One Third of the Nation

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.