Governor Rick Perry of Texas who objects to Obama's policies so deeply that he has suggested that Texas might end its association with the United States of America and strike out on its own. Perry insists on the right of Texas to secede from the Union, violating the core principle of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.

So far Perry has not fired on Fort Sumter or any U.S. military installation in Texas but we should be prepared. His primary objection to federal policy is the stimulus package designed to energize the economy but it appears that he will still take the money for his state. At the same time, Perry is trying to persuade other Republican governors to talk of secession as a political tactic to rally the depressed conservative base.

So what if Texas actually secedes? We would still visit there, of course, and would be friendly, not as friendly as with Canada, but somewhat warmer than with Cuba and Venezuela. Would independent Texas give up NASA and the next voyage to the moon? In what league would the Dallas Cowboys play? Would they still be “America's team?” Governor Perry points out that Texas has the right to split into five separate states, each with its own president, enough for every member of the Bush family. And the two Bush ex-presidents of U.S.A. could cap their careers by running for president of an independent Texas. Then each could build second presidential libraries, at least one of them featuring mementos of torture.

Texas as an independent country would give the U.S. several tempting options. We could build a fence on the border to discourage immigration from Texas. We could invade Texas for oil or to change the regime there. And George W. Bush would be the last Texan to be president of the United States.

How to Force Confession by Torture

2009-04-23T14:05:00.000-07:00

How to Force Confession by Torture
By Jerome Grossman

After a closed-door trial, American journalist Roxana Saberi was found guilty in an Iranian court on charges of espionage. An Iranian-American, Saberi had been living in Iran and working as a reporter although the Iranian government claimed it had withdrawn her press credentials. She was sentenced to eight years in prison.

The harsh sentence handed down to this native of North Dakota has generated a global outcry. President Obama and other national leaders as well as a plethora of media outlets have called for the release of this lovely young woman, once a finalist in the Miss American contest.

The Iranian government has not released any evidence against Saberi. Clearly, she has become a pawn in Iran's relations with the United States. In the political maneuvering, Iran may wish to accuse the U. S. and Israel of planning an attack. A confession of a plot by this lovely American would fit the strategy of Iran. And it might even be true, but still no excuse for torture. The United Nations Convention Against Torture is absolute in its prohibition of torture: “No exceptional circumstances whatever, whether a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

How to force the confession? Simply follow the tortures used by the C.I.A. as described by the experts on the International Committee of the Red Cross from their 43 page report on the treatment of fourteen "high-value" detainees in C.I.A. custody, published February 2007 on www.nybooks.com for more gory detail.

• Suffocation by water
• Prolonged stress in standing position
• Beatings by use of a collar
• Prolonged beating, kicking, slapping
• Confinement in a box severely restricting movement
• Prolonged nudity
• Sleep deprivation
• Exposure to cold temperature
• Prolonged Shackling
• Threats of ill-treatment to family
• Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food

Questions: If Roxana Saberi confesses, will the world believe it was not forced? Do the confessions forced by the C.I.A. on the grounds of national security set a precedent and valid excuse for using the same methods on Saberi and perhaps other Americans? How reliable and credible would Saberi’s tortured answers be? Enough for the Iranians to be sure of the confessed information? And how would the use of torture diminish the reputation of the government of Iran as it has diminished the U.S. government?

Will the Obama Stimulus Work?

2009-04-15T20:22:00.000-07:00

Will the Obama Stimulus Work?
By Jerome Grossman

President Obama won the battle over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, (also known as the economic stimulus bill) passed by Congress in February. Obama’s supporters consider the passage of this legislation a great victory. That evaluation may be premature. The stimulus must actually work to get our economy out of the doldrums. Then Obama can be congratulated for his political and economic smarts. Of course, it is too early to appraise the result.

The economic stimulus bill will cost the grand total of $787 billion designed to make up for the 6% decline of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. However, $787 billion represents only 2% of GDP, but the administration expects that gap to be filled by the “multiplier” effect as the 2% is used and reused in the economy. Some economists think $787 billion is too small because 40% goes to tax cuts which have only a small multiplier effect and the expenditures on roads, bridges, buildings, infrastructure etc. may take years to organize.

Then there are those who believe that no stimulus is necessary, that the economy is a self- stabilizing system, that in a downturn, even if nothing is done, normal employment and production will someday return, propelled by the fact that 70% of our economic activity is spent on domestic affairs, mostly food, clothing, shelter, transportation, the military and related services.

The difference between conservatives and liberals lies mostly in whether the stimulus policy can speed up the recovery significantly and whether the enormous expenditures will lead to inflation. Conservatives worry more about the deficit and taxes to pay for the stimulus as well as the inevitable waste in the rush to recovery.

The liberals believe that every month of recession inflicts pain and suffering on millions of people, a condition that must be avoided if possible. They worry less about the deficit and taxes on the grounds that the faster the economy recovers, the smaller the deficit and the higher the tax revenues. Liberals also point to the immediate relief offered by the stimulus’s extension of unemployment insurance benefits, more money for food stamps, etc.

Obama has won the first round. He has his stimulus package. Is it big enough to carry out liberal theory? Will it work in the multiplier effect? Will the economy suffer an additional collapse that will overcome this first rescue attempt? We are in unexplored territory. The lessons and stimulus of the Great Depression of the 1930s may no longer apply. Obama needs to win the second round within a reasonable time to justify his policy. The kind of recovery achieved will be decisive.
Will the Obama recovery be in the shape of V, an immediate bounce off the low point to normality, or U, a delayed recovery, or the dreaded L, an extended recession/depression with no end in sight?

Obama's New Approach to Iran

2009-04-10T09:26:00.000-07:00

Obama's New Approach to Iran
By Jerome Grossman

The Obama administration will take part directly in international negotiations with Iran aimed at ending Teheran's nuclear program. It is the latest move in a shift in U. S. policy toward Iran, a very positive step toward direct engagement with Iran that President Obama promised during his campaign for president, a step that merits strong approval.

This expression of conciliation contrasts sharply with U.S. policy since 1979 and especially with the belligerence of the Bush administration, a belligerence that has not inhibited Iran but has alienated U.S. allies in Europe. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "There is nothing more important than trying to convince Iran to cease its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon". However, Iran has been suspected of developing the nuclear bomb for at least 20 years and has insisted that its centrifuges are enriching uranium only for peaceful use. As Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said at the United Nations in 2007: "The world does not need to prove to Iran that Iran is building an atomic bomb. Iran must persuade the world that it does not want the bomb." Yet, Mohammed El-Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency that monitors Iran's facilities, does not accuse Iran of bomb making capability.

The situation is complicated by widespread disapproval of Iranian human rights violations, its combination of religion and politics, as well as the insults directed at Israel, Jews and the West. The Iranians justify their conduct by reminding the world that the United States and its allies supported Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran, 1980-1988, that cost Iran a million lives. On April 3, the London Times printed an article headlined, "Only Obama can save Iran from Israeli bombs", citing the hawkish Netanyahu government in Israel. When Netanyahu travels to Washington next month, Iran is expected to dominate the conversations. Israel will not attack Iran without tacit approval from America - we hope. But time is running out. This could become Obama's biggest challenge as he assumes the mantle of keeper of the peace

President Obama deserves credit for putting the U.S. on the diplomatic track with Iran. He may have been influenced by the financial crisis in the U.S... As David Wessel put it in the Wall Street Journal on April 9, "For 15 years, the American people have been told they could have it all: costly wars, expansion of Medicare to cover drugs, health insurance for those without, more money for schools-and tax cuts for most of them. They deserve to be told that they can't have it all in the future."

Apparently, Obama has ruled out another costly war and will concentrate on the desperately needed domestic programs. Two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are two too many. Obama will avoid the third war, gaining his objectives by diplomacy and soft power.

Barack Obama's War

2009-04-07T08:43:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's War
By Jerome Grossman

President Obama seems to be serious about a major effort to conquer Afghanistan even if it requires military operations in Pakistan without the permission of that ally. Must every U.S. president pursue a war to mark his time in office? Is it the required role of a superpower to fight all over the world? Iraq War number two was George W. Bush's war. Iraq number one belonged to his father. Bill Clinton's war was in Bosnia and Serbia. Lyndon Johnson's presidency will be marked forever by Vietnam. Was America in danger in any one of these wars?

Obama tells us that his war will be a long-term effort lasting at least five years, to root Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden out of Afghanistan although both are now hiding in the wilderness of Pakistan. 38,000 US troops are now in Afghanistan. 17,000 more are on the way, 4000 additional will arrive to train Afghan troops, and General David Petraeus has requested 10,000 more for next year. Some military experts think that 250,000 soldiers plus an equal number of civilian contractors will be necessary to pacify Afghanistan, a country 50% larger than Iraq, with forbidding mountainous terrain where guerillas hide.

U. S. forces are regularly attacking the Taliban and other insurgent Pakistanis with unmanned drone airplanes and secret Special Forces on the ground. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 1 that the air raids have stoked anger among ordinary Pakistanis many of whom are ambivalent about the U.S. fight against Islamic militants but see the strikes as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

The Pakistan Taliban chief goes much further, threatening an attack on the U.S. homeland in retaliation. “Soon we will launch an attack on Washington that will amaze everyone in the world." The CIA takes such threats seriously, the “blowback" effect carried out by a weak enemy incapable of matching strength on the battlefield but impelled to retaliate against the hated invader, the defiling infidel.

The U. S. military and diplomats are finding it difficult to obtain the necessary cooperation of the Pakistani government and military against the Taliban. Despite heavy subsidies from the U.S. government, Pakistan’s Islamic leaders worry more about India, their historic Hindu enemies against whom they have fought three wars since 1948. Right now the two nations are actually fighting another undeclared war in Kashmir. Crushing the Taliban would weaken Pakistani forces in the event of another Indian war, dividing the people of Pakistan even more than they are now.

With Al Qaeda dispersed and Bin Laden in hiding, it is difficult to see the American purpose in invading this land of poverty and banditry, a land that has not been subdued by previous superpowers. Does Obama believe that he cannot afford not to conquer Afghanistan, that the political fallout in America from a military withdrawal might endanger his presidency? I hope not. Afghanistan is unimportant, certainly not worth the lives and the money, not even from an imperial viewpoint. The U. S. is already the only superpower, no economic or military power can compete. The only danger is over extension, the unnecessary expenditure of people and resources, a characteristic of a wasteful empire.

Obama's Strategy on Afghanistan

2009-03-29T19:19:00.000-07:00

Obama's Strategy on Afghanistan
By Jerome Grossman

It is difficult, even impossible, to accept President Obama’s “New strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan” as described by him in a formal speech on March 27. It fails by imperial and non-imperial standards.

First the imperial: Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, reports in his book Nemesis: “The Carter administration deliberately provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan….. In his 1996 memoir, former CIA Director Robert Gates acknowledges that the American intelligence services began to aid the anti-Soviet mujahideen guerillas not after the Russian invasion but six months before it…. President Carter's purpose was to provoke a full-scale Soviet military intervention……….. to tie…….down the USSR.” Will an expanded military effort in Afghanistan tie down the U.S. as it did the USSR?

Obama plans a U.S. military effort in Afghanistan lasting at least five years in a country 50% larger than Iraq in area and population. The NATO allied forces are token in size and commitment and rarely leave their base camps. A serious U.S. military effort will require at least 250,000 troops tied down in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Will America be unable to react to other challenges as they arise especially its obligations, to protect Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, to deter Iran from a nuclear program, to support Pakistan from collapse; etc..

The invasion of Iraq could be justified on imperial grounds because it is strategically situated in the heart of the largest concentration of oil in the world. Afghanistan has no comparable resource, one of the poorest countries, no industry, little farming, rugged terrain, a land of banditry and bribery.

The adventure fails from a non- imperial perspective. Obama says “That country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” None of the 19 people who perpetrated the September 11 criminal tragedy were Afghan or Taliban. Fifteen of them were Saudi. There are no Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan any longer. Osama bin Laden and what is left of his crew is in hiding somewhere in the wilderness of Pakistan. The Al Qaeda operation is scattered and disorganized. Yes, another 19 thugs could infiltrate the U.S. and kill Americans, but sending an army into Afghanistan is not going to prevent another such criminal act. In fact, the hyped war in Afghanistan is more likely to divert us from protecting ourselves against another September 11.

A.I.G. Bonuses - The Last Straw

2009-03-22T13:31:00.000-07:00

A.I.G. Bonuses - The Last Straw
By Jerome Grossman

The national explosion of anger over the bonuses awarded to financial officers at American International Group indicates that the tipping point has been reached in the accumulated resentments on American financial inequality.. For generations, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the income gap between the 95% of U.S. population lumped together as working class and middle class, and the 5% who earned $250,000 or more per year, has widened significantly. The 5% have more clout. They dominate U.S. politics, education, culture, taxation rules, charitable institutions, media, and business, acting as a kind of American nobility with benefits handed down from generation to generation.

Then comes a time when a relatively insignificant event captures the attention of the masses who begin to connect their anger at the current violation with the other half-remembered abuses. Then comes real change. Sometimes a popular leader emerges to dramatize the exploitation, like William Jennings Bryan, who galvanized the Democratic Party with “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold,” dramatizing the economic ills plaguing farmers and industrial workers. He won the Democratic nomination twice although not the presidency. But he won many of his reforms, backed by an aroused citizenry, were adopted, including the income tax, popular election of senators, woman suffrage, popular knowledge of newspaper ownership etc.

Today Americans are worried that the bailout was designed for the benefit of those who created the crisis. They suspect that America has been taken over by a small class of connected insiders who use money to control elections, buy influence, systematically weaken financial regulation and get government money to bail them out when they get into trouble.

The A.I.G. bonuses remind the 95% of:

• The bailouts of the banks and bankers from their own mistakes
• The failure to bail-out the average citizen from unfair mortgages and job layoffs
• The bankers who gambled with depositor money at enormous risk to build bonuses for themselves
• The low tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans on the top portion of their earnings now at 35%, once 91% under Eisenhower, 70% under Nixon, 50% under Reagan. What happened to the progressive tax based on ability to pay?

• The special tax rate for capital gains of 20% used by the wealthiest Americans

• The special tax breaks given to insiders as earmarks

• Some business executives maintain control by appointing their friends to boards of directors

• Some business executives vote themselves enormous salaries

• Some business executives vote themselves stock options, some of which are back-dated to take advantage of stock price increases

• Some business executives vote themselves enormous retirement packages not based on performance

• Some business executives discharge workers and speed up the rest of the work force to increase short term profits and stock prices

• Some business executives maintain headquarters outside the U.S.A. and shift corporate income from country to country to avoid taxes

Will the anger about A.I.G. bonuses subside? Or will an organization of citizens spring up to fight for their interests? Will another William Jennings Bryan denounce the current abuses and agitate for fairer wages and fairer division of the profits of our technological society? Will the current anger dissipate into the day-to-day problems of an economy in decline? Will the A.I.G. bonuses be the last straw?

Better to Bribe Than to Kill

2009-03-17T18:45:00.000-07:00

Better to Bribe Than to Kill
By Jerome Grossman

There are four power centers in the Obama foreign-policy establishment, each led by heavyweights with close relationships to the president: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser James Jones, and Vice President Joseph Biden. Gates and Jones have strong military backgrounds; Clinton and Biden come from political and civilian experience. Which one will have the president's ear?

Obama has a big decision to make on Afghanistan where U.S. forces have been fighting for almost eight years and where the president says we are not winning. About 35,000 US troops are in action there alongside the same number of soldiers from NATO allies. Obama has commissioned the development of a plan for Afghanistan due in April, but he is sending 17,000 more troops before the plan is ready, surely a sign that military matters are not going well in the allied effort.

Loquacious Biden has preempted the discussion. On March 10 he said that 70% of the Taliban are essentially mercenaries who possibly could be negotiated with instead of fought and said that the U.S.likely will try this approach." Five percent of the Taliban is incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another twenty-five percent or so are not quite sure, in my view, of the intensity of their commitment to the insurgency........ And roughly 70% are involved because of the money, because of them being......paid.” Notice that Biden ignores Afghan nationalism and the universal resentment against foreign invasion, expressed repeatedly over the centuries, most recently by armed resistance against the Soviet Union and the British Empire.

Biden is suggesting a strategy based on U.S. experience with the Sunnis in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan immediately after the September 11 tragedy, it defeated the Taliban with air power and dollars, with few soldiers. U.S. forces learned that the opposing forces could be defeated with cash, or at least sent back to their villages with the help of bribed local warlords.

General David Petraeus repeated this teqnique in the Anbar province of Iraq, where he was able to buy the cooperation of the local sheiks and then put 100,000 Sunni insurgent warriors on the U.S. payroll where they remain to this day. That was and is the prime reason for the sudden decline in insurgency in Iraq. Petraeus also threw into the deal guns for the vacationing warriors, who decided to wait for the U.S. to leave before using those guns against their Shia rivals.

There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere in Pakistan. The Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed. Poor, primitive Afghanistan is a nation of brigands with a corrupt central government to match. If we can end the war by purchase, so much the better. Better to bribe than to kill.

Too Big to Fail

2009-03-11T18:30:00.000-07:00

Too Big to Fail
By Jerome Grossman

At least twenty oversized American banks have histories of reckless behavior, including bad lending and gambling with derivatives, that have left them insolvent, in fact, bankrupt. They have poisoned the economy and should pay the price for their mistakes just like every other business.

However, because their machinations affect so many investors, depositors and other businesses, they have been given a pass, saved by massive injection of federal government funds. By basic capitalist standards, this is a gross violation of business integrity, weakening the structure of our economic system. The violated principle is summarized as “Too big to fail.” One Nobel Prize winning economist called it “looting”.

The managers of such institutions knew how to take advantage of their special status. They took excessive risk for mountainous profits that would entitle them to massive bonuses if successful - or a government bailout if the investment failed. The techniques were often complicated; but some were based on inadequate reserves that purposely underestimated the financial exposure. The managers were in financial clover: heads I win, tails you lose, “Too big to fail.”

In the current crisis, the government is rescuing the managers once again, lending $700 billion as bailout money. That amount, leveraged on an accepted basis of ten to one, could have supported $7 trillion of lending capacity in a new or reorganized bank, more than enough to serve the nation's business. We didn’t go that route; they are “Too big to fail.” President Obama has given primary responsibility for the financial crisis to Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, and Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury. The president can do better than these two conventional figures stuck in the past.

There may be an uncomfortable analogy in the position of the United States in world affairs: “Too big to fail.” Decade after decade we overspend on military equipment, organize the largest military budget the world has ever seen, enter failed military quagmires in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we get token troop support from nations around the world even though their populations disapprove of our military invasions. A remarkable 737 American military bases with hundreds of thousands of American troops are situated in 130 countries, a worldwide presence that protects the governing elites on virtually every continent. Is the U.S.A. “Too big to fail” because its collapse would upset the political and military status quo all over the world?

Where does the U.S. get the money to finance its domestic and foreign errors? In large part from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the other countries that buy U.S. Treasury bonds in the hope that they will be redeemable despite our enormous national debt of $10,942,165,294,650.89 or roughly eleven (11) trillion dollars. China's economy depends on the sales of goods to the U.S. The Saudis have big investments in the U.S. and depend on U.S. military power to protect them from their own people and keep the oil flowing. The Japanese are inheriting our automobile business

In spite of their mistakes, the banks and the U.S. maintain their prime positions in the world because they are “Too big to fail.” How long can it last? Their gross errors of management are too expensive, depressing profits and living standards by forcing greatly increased costs on the entire world. Adam Smith, the patron saint of capitalism, would tell the nation and the world that these arrangements are too inefficient and unstable to be continued indefinitely.

U.S. Out of Iraq - NOW

2009-02-25T18:11:00.000-08:00

U.S. Out of Iraq - NOW
By Jerome Grossman

Barack Obama captured the soul of the Democratic Party when he denounced the American invasion of Iraq as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. His election to the presidency proved that the voters trusted him to end the war as he promised.

While Americans are grateful that this six year old war will soon be over, they wonder at the delay in pulling our troops from Iraq. More than 4000 Americans have been killed; more than 30,000 have been wounded in this war generally regarded as a mistake. Our military leaders say that we should leave "responsibly." What does that mean? Responsible to whom? To the Iraqis, whose public wants us to leave at once? To the corrupt Iraqi government whose leaders want us to stay as long as we supply the dollars?

Our first responsibility is to the men and women of the U. S. military. No more deaths. No more wounds. How would you like to be the last soldier to die for a mistake?

Obama promised a pullout within 16 months. Now, his senior officials tell the New York Times that will be extended to 19 months. How many Americans will be killed or wounded in those three months? Why? To protect the military equipment? Leave it there for the Iraqis. When we invaded, our operation against a shooting enemy took one month. Getting out should take the same one month.

If we are serious

President Obama plans to leave behind a "residual force" to continue training Iraqis, to hunt down foreign terrorist cells, to guard the American Embassy and other American installations. That doesn't sound like much of a withdrawal. The residual tasks are what we have been doing for six years. Right now, there are about 142,000 American military in Iraq and a like number of civilian contractors working for us. The duties of the residual force indicate that at least 100,000 Americans would remain in Iraq in addition to a sizeable number of contractors to help them. Not the pullout we expected. And if the fragile truce between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds disintegrates, U.S. forces are likely to stay in Iraq.

The U.S. now has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries. The Middle East contains 60% of the oil on earth. The U.S. has commercial, political, financial and cultural interests in every country in the area, some of the interests valued in the trillions of dollars. Will Iraq become the 131st country? Will the residual force become the U.S. military base? Removing all U.S. troops from Iraq – NOW – may reverse our reliance on military power, restore our international reputation and encourage the use of “soft power” in pursuit of American interests.

The Afghan Cemetery

2009-02-24T12:49:00.000-08:00

The Afghan Cemetery
By Jerome Grossman

President Obama indicated through his press secretary that his administration would review its policy toward Afghanistan before making a decision about sending additional troops to fight in that country. Richard Holbrooke, his envoy, was in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region talking with leaders about how best to address the military and political situation. Obama also met with advisers at the Pentagon and the State Department.

As recently as February 15, it was reported that Obama “is refusing to be rushed into his first decision to send troops into combat…… questioning the time table, the mission and even the composition of the new forces.” However, Obama changed his mind on February 17, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country, joining the 30,000 U.S. troops already there.

Obama will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. His order leaves crucial questions of strategy and tactics in Afghanistan unanswered until the strategy review is completed in April. Antiwar groups criticized Obama’s decision. Tom Andrews, director of Win Without War said, “The president is committing these troops before he's determined what the mission is….. We need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation.”

The hasty decision ignored the many negative comments about the prospects for a U.S. victory. General David Petraeus has called Afghanistan “the graveyard of empires”. Holbrooke reported “a purely military victory is not achievable.” British historians furnish the details of their three failed military attempts to pacify the country. Twenty years after the troops of the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in defeat, the last Russian general to command them said on Feb 13 that the Soviets’ devastating experience, losing more than 15,000 troops in Afghanistan battling guerrillas “is a dismal omen for the U.S.”

Supporters of expanded U.S. military operations in Afghanistan cite the successes of the American military against the Taliban in October and November, 2001, immediately after the tragedy of September 11. However, that victory was accomplished by air power and bribery. Airpower prevented Taliban military operations. Hundred dollar bills bought warlord allies in this corrupt country whose main product is opium.

Can we do it again, bribing our way through the drug lords? Perhaps. But history shows that Afghans don't stay bought and that the guerrillas motivated by rebellion and nationalism will fight the invaders for hundreds of years, making a bandit's living out of their tactics as they have done for time immemorial.

Don’t think that General Petraeus does not know how to use money as a weapon. While he was installing the “Surge” in Iraq adding 30,000 fresh troops with great fanfare, he was quietly bribing the insurgent Sunnis with $20 dollar bills and rifles, paying 100,000 warriors to stop fighting the Americans.

Obama on Civil Liberties

2009-02-19T06:59:00.000-08:00

Obama on Civil Liberties
By Jerome Grossman

In January I was watching the Senate confirmation hearing of President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta. How did we ever keep informed before C-SPAN?

As a passionate civil libertarian, I was so proud of Panetta as he denounced torture without any reservations stating that the CIA would follow the rules of the U.S. Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Then he said that the U.S. would no longer engage in rendition, the secret shuttling of detainees and prisoners to foreign nations who torture.

I was so happy that I had voted for Obama and had sent him a fat check. And Panetta became my hero, boldly changing the positions of the Bush administration and the secret activities of the CIA.

A couple of days later, quite by accident, I caught Panetta on C-SPAN again, before the same Senate committee, a surprise because the first hearing seemed to have covered all the questions. A senator asked Panetta a leading question on torture: “What would you do if you knew that a bomb, maybe nuclear, was about to be exploded and your prisoner knew when and where?” Panetta replied that he would ask for “additional authority”, that is, to torture in exceptional circumstances.

Panetta's position has moral and operational flaws. How can he be sure that the intelligence about a bomb is accurate? How does he know that the prisoner has the information sought and even if he does that he will tell the truth? If the exception is built into the system, won't it be used more and more to justify torture, to break down a prisoner by claiming the most extreme danger whether or not it is present?

Then another senator asked Panetta to expand his views on rendition. He replied,” I'm glad you asked”, and proceeded to modify his initial statements: The CIA might continue its “extraordinary rendition”, transferring prisoners to third countries even those known to torturer, relying on their assurances of humane treatment. Just what the Bush administration claimed for eight years while the contracting countries routinely tortured. The senator may have asked: Why send prisoners or detainees abroad at great expense for mere interrogation? Wouldn't that jeopardize later judicial prosecutions? How can the interrogators’ actions be controlled from another faraway continent? Is it a good idea to farm out aspects of our legal system?

The Obama administration has decided “not to change the status quo immediately” on these issues according to Gregory Craig, the White House Counsel. Civil libertarians ought to take notice and express their disappointment about these matters as well as the continuation of electronic eavesdropping of phone calls without a warrant.

It was clear that the White House was having second thoughts about the very important changes in civil liberties described as Obama policy by Panetta in his first appearance. That is unfortunate and unwise. In the election, the American people repudiated the way the Bush administration operated. There needs to be a dramatic change of direction, especially on civil liberties, and without hesitation. That is the prime reason why Barack Obama was elected president.

Ted Kennedy: His First Election

2009-02-16T17:55:00.000-08:00

Ted Kennedy: His First Election

By Jerome Grossman
An interesting sidebar to Ted Kennedy's inspiring political history harks back to his first run for the Senate in 1962. It was, as some labeled it, a "battle of the clans": Opposing Kennedy in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary was Edward McCormack, nephew of House Speaker John McCormack; Kennedy's Republican opponent was Yankee scion George Cabot Lodge; and on the left was Independent peace candidate Harvard Prof. H. Stuart Hughes, chair of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and grandson of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.

I was Campaign Manager and Chester Hartman was the organizer of the massive signature drive required to place Hughes on the ballot. Hughes needed 72,000 signatures, a purposely prohibitive number in that era of McCarthyism and nobody in fact had tried to reach it since the law had first been passed.

In this talented field, Hughes polled 50,013 votes, 2.3% of the votes cast. However, we collected a startling 149,000 signatures in ten weeks for a "peace candidate." The Cuban Missile Crisis arrived in October just before the election. With the integrity that was his hallmark, Hughes went against the popular hysteria: he accused President Kennedy of acting over hastily in imposing the blockade of Cuba, of bypassing the United Nations, and unnecessarily stirring up an atmosphere of national emergency. His position cost Hughes thousands of votes.

In the process we built a town-by-town organization all over the state, a structure that remains in place today. A clear result has been the election over recent decades of so many progressive voices to the state's first-rate Congressional delegation, including Michael Harrington, Father Robert Drinan, Gerry Studds, Jim McGovern, Barney Frank, Ed Markey, John Tierney, Michael Capuano and John Kerry.
The Hughes campaign built the strongest statewide peace movement in the country, a movement that changed the face and reputation of Massachusetts politics.

Castro Wants U.S. Out of Guantánamo

2009-02-08T07:38:00.000-08:00

Castro Wants U.S. Out of Guantánamo
By Jerome Grossman

President Barack Obama has earned justified praise all over the world for announcing that he will close the United States prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba within a year. This military colony has incarcerated hundreds of people seized in the U.S. - Afghan war of 2001-02 and the Iraq war that began in 2003. Because Guantánamo is outside the United States, the U.S. has argued that these so-called "unlawful combatants" are not subject to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners. They have not been tried and some have been tortured.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro praised Obama after his election as "honest" and "noble" but on January 29 he demanded that Obama return Guantánamo to Cuba "without conditions". Castro said, “Maintaining a military base in Cuba against the will of the people violates the most elemental principles of international law..... Not respecting Cuba's will is an arrogant act and an abuse of immense power against a little country.”

The United States does maintain an important naval station at Guantánamo Bay covering 28,000 acres. The site was leased to the U.S. in 1903 by a treaty that was renewed in 1934. Since 1960, the Castro government has refused to accept the token annual rent of $5,000 from the U.S. and has repeatedly pressured for the return of the base.

The U.S. helped the people of Cuba liberate themselves from the Spanish overlords in 1898. While they had the power to do so, the U.S. did not directly annex Cuba only because of its pretensions to being an anti-imperialist nation, an important political issue at that time. However, Cuba was forced to grant the U.S. special privileges to intervene in Cuban affairs at any time which we did in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920 by landing our Marines. The revolution led by Castro ended that arrangement.
The U.S. has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries, arrangements entered into willingly by the nations concerned. When a country asks us to leave, that request is within their right under international law. To ignore such a demand would call into question U.S. motives and raise the spectre that the bases were forced upon “little countries” by military or economic pressures. The only superpower has a basic interest in maintaining international law and could enhance its position as world hegemon by giving up Guantánamo Bay as the host country requests.

Because no superpower, ancient or modern, has ever surrendered its military and economic preeminence voluntarily, it would be unrealistic to ask the U.S. to do so. But there are ways of leading, even dominating, that lessen the resentment of those led. One method is the use of "soft power" to promote education, health care, infrastructure, etc instead of spending money and manpower on military bases that flaunt superpower occupation and offend local nationalist sentiment.

The Old Razzle Dazzle

2009-01-31T20:22:00.000-08:00

The Old Razzle Dazzle
By Jerome Grossman

If President Barack Obama rescues America, and indeed the entire world, from the ravages of recession/depression, the gratitude of the populace will be boundless. His party will sweep the congressional elections of 2010; his reelection in 2012 will be by acclamation.

If Obama's stimulus plan fails and the economy sinks into depression, he will bear the blame, and he and his party will be swept from power. Obama says the stimulus “serves two functions-creating jobs and stimulating the economy in the short term and laying the groundwork for overhauls in energy, health care and infrastructure that would be felt for decades.”

But some Democrats say that his package could end up missing both targets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the stimulus bill "could prove less than the quick jolt that President Obama is seeking," because of necessary delays in spending on longer projects.

To protect his political flank in 20i0 and 2012, Obama has catered to the policies of the Republicans, so that 40% of the entire package is composed of tax cuts. Vice President Joe Biden said "That's not what the Democrats wanted." But they accepted the Republican tax proposals to get their support and votes for the package. Then, in case of failure, Republicans could not attack politically in 2010 and 2012 because the bill included their own tax cut wish list.

However, after receiving the tax concessions, the GOP failed to deliver their votes. From being dispirited after losing the White House and the Congress, they now have a strategy: to blame Obama if the economy fails to rally, to blame Obama for the waste of trillions, to blame Obama for the anticipated inflation.

Today, Obama is in a very strong position. Virtually the entire country wants him to succeed. Guarding against possible failure, he wanted both parties on the same hook, the stimulus bill. In remarkable and unprecedented gestures of bipartisanship, he praised Ronald Reagan, met with GOP officials, dined with conservative pundits, solicited their advice and ideas, appointed Republicans to his Cabinet and policymaking positions, to name only a few outreaches. Obama made all those compromises for nothing.

So far, Obama has failed to achieve the desired cooperation or the bipartisan cover for his stimulus bill. The Republicans now have a political strategy for future elections. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on Obama’s future failure and the continuation of our economic troubles. Let us hope they are wrong in their use of the old razzle dazzle style of politics.

A Stimulus Project That Works

2009-01-25T06:56:00.000-08:00

A Stimulus Project That Works
By Jerome Grossman

President Obama is pressing for a quick jolt to the economy to make up for the dramatic decline in public consumption that has left our business system gasping. The dream of endless consumption of goods and services has no limits as our species chews up the planet in the race between endless population growth and the finite resources of Mother Earth.

In the current economic crisis, we are all Keynesians, followers of John Maynard Keynes, who believed that a program of government spending on public works would increase national purchasing power and promote employment. The latest proposal considered by Congress calls for spending $825 billion, including $550 billion "For spending on infrastructure, science, energy and education programs over two years” and $275 billion "For tax cuts for individuals and businesses."

That bill will not give Obama his quick jolt. In total dollars it is inadequate: The stimulus needs to be $1 trillion for each of the next two years. From past experience in the US and Japan much if not most of the income generated will be put into bank accounts or used to pay debts. The proposed spending on infrastructure et al takes time to organize and is subject to delays, sometimes as long as two years. The tax credits to business are unlikely to stimulate investment and employment, which depend on an increased flow of sales.

Furthermore, the Congress program is too complicated, trying to correct social deficiencies when the problem is how to stimulate a quick jolt to restore purchasing power to give business the incentive to hire workers and invest in equipment. First things first.

Here is a simple plan to accomplish the objectives immediately and effectively without a new bureaucracy. For numerical simplicity, assume that there are one hundred million families in our nation of 300 million people. Mail to each family a numbered coupon giving ten thousand dollars for the purchase of goods and services only, a total of one trillion dollars. The coupon must be used within 60 days, and then sent to the U.S. Treasury by the vendors within 60 days. Repeat: only for goods and services, not for deposit in banks, not for payment of debts. Every family would participate in the plan, would understand it, and would benefit.The coupon would be worthless if not spent within 60 days, encouraging immediate spending.

This program gives the economy an immediate jolt of $1 trillion. The operating cost is minimal. No delay to set up a bureaucracy. The U.S. Treasury and Census Bureau have all the names and addresses. Repeat the $1 trillion project in 2011 to encourage business by promising the continuance of the purchasing power.

We are all Keynesians now, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Let’s use a Keynesian formula and objective in its purest form. Will it cost too much? Professor Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and chief economic advisor to President Reagan said, “Without that rise in government spending the economic downturn would be deeper and longer.” The production lost in a deeper and longer recession would amount to at least $5 trillion. The Keynesian formula will pay for itself.

Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table

2009-01-18T15:34:00.000-08:00

Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
By Jerome Grossman

On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.

While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”

Clinton's “last resort” became clear when she discussed relations with Iran saying “We are not taking any option off the table at all.” That is breathtaking and frightening. For more than a year, the US has been openly threatening to bomb Iran and one of the options is the use of nuclear weapons. “All options are on the table”, said President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and most of the candidates in the 2008 presidential race.

Such threats are irresponsible and dangerous. Eight other countries have nuclear weapons and they all have real or perceived potential enemies. The weapons are on hair trigger alert as the controlling military scan potential enemies for indications of a possible nuclear strike. Threats, direct or indirect, as in “all weapons are on the table”, set up unstable situations that might lead to their use through error or faulty intelligence. Take them off the table.

All nations should publicly pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons-or threaten to use them. United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4, states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” When the US Congress ratified the Charter and the President signed it, the Charter became United States law. Any threat violates American law.

President Obama: tell your appointees to stop saying “All options are on the table.” The world knows this threatens the use of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction that would unleash a hell on earth that might destroy civilization. Please stop it now: Yes. you can

The Rockets From Gaza

2009-01-14T17:32:00.001-08:00

The Rockets From Gaza

By Jerome Grossman

There are valid fears in Israel, in the rest of the Middle East, and in Western Europe that Iran could develop nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons in the possession of any nation constitute an existential threat to all humanity. Nine nations possess nuclear weapons: The United States, United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan…..and Israel. Israel neither confirms nor denies possession, has never tested, but is believed to have between 100 and 200 nukes

However, there is a more immediate nuclear danger to Israel and the entire region: the possibility that the enemies of Israel could use non-nuclear rockets to bomb Israel's plutonium-production reactor at Dimona. The City of Dimona is situated in the Negev Desert and is the seat of Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. This danger is highlighted by the hundreds of rockets now being fired at targets in Israel from Gaza, some fired by Hamas, some fired by others in Gaza in homemade style.

Israel's fears are justified by recent history. As reported by the Arms Control Association, in 1980 Iranian aircraft attempted to destroy Iraq's Osirak reactor, in 1981 Israel finished the job; in the 1980s Iraqi aircraft attacked Iran's reactors; in 1991 the US bombed an Iraqi reactor; in 1991 Iraq launched SCUD-B rockets toward Dimona but missed.

In no case did these raids on nuclear facilities cause radiological consequences. The outcome of a successful strike on Israel's reactor at the Dimona could be catastrophic, releasing the radioactive contents of the plant causing radiological damage to all life in the area.

Should Israel close Dimona, a place of symbolic significance as well as one of the nation's most valued assets, in order to avoid the radiological consequences of a military strike on Israel's plutonium-production reactor? Or should Israel rely on its capability to retaliate against an attacker if that attacker is a nation-state? But what if the attacker is an individual or small group acting on their own?

Multiple factors may drive Israel's adversaries to hit the plant: it's centrality to Israel's nuclear weapons program, revenge for Israel's strikes on neighboring states, and most dangerously, an attack to intentionally release radioactivity as a weapon of terrorism.

Buried in the protective mantle of secrecy, Israel must have already made its decision. Let us hope it is the correct one. The problem is another illustration of the greatest dilemma of our time: How to bring nuclear weapons programs under control and then to eliminate them entirely.

Leon Panetta and the CIA

2009-01-08T10:37:00.000-08:00

Leon Panetta and the CIA

By Jerome Grossman

President-elect Obama stunned the national intelligence community by selecting Leon Panetta to serve as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta has been a US Representative, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Chief of Staff in the Clinton administration.

While Panetta is a longtime Washington insider with serious management experience, he is not an expert on intelligence or on past operations of the CIA. Obama has been criticized by CIA specialists and high ranking senators for appointing a director without direct experience in the field.

But that is exactly why Panetta was appointed. Obama has criticized the agency for using harsh interrogation methods and has openly objected to the use of such methods, some of which have been used for generations under Democratic as well as Republican administrations. Obama had to find a director who was absolutely clean on waterboarding, other tortures, secret renditions of prisoners to other countries for torture, kidnappings, assassinations, etc.. The only safe appointment was a manager who had never been in the CIA, who did not have the experience of breaking US law and violating the Geneva Conventions on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Clinton administration made extensive use of rendering suspects to Egypt without formal charges to be tortured. Was Panetta involved? Will the question be asked at his confirmation hearing?

Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia immediately complained about the appointment citing lack of experience and Obama's failure to notify them in advance. However, their position is weakened by their failure to use their influence as powerful members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to expose the hideous practices and to arouse the nation of the crimes committed in the name of the United States.

It will not be easy for Panetta to reform the CIA and to change established patterns of conduct. Who becomes second in command of operations will supply a clue about the chance of success in changing the culture of the agency. The action levels are often hidden from the view of the Director at the helm. Obama is trying, and so will Panetta. The illegal procedures must be eliminated. They offend other nations, tarnish US reputation, and produce incorrect information. Modern intelligence techniques avoid torture and violence, rely on psychological approaches and obtain more accurate information faster without alienating the rest of humanity.

Pastor Warren at the Inauguration

2009-01-03T08:20:00.000-08:00

Pastor Warren at the Inauguration
By Jerome Grossman

On January 20, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States of America. Surprisingly, Obama has invited conservative evangelical Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the religious invocation to the two million people attending the ceremony in Washington, the 300 million Americans watching on television, and the billions around the world watching and listening as power changes hands in the world's unchallenged superpower.

Important political and social groups in the coalition that won the election for Obama are deeply disappointed at the choice of Warren. The pastor is a key figure in the opposition to gay rights, gay marriage and a woman's right to choose abortion. His rhetoric is exceptionally harsh, comparing gay marriage to “An older guy marrying a child" and to "One guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage", as well as comparing gays to pedophiles.

Gays and lesbians and supporters of abortion rights contributed mightily to Obama's campaign and gave him almost all their votes. Other enthusiastic supporters, civil libertarians and believers in the constitutional separation of church and state are stunned by the Warren invitation, that this man will address the world on behalf of Obama and the United States.

But they shouldn't be: they haven't been paying attention. During the campaign, in his march from liberal to the right, Obama vowed to expand President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative. In July, 2008, Obama proposed "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" that would include $500 million a year to faith-based service programs across the country. The plan would expand Bush’s programs that have been widely criticized for violating traditional separation of church and state by subsidizing religious institutions.

The Bush program also faced accusations of favoritism, especially toward evangelical groups. By appointing Warren, Obama is sending a message to those groups: the money will continue to flow, not only to the evangelicals but also to the African-American churches, not particularly rewarded in the Bush administration. As Obama subsidizes all religious institutions, the black churches will have the opportunity to catch up for past neglect. Honoring Warren is one way to begin the process. It won't be exactly a bailout, but it puts all the God-fearing on the gravy train. Let the strict constitutionalists worry.

On July 2, 2008, the Wall Street Journal printed an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term" arguing that Obama was embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy supporting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, backing off from immediate and complete US military withdrawal from Iraq, modifying his position on NAFTA, supporting the death penalty for rape, spending more money on faith-based charities, supporting the landmark controversial 1996 welfare reform etc. The Journal was obviously trying to diminish Obama but the honor to Warren gives their analysis some credibility.

However, calling Obama’s reign the equivalent of Bush's Third Term is too great a stretch, carrying the political analysis too far and insulting to the new president. There never was a president as inept as George W. Bush, who set records for incompetence and lack of understanding. Obama may fail to satisfy his basic constituency on some issues but he will know what he's doing at all times.

Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

2008-12-28T07:40:00.000-08:00

Eliminating Nuclear Weapons
By Jerome Grossman

In August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, bringing death to 300,000 human beings, creating pain and endless suffering in the lives of countless others. Now nine countries have nuclear bombs; many more have the capacity to make them.

Today, there are, in combat readiness, enough bombs to kill the world population many times over….. And there is no defense. Nuclear war could happen any day - by accident, by design, by miscalculation, by terrorism, by madness. The weapons are still on hair-trigger alert, in this country and abroad.

The current review conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty proved that two groups of nations are in collision. The possessors of nuclear weapons want to stop the proliferators and proliferators demand that the nuclear powers reduce and eventually get rid of their own nuclear arsenals in accordance with their treaty commitments.

The United States needs to re-examine its policies that envision an active role for nuclear weapons in future wars and building a new generation of nuclear weapons. The American case against the nuclear weapons plans of Iran and North Korea would be greatly strengthened if the United States were to cut drastically its own stockpiles of nuclear weapons, abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons and approve the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

What happens in nuclear war?

1. Blast - creates enormous pressure, topples buildings and trees. Kills people by shock wave over pressure and wind, by flying debris, by throwing people against fixed objects and by crushing them in collapsing buildings.

2. Fireball - temperatures up to millions of degrees ignite raging fires and kill by flash-burn. People can be burned at great distances. Causes blindness

3. Prompt radiation - kills people close to the explosion by large dose. Smaller doses can cause acute delayed radiation sickness and possibly death. Affects future generations genetically.

4. Fallout radiation - spreads out to large distances, sometimes killing people hundreds of miles from explosion. Causes leukemia and other forms of cancer everywhere on Earth for decades. Increase incidences of stillbirth, tumors, congenital malformations and cataracts.

5. Environment - pollutes water, earth and air. Destroys forests and agriculture by heat and blast. Death by radiation of animals and birds, while radiation resistant bacteria, fungi, viruses and insects flourish.

6. Social disorganization – disruption of medical facilities and energy production, breakdown of government, authority and disaster relief, spreading of disease and epidemics. Fighting for scarce food supplies, despair at the enormous task of reconstruction - with the possibility of another nuclear war in the offing.

On the December 21, on the Fox Television News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace, Vice President Richard Cheney, made the following stunning statement:

"The president of United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

Is Bipartisanship Good for Democracy?

2008-12-21T07:57:00.000-08:00

Is Bipartisanship Good for Democracy?
By Jerome Grossman

In the aftermath of the harsh and bruising 2008 election, there are calls for "bipartisanship". Literally the word means, "Having members from, or representing two parties". However, current political usage implies an era of good feeling during which opposing parties cooperate for the common good.

Is such a coalition approach to government healthy for democracy? Will the submerging of differences lead to the greatest good for the greatest number? Does it bring us closer to one-party rule?

If the Democratic and Republican parties were to place top value on agreement, that would be a recipe for maintaining the status quo, for the easiest course would be to accept current conditions. Change would be difficult. But our democratic system calls for political competition in the same way that our free market capitalist system requires that choices be available to the consumer. There should be more than one product available and then let the market decide.

In politics, different constituencies have different needs and objectives. The function of the parties is to represent them. The four pillars of the Democratic Party are organized labor, African-Americans, women and ethnic minorities. The four pillars of the Republican Party are the religious right, the anti-abortionists, white men, and higher income people. The parties have an obligation to represent and work for the interests of their pillars, otherwise they will have no function and eventually, no pillars.

In our free market system, the rest of the country acts as the consumer, making the decision according to the way they see their own interests affected. Compromise among the competitors is not excluded but ought to be a last resort so as not to blur differences. As the French have told us in another connection, “Vive Le Difference.”

Bipartisanship may have a reassuring and pleasant ring but it is more likely to limit than to enhance democracy. Our goal should be civility and respect for the opposition, but above all, authentic competition.

Next Up: A Battle over Unionization

2008-12-15T12:34:00.000-08:00

Next Up: A Battle over Unionization
By Jerome Grossman

In recent decades the number of U. S. workers in unions has declined dramatically from a peak of more than 35% to below 10%. Some of the factors in the decline have been the weakness of industry and manufacturing in America, the lengthy political dominance (now ended) of the anti-union Republican Party, the rulings of the National Labor Relations Board and the sophisticated anti-union tactics that some employers have used to sway or intimidate workers before the first union election.

The unions believe that a bargaining unit should be formed as soon as a majority of workers sign authorization cards. The employers now have the right to call for a subsequent secret ballot vote on unionization. This dual process often results in lengthy delays, angry relationships, employer pressures and legal expense more easily borne by the employer.

For years the labor movement has been trying to pass a law, The Employee Free Choice Act, to take employers out of the decision of the workers to organize themselves by recognizing card check elections as decisive.

The unions base their argument on the National Labor Relations Act, signed in 1935 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which made unionization the national policy, "To protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices......"

Last year, the House of Representatives passed 241 to 185 a bill requiring employers to recognize unions organized by card check. In the Senate, the bill passed 51 to 48 on a party-lined vote but failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to prevent filibuster.

Prospects for passage will be better in 2009. The Democrats will have at least 57 senators, perhaps 58, some GOP senators from heavily unionized states are up for reelection, and the legislation is supported by President-elect Obama, and Vice President-elect Biden.

The unions are already calling the legislation "An economic stimulus package for America's working families." The employers will cite the cost to business in a recession and the sanctity of the secret ballot. The general public may wish to support an increase in share for US workers in the declining American pie, a share that has gone down dramatically since the 1970s.

Presidents Promises

2008-12-08T15:01:00.000-08:00

Presidents Promises
By Jerome Grossman

Richard Holbrooke, US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1999 to 2001, and a likely member of the Obama administration, wrote in Foreign Affairs (October 2008) that “It is a well-established historical fact that what candidates say about foreign policy is not always an exact guide to what they will do if elected.”

Franklin Roosevelt promised in 1940 to not send “your boys.........into any foreign wars."

Lyndon Johnson stated in 1964 that he would not send ground troops to Vietnam.

Richard Nixon referred in 1968 to a non-existent "secret plan to get out of Vietnam.”

Jimmy Carter pledged in 1976 to withdraw all US ground troops from South Korea.

Ronald Reagan pledged in 1982 to upgrade US relations with Taiwan to "official" status.

Bill Clinton promised in 1992 to take a strong stand on Bosnia and stand up to the "Butchers of Beijing."

George W. Bush called in 2000 for a "more humble" foreign policy and no more "nation building."

Some candidates believe in their campaign pledges. Others adopt them to win over constituencies. Some change positions upon reaching the White House because the situation has changed. A responsible supporter of a president must make the determination of motive and act accordingly, above all avoiding blind support.

Can Obama Do Change?

2008-12-03T16:53:00.000-08:00

Can Obama Do Change?
By Jerome Grossman

Immediately after his election, President-elect Barack Obama was properly deferential to George W. Bush and the U. S. Constitution: "We have only one president at a time." However, it has not worked out that way. Obama has dominated the news every day, with multiple press conferences announcing his teams of advisors and Cabinet appointments while answering questions on foreign and domestic policies. At the same time he makes personal appearances (60 minutes, Meet the Press, etc.) designed to establish close relationships with the citizens.

Clearly, the US has two presidents in effect. As Bush recedes in public consciousness, the outgoing president seems baffled by the Obama phenomenon. Plaintively, he told Charlie Gibson on ABC television that he ran for president in 2000 on a program for change and before that had been elected governor of Texas promising change. Then he giggled.

Some Obama supporters are questioning his appointments drawn from the pool of establishment figures who had worked in high positions in the Clinton and Bush administrations. They worry whether such people can deliver the change promised by Obama in his presidential campaign. There are also complaints that significant sectors of the electorate are unrepresented, particularly labor, liberals and anti-Iraq war activists. Obama supporters also worry that he will not receive a full range of options from teams of centrist advisors. While his appointment of Republicans will give the president the views of the right, it is not matched by views from the left. And this is a Democratic president.

When asked to respond to this situation, Obama says that he is the changer, the idea man, that his appointees were the best qualified to carry out his changes. However, as brilliant as he is, Obama is unlikely to know the full range of options and possibilities and history to change the way the government works in foreign and domestic policies. No one could.

With nostalgia, Obama supporters remember the glory days of the campaign when their candidate led the enormous crowds chanting "We are the people we have been waiting for", emphasizing repeatedly the mantra that change will bubble up from the people. They remember the repeated calls for “Change we can believe in “, and the denunciation of lobbyists: “When I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House “.

These questions have not affected Obama's popularity, now at new heights. Most Americans along with most of the rest of the world are overjoyed that the failed Bush presidency is almost over and that America has repudiated its racist past by electing an African-American as president. Love is in the air but after the honeymoon, Obama will have to deliver.

Where is the Change?

2008-11-27T10:02:00.000-08:00

Where is the Change?
By Jerome Grossman

Is it too early to criticize Barack Obama for his program, his appointments, and his policies? He is not yet president but he is dominating the news and influencing markets and foreign-policy as though he had already been inaugurated. At the same time, he tells us that we have only one president at a time and that president is George W. Bush.

Personnel indicates policy, often determines policy, and Obama's appointments are from the establishment on both domestic and foreign affairs. Yet Obama's prime message during his meteoric rise to power was "change". How can establishment figures from both parties install significant change?

Obama’s foreign and military policies will be developed by four power centers: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser, Marine General James Jones. All supported the invasion of Iraq; none advocate immediate withdrawal from that country or revision of US world-wide military involvement.

Obama's economic team is dominated by veterans of the Clinton and Bush administrations, who participated in the repeal of financial regulations, an act that precipitated the current crisis. Robert Rubin guided Citicorp to its current bankrupt position, Lawrence Summers was the prime mover for the repeal and Timothy Geithner is a Bush appointee. How can Obama entrust the American economy to these failures?

During his campaign Barack Obama exhorted the adoring crowds of supporters with, “We are the people we have been waiting for". Well, where are these people? He promised reform ideas for fundamental change of the system. The voters projected on him their personal ideals and idiosyncratic hopes for change. They are sure to be disappointed at Obama’s emphasis on traditional experience by establishment figures who brought us to the current crisis.

And a large part of the Obama vote came from liberals. It's fair to ask, "Where are the liberals in the Obama administration?" Obama is seeking support from conservative Republicans, offers to include their ideas and opinions in his programs, and appoints them to key positions, a process that pushes the Obama agenda in a conservative direction.

Do the liberals have the abilities and experience to manage these bureaucracies, to furnish the necessary ideas? For answers consult the Nobel Prize winners, the faculties of our finest universities, the managers of some of our largest businesses. The liberals are there, in big numbers, but not on Obama’s list.

Obama needs to answer important questions about his administration. Where are the liberals? Where are the people who voted against the war? Where are the prescient who warned against financial deregulation? Where are the advisors who will give Obama a full range of policy options to make him a better problem solver and successful president?

Don't Help GM and Ford

2008-11-22T17:51:00.000-08:00

Don't Help GM and Ford
By Jerome Grossman

Please don't help General Motors and Ford. Loaning them $25 billion to ride out the world-wide economic perfect storm would be a waste of money. Every patriotic American knows that it is more important to save Baghdad than Detroit, or to put 100,000 Sunnis on the US payroll in Anbar Province for doing nothing, our current policy. Money for the automobile companies could be better spent in Iraq looking for Saddam Hussein's fictitious weapons of mass destruction. The funds saved in Michigan could be given to the Halliburton Corporation for one of their no-bid contracts. There will be plenty of opportunities to spend even more in Iraq now that the government there is about to authorize our presence for the next three years - and maybe longer if enough Iraqis rebel against our occupation and Iraq doesn’t run out of oil. No problem about the money. We have already spent about one trillion dollars in Iraq on an invasion based on lies told to the United Nations and the US Congress. And we didn’t even have a plan, ask Bush and Rumsfeld. Just like GM and Ford don't have a plan. And the generals and government officials and Members of Congress get to fly to Iraq in specially equipped US military jets, flights that cost $100,000 each, just to get their names in the newspapers to tell us that we are winning but whisper that we must stay as long as Iraq has oil and favors US oil companies. Hey, it's only money, better spent in Baghdad than Detroit or to pay for the 700 military bases we have in 130 other countries. First things first.

Money in Politics

2008-11-15T11:48:00.000-08:00

Money in Politics
By Jerome Grossman

"Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with".
Will Rogers, 1931

"Nothing but money
Is sweeter then honey"
Benjamin Franklin, 1735

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce"
President James A. Garfield, 1880

"Knowledge - Zzzzp! Money-Zzzzp! - Power! That’s the cycle democracy is built on!
Tennessee Williams, The Glass Menagerie", 1945

How important is money in politics? The Federal Election Commission has recently released the following information:

In 2006 the top spenders won 94% of US House of Representative races:

and 73% of the U.S. Senate races

In 2004 the top spenders won 78% of US House of Representative races

and 88% of the U.S. Senate races

Figures for 2008 election are not yet available but we know that at least $5 billion was spent on Presidential, House, Senate races and that President-elect Barack Obama outspent GOP nominee John McCain by an estimated margin of at least three to one, giving Obama a great advantage in advertising, paid workers, organization.

Clearly, well meant initiatives like the McCain- Feingold election law controlling political spending in elections has failed. However, we cannot cease efforts to make the electoral process fair to candidates with fewer resources. Our national goals of equality and democracy demand continued searches for the right formula.

The War on Recession

2008-11-12T19:55:00.000-08:00

The War on Recession
By Jerome Grossman

The success of the Obama administration will be measured primarily by its performance in reviving the United States economy, now sliding toward widespread unemployment, corporate bankruptcy, with a desperate middle-class that has lost its life savings.

The Bush administration, with the assent of the Democratically-controlled Congress, has initiated fiscal policies that point the way for the Obama administration: give federal government money to banks and other corporate entities considered “Too big to fail”; accept in return partial ownership and a measure of control over the subsidized companies. To this menu, subsidies for the citizens must be added. Everybody should be on the gravy train.

This degree of government intervention would have been unthinkable only a few months ago, especially with a conservative Republican president. President Obama will build on the Congressional and Bush precedents by vastly increasing the already sanctified programs, extending them to include many more economic entities under financial pressure, relaxing the qualifications to save or help those with lesser clout. George W. Bush has given Barack Obama political cover.

Opposition to this dramatic and expensive program will be minimal. Some will decry expansion of government power and they will be correct. Others will cite waste and fraud as thousands of companies and millions of individuals get in line for federal dollars and they will be right. In justification of its extension of Bush policy, President Obama needs only to declare a “War on Recession”, the battle to save the American economy from defeat, from deflation, from massive unemployment, from the collapse of US world financial hegemony, from the diminution of Social Security and Medicare, from the possibility that other nations might take advantage of our plight, even challenging us militarily.

The people of America will respond positively to the call to war as they have so many times in the past: the war on terror, the war to save democracy, the war to end war, the Cold War, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc., etc. The amount that will be spent on this war will be many times the $700 billion already appropriated but only a fraction of the losses sustained by corporations and private investors. The safety of the nation is at stake. The price is not the decisive factor. We will spend any amount to insure economic stability and to guard against social disruption. All we need is a slogan, The War on Recession to rally public support and achieve focus. The rest is history and it begins on January 20, in President Obama’s inauguration address.

Put Obama in the White House – NOW

2008-11-05T05:09:00.000-08:00

Put Obama in the White House – NOW
By Jerome Grossman

President George W. Bush should immediately invite President-Elect Barack Obama to participate in presidential decisions. Don’t wait until Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009. The financial crisis requires immediate coordinated action. We cannot afford to follow the traditional procedure as the economy sinks day by day.
On November 15, the leaders of 20 nations will meet in Washington to discuss the global financial crisis. United world action is absolutely necessary to prevent the utter collapse of stock prices and other financial instruments that are destroying the life savings of millions of people in America and around the globe and generating mass unemployment.
Any agreement signed by President Bush will be subject to the approval or repeal by President Obama in January. Valuable time will be lost as the new administration reviews the new agreement. We cannot afford to wait taking the chance that values and economic activity might decline even further.
President Bush has lost his popularity by a combination of errors and negative circumstances. Breaking tradition by involving Obama in policy decisions in this time of crisis will earn Bush public appreciation for putting America first by sharing power.