Will We Ever Leave Iraq?
By Jerome Grossman
Before the United States invaded Iraq, it sought the approval of the Security Council of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell, supported by George Tenet, Director of the CIA, presented the US case against the government of Saddam Hussein in great detail. However, in a formal vote, the Security Council refused to authorize the attack.
In violation of its obligations under the UN charter, the Bush administration went ahead with the invasion. Within a few weeks, the American forces were in complete control of Iraq and the Saddam government had disappeared.
Then, in a remarkable display of imperial chutzpah, the US government applied to the United Nations for the authority to administer the affairs of the conquered nation. On May 22, 2003, the Security Council adopted resolution 1483 granting the US and its allies a broad mandate to run the country. In the name of humanitarian relief and the reconstruction of Iraq, the United Nations gave to the US the authority it had refused three months earlier; an acceptance of the military victory and a submission to the power of the US.
This mandate expires on December 31. As a legal substitute, conditions for US presence in Iraq will be authorized by the elected Iraqi government, supported militarily and financially by the US government. The two parties have been negotiating a status of forces agreement similar to other agreements the US has signed in connection with the 737 military bases it has in 130 countries.
However, the Iraqi puppet government has resisted the terms demanded by the conquerors who installed them. The US is demanding 58 military bases, the right to remain in the country indefinitely, the power to determine whether a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq, control over Iraqi airspace up to 30,000 feet, immunity from prosecution for US troops and private military contractors, and the right to continue to carry out military operations.
One senior Shiite politician close to Prime Minister Nouri-Al-Maliki said, “The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq.” The supreme Shiite religious figures Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran and Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq have urged Maliki to reject US terms. Many Iraqi officials are questioning the need for US troop presence under these terms.
The political system is working in Iraq. The negotiations are being discussed openly by the executive and legislative branches. The legislature demanded and obtained the right to approve or reject. But in the United States, discussion and challenges are muted. From the Senate has come a weak call for the agreement to be considered a treaty to be ratified by a two thirds vote: however, the Bush administration wants to treat it as an Executive Agreement not subject to Senate ratification. The presidential candidates spar on Iraq policy but do not analyze and discuss the proposed agreement. The American public, strongly against the war, has not reacted to these negotiations.
If we will leave Iraq soon, why do we need any agreement? Fifty-eight military bases are expensive to build and maintain. Do they imply permanent military presence? Control of airspace indicates control of Iraqi military operations. Immunity for US troops may be an arguable demand but to spread this immunity to civilian contractors significantly diminishes Iraqi sovereignty.
If the parties fail to reach agreement, the US will surely continue to operate without legal sanction whether or not the Iraqis like it. The entire operation was illicit from the start: violation of the U.S. Constitution by going to war without a declaration by Congress, violation of the UN Charter provision against cross-border invasion without approval of the Security Council, falsification of intelligence, falsification of conspiracy between Saddam and Al Qaeda, lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq etc..
But the most important question is whether the proposed agreement is an indication that Iraq will become another one of the string of US bases around the world enforcing our unique superpower status and locating US military power at the heart of the largest concentration of oil on the Earth. Can we afford to continue this expense in lives and treasure indefinitely or even for the next decade? We made a mistake in our illegal invasion of Iraq. We should not compound the error with a permanent occupation.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Why Hillary Lost
Why Hillary Lost
By Jerome Grossman
Many wondered why Hillary put up with Bill’s numerous infidelities. In addition to the authentic personal relationship, this marriage was a full partnership of two brilliant minds, politically ambitious, organized to help both achieve their lofty goals.
By Bill’s second term, Hillary's run for the White House had been determined and planned. Formal experience was to be obtained in the U.S. Senate, not from the byway of Arkansas, but in the Big Apple, the world center of media and finance, for maximum personal publicity and proximity to Wall Street wealth.
During the Clinton presidency, the military gained significant power over the civilian leadership, using the president's lack of military service and draft evasion to get its way on the military budget and procurement policies. Bill’s aversion to foreign military adventure was overcome by framing intervention for humanitarian reasons. At a cabinet meeting, Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the United Nations, asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, during a discussion of intervention in Bosnia, “What is the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about, if we can't use it?”
Like Clinton, Powell had his doubts, but the so-called humanitarian military interventions were carried out in Bosnia, Serbia, Haiti, Somalia and four days of intensive bombing of Iraq. The intellectual and political groundwork for ignoring the lessons of Vietnam had been established.
And the nation approved. In Congress, there was virtually no opposition, no legislative authorization, and no declaration of war, in the streets, no demonstrations. The stabilization of the former Yugoslavia and the expansion of NATO to the Black Sea were accepted as indications that the Balkan interventions were in the national interest.
Hillary got the message. Upon election to the Senate, she used all the influence she could muster to obtain appointment to the Armed Services Committee, where she acquired detailed knowledge and cooperated with the military brass.
Nevertheless, Hillary believed that her biggest problem in her drive for the presidency would be whether the voters would accept a woman as Commander- in -Chief in time of war. Would a woman, even Hillary, be tough enough, resolute enough, to make decisions that will cause loss of life and limb, to attack, to command, as men do?
So when on October 10, 2002 the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq came before the Senate, Hillary voted for it, as did 75 other senators, including her main rivals for the Democratic nomination for president, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd and John Edwards. It was an easy decision - another humanitarian intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein that had proved so popular during Bill’s terms.
When the presidential campaign began in 2007, the mood of the voters had shifted dramatically on the Iraq War. The insurgency was causing all sorts of trouble. American dead and wounded was increasing, the dollar cost was enormous, and the war was generally regarded as an unsuccessful mistake. The policy of humanitarian intervention had been discredited.
Only one major candidate, Senator Barack Obama, had the record of opposition to the war and the resources to tell his story to the nation. Most voters did not know that Obama had not been in the Senate to vote on the war authorization, but that did not make a difference. They welcomed and honored his local opposition in Illinois. When the voters appraised Obama, they found a compelling personality, an accomplished orator, with an efficient organization to carry his message. The opponents of the war swarmed to support Obama. Instead of the traditional anti-war demonstrations, they gave their money, their energies and their votes to Obama as a way to stop the war. Luckily for Obama, the first political test was in Iowa, a bastion of anti-war sentiment, where Obama won the caucuses and Hillary ran a poor third. At the time of the Iowa caucuses, anti Iraq War sentiment was at its peak, dominating the news and political sentiment. The voters met Obama and were charmed by his talent and stimulated by his message. Hillary had become irrelevant on the war.
Hillary did make a comeback in the last 10 primaries, winning a majority of them. By late spring, the mood of the nation had changed. The Iraq war was no longer leading the news; the country was wrapped into domestic affairs: the recession, the price of gasoline, the cost of health care, etc.issues that did not inspire big turnouts for Obama. The pocketbook issues favored Hillary.
But it was too late for Hillary. Obama had captured the soul of the Democratic Party, was the certain nominee and the likely president. Hillary had applied the lessons learned in an earlier decade, had made a political decision using conventional wisdom, failing to anticipate the roaring change in her party and the nation.
By Jerome Grossman
Many wondered why Hillary put up with Bill’s numerous infidelities. In addition to the authentic personal relationship, this marriage was a full partnership of two brilliant minds, politically ambitious, organized to help both achieve their lofty goals.
By Bill’s second term, Hillary's run for the White House had been determined and planned. Formal experience was to be obtained in the U.S. Senate, not from the byway of Arkansas, but in the Big Apple, the world center of media and finance, for maximum personal publicity and proximity to Wall Street wealth.
During the Clinton presidency, the military gained significant power over the civilian leadership, using the president's lack of military service and draft evasion to get its way on the military budget and procurement policies. Bill’s aversion to foreign military adventure was overcome by framing intervention for humanitarian reasons. At a cabinet meeting, Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the United Nations, asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, during a discussion of intervention in Bosnia, “What is the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about, if we can't use it?”
Like Clinton, Powell had his doubts, but the so-called humanitarian military interventions were carried out in Bosnia, Serbia, Haiti, Somalia and four days of intensive bombing of Iraq. The intellectual and political groundwork for ignoring the lessons of Vietnam had been established.
And the nation approved. In Congress, there was virtually no opposition, no legislative authorization, and no declaration of war, in the streets, no demonstrations. The stabilization of the former Yugoslavia and the expansion of NATO to the Black Sea were accepted as indications that the Balkan interventions were in the national interest.
Hillary got the message. Upon election to the Senate, she used all the influence she could muster to obtain appointment to the Armed Services Committee, where she acquired detailed knowledge and cooperated with the military brass.
Nevertheless, Hillary believed that her biggest problem in her drive for the presidency would be whether the voters would accept a woman as Commander- in -Chief in time of war. Would a woman, even Hillary, be tough enough, resolute enough, to make decisions that will cause loss of life and limb, to attack, to command, as men do?
So when on October 10, 2002 the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq came before the Senate, Hillary voted for it, as did 75 other senators, including her main rivals for the Democratic nomination for president, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd and John Edwards. It was an easy decision - another humanitarian intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein that had proved so popular during Bill’s terms.
When the presidential campaign began in 2007, the mood of the voters had shifted dramatically on the Iraq War. The insurgency was causing all sorts of trouble. American dead and wounded was increasing, the dollar cost was enormous, and the war was generally regarded as an unsuccessful mistake. The policy of humanitarian intervention had been discredited.
Only one major candidate, Senator Barack Obama, had the record of opposition to the war and the resources to tell his story to the nation. Most voters did not know that Obama had not been in the Senate to vote on the war authorization, but that did not make a difference. They welcomed and honored his local opposition in Illinois. When the voters appraised Obama, they found a compelling personality, an accomplished orator, with an efficient organization to carry his message. The opponents of the war swarmed to support Obama. Instead of the traditional anti-war demonstrations, they gave their money, their energies and their votes to Obama as a way to stop the war. Luckily for Obama, the first political test was in Iowa, a bastion of anti-war sentiment, where Obama won the caucuses and Hillary ran a poor third. At the time of the Iowa caucuses, anti Iraq War sentiment was at its peak, dominating the news and political sentiment. The voters met Obama and were charmed by his talent and stimulated by his message. Hillary had become irrelevant on the war.
Hillary did make a comeback in the last 10 primaries, winning a majority of them. By late spring, the mood of the nation had changed. The Iraq war was no longer leading the news; the country was wrapped into domestic affairs: the recession, the price of gasoline, the cost of health care, etc.issues that did not inspire big turnouts for Obama. The pocketbook issues favored Hillary.
But it was too late for Hillary. Obama had captured the soul of the Democratic Party, was the certain nominee and the likely president. Hillary had applied the lessons learned in an earlier decade, had made a political decision using conventional wisdom, failing to anticipate the roaring change in her party and the nation.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Diplomacy and Negotiation
Diplomacy and Negotiation
By Jerome Grossman
At a White House luncheon, June 26, 1954, at the height of the Cold War and McCarthyism, Winston Churchill remarked, "To jaw- jaw is always better than to war-war."
In his inaugural address, January 20, 1961, also during the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy stated, "Let us never to negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."
Negotiations are the basic tools of diplomacy and statecraft, used to prevent conflict, to conclude wars, to resolve crises, to reconcile with former or current enemies, to build coalitions, to mobilize relief efforts after conflicts or natural disasters, to forge trade agreements, to transform behavior patterns, etc..
Direct talks provide a view into the psychic and political world of other nations and groups, learning about their aims, wants, needs and fears, as well as their readiness and capability to change. Why would we deny ourselves such important tool available for promoting our interests around the globe and preventing military conflict?
The Bush-Cheney policy of saber rattling around the globe is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing but spurs instability and actually increases popular support of the leaders of rival nations. May the next President be committed to emphasizing diplomacy and negotiation as the primary tools of our country in foreign affairs Military preemption should be at the bottom of the list of possible actions and used only in the rarest of circumstances when the required intelligence has been rechecked and confirmed.
Styles of diplomacy and negotiation vary from nation to nation and leader to leader. The procedure usually involves the following steps:
1. Deciding the objective
2. Preparing the case
3. Assessing the interests of the other side
4. Preparing concessions that do not harm the objective
5. Making contact with the other side at lower functionary level's
6. Negotiating the endgame at the second highest level but under the supervision of the highest level
7. Ceremonial signing of the accords with pomp and circumstance
Almost always the agreements are zero-sum games in which both sides attain their objectives. If there is an imbalance, there is usually a default early or later
Only rarely do the negotiations begin at the top leadership level, but given the history of the Bush-Cheney regime and its unilateral tendencies, the next President may initiate leader to leader talks to dramatize change in U.S. policies sending a signal to the entire world.
By Jerome Grossman
At a White House luncheon, June 26, 1954, at the height of the Cold War and McCarthyism, Winston Churchill remarked, "To jaw- jaw is always better than to war-war."
In his inaugural address, January 20, 1961, also during the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy stated, "Let us never to negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."
Negotiations are the basic tools of diplomacy and statecraft, used to prevent conflict, to conclude wars, to resolve crises, to reconcile with former or current enemies, to build coalitions, to mobilize relief efforts after conflicts or natural disasters, to forge trade agreements, to transform behavior patterns, etc..
Direct talks provide a view into the psychic and political world of other nations and groups, learning about their aims, wants, needs and fears, as well as their readiness and capability to change. Why would we deny ourselves such important tool available for promoting our interests around the globe and preventing military conflict?
The Bush-Cheney policy of saber rattling around the globe is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing but spurs instability and actually increases popular support of the leaders of rival nations. May the next President be committed to emphasizing diplomacy and negotiation as the primary tools of our country in foreign affairs Military preemption should be at the bottom of the list of possible actions and used only in the rarest of circumstances when the required intelligence has been rechecked and confirmed.
Styles of diplomacy and negotiation vary from nation to nation and leader to leader. The procedure usually involves the following steps:
1. Deciding the objective
2. Preparing the case
3. Assessing the interests of the other side
4. Preparing concessions that do not harm the objective
5. Making contact with the other side at lower functionary level's
6. Negotiating the endgame at the second highest level but under the supervision of the highest level
7. Ceremonial signing of the accords with pomp and circumstance
Almost always the agreements are zero-sum games in which both sides attain their objectives. If there is an imbalance, there is usually a default early or later
Only rarely do the negotiations begin at the top leadership level, but given the history of the Bush-Cheney regime and its unilateral tendencies, the next President may initiate leader to leader talks to dramatize change in U.S. policies sending a signal to the entire world.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Ted Kennedy
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 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.
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 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.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Choosing a Vice President
Choosing a Vice President
By Jerome Grossman
The powers of the Vice President are severely limited in the Constitution of the United States: Article 2, Section 1 “In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President.” Article 1, Section 3. “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”
Some of the founding fathers did not want a Vice President at all. Alexander Hamilton wrote for The Federalist Papers, No. 68, “The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous.” It is indeed remarkable, given the innate tendencies of ambitious men, that no vice president has ever organized a coup or an assassination of a sitting President
Most Vice Presidents have not been given significant power or responsibilities by their Presidents. They were expected to stand and wait. Two recent exceptions were Vice Presidents Gore and Cheney, who achieved considerable power in their portfolios.
Nominees for Vice President are usually selected for political reasons, their ability to help the nominee for President get elected. They must help carry an important state or influence a large constituency. Gore and Cheney did not deliver on these political tests. Lieberman in 2000 and Edwards in 2004 failed utterly: they brought no appreciable constituency to the polls and failed to defeat Cheney in debates.
Republican nominee John McCain may be looking to strengthen his support among conservatives. For that he may tap a member of Congress with a perfect right wing voting record. If he goes for personality and humor, McCain might select Governor Mike Huckabee. For executive and business experience as well as good looks, there is always Governor Mitt Romney. One of McCain's considerations might be a young Vice President to balance his 71 years.
While Obama will be the favorite to win the November election, his choice of running mate could be most important given the competing factions in the Democratic Party. The female governors of Alaska, Arizona, and Kansas might help assuage the disappointment of feminists at the collapse of the Hillary campaign. Governor Bill Richardson would attract Latino votes. John Edwards received major support from organized labor. Governor Strickland of Ohio would help in the rust belt states. Or Obama might choose a candidate with military experience to offset McCain: Vietnam veteran Senator Jim Webb of Virginia or General Wesley Clark. To further his pledge of national unity, Obama might even consider Republicans Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell.
Nominee Obama has no problem in identifying his Vice President if he bases his decision on political practicalities: who can bring the largest number of votes, who has the largest constituency, who will best argue the Democratic platform against the Republican nominee for Vice President: Hillary Clinton. However, weighing on the scale is the fact that she is extremely controversial with high negatives in every poll. Would having an African-American and a woman on the ticket for the first time in American history be too much for the electorate to bear?
Hillary Clinton has fought Barack Obama to a virtual draw. On delegates, popular vote and super-delegates, Obama leads in one of the closest primary races in American political history. Hillary has supporters in all 50 states and many are passionate about her effort. She actually leads Obama among women, workers, whites and Hispanics and the primary votes are the proof.
Would Hillary accept the invitation? She would be the lady-in-waiting for her chance at the highest office in 2012 or 2016. She will have every incentive to make the Obama administration a success - to boost her own fortune down the road. And if she did not accept, preferring to stay in the Senate, the invitation would go a long way toward reconciling her supporters.
Will Bill Clinton be a distraction as he looks for ways to channel his energies and talents? No problem. If Hillary is elected Vice President she would have to resign her Senate seat in New York. President Obama could ask Governor David Patterson to appoint Bill to Hillary's seat. Mission accomplished. Bill is busy with a new career. Let the Senate worry.
By Jerome Grossman
The powers of the Vice President are severely limited in the Constitution of the United States: Article 2, Section 1 “In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President.” Article 1, Section 3. “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”
Some of the founding fathers did not want a Vice President at all. Alexander Hamilton wrote for The Federalist Papers, No. 68, “The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous.” It is indeed remarkable, given the innate tendencies of ambitious men, that no vice president has ever organized a coup or an assassination of a sitting President
Most Vice Presidents have not been given significant power or responsibilities by their Presidents. They were expected to stand and wait. Two recent exceptions were Vice Presidents Gore and Cheney, who achieved considerable power in their portfolios.
Nominees for Vice President are usually selected for political reasons, their ability to help the nominee for President get elected. They must help carry an important state or influence a large constituency. Gore and Cheney did not deliver on these political tests. Lieberman in 2000 and Edwards in 2004 failed utterly: they brought no appreciable constituency to the polls and failed to defeat Cheney in debates.
Republican nominee John McCain may be looking to strengthen his support among conservatives. For that he may tap a member of Congress with a perfect right wing voting record. If he goes for personality and humor, McCain might select Governor Mike Huckabee. For executive and business experience as well as good looks, there is always Governor Mitt Romney. One of McCain's considerations might be a young Vice President to balance his 71 years.
While Obama will be the favorite to win the November election, his choice of running mate could be most important given the competing factions in the Democratic Party. The female governors of Alaska, Arizona, and Kansas might help assuage the disappointment of feminists at the collapse of the Hillary campaign. Governor Bill Richardson would attract Latino votes. John Edwards received major support from organized labor. Governor Strickland of Ohio would help in the rust belt states. Or Obama might choose a candidate with military experience to offset McCain: Vietnam veteran Senator Jim Webb of Virginia or General Wesley Clark. To further his pledge of national unity, Obama might even consider Republicans Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell.
Nominee Obama has no problem in identifying his Vice President if he bases his decision on political practicalities: who can bring the largest number of votes, who has the largest constituency, who will best argue the Democratic platform against the Republican nominee for Vice President: Hillary Clinton. However, weighing on the scale is the fact that she is extremely controversial with high negatives in every poll. Would having an African-American and a woman on the ticket for the first time in American history be too much for the electorate to bear?
Hillary Clinton has fought Barack Obama to a virtual draw. On delegates, popular vote and super-delegates, Obama leads in one of the closest primary races in American political history. Hillary has supporters in all 50 states and many are passionate about her effort. She actually leads Obama among women, workers, whites and Hispanics and the primary votes are the proof.
Would Hillary accept the invitation? She would be the lady-in-waiting for her chance at the highest office in 2012 or 2016. She will have every incentive to make the Obama administration a success - to boost her own fortune down the road. And if she did not accept, preferring to stay in the Senate, the invitation would go a long way toward reconciling her supporters.
Will Bill Clinton be a distraction as he looks for ways to channel his energies and talents? No problem. If Hillary is elected Vice President she would have to resign her Senate seat in New York. President Obama could ask Governor David Patterson to appoint Bill to Hillary's seat. Mission accomplished. Bill is busy with a new career. Let the Senate worry.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Solving the Oil Crisis
Solving the Oil Crisis
By Jerome Grossman
High oil prices and a hotly contested election have turned the energy debate into political football. Calls for a gasoline tax holiday this summer would produce miniscule savings to drivers. Cries to force OPEC to pump more oil have been futile as the cartel enjoys enormous profits and wants more. Drilling in Alaska and offshore Florida and California risks serious environmental damage. Demands to tax the multi-billion dollar profits of the oil companies lack political clout and would be opposed by corporate America coast – to – coast.
There are only two ways to reduce prices: increase supplies or reduce demand. This is basic Capitalism 101. Increasing supplies is limited by environmental concerns and cartel power. Reducing demand in the United States, the nation that consumes about a quarter of global production would have an immediate effect on oil prices, bringing them down dramatically but still several hundreds of percent over cost.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Increase the current tax on gasoline to a level that would dramatically decrease auto driving, reduce air pollution and global warming while using the money generated to repair roads and bridges and to modernize mass transportation.
2. Subsidize the auto companies in their retooling to produce cars that obtain 50 miles to a gallon. Why should we wait until 2020 when the technology is available now? Let the automakers repay over a period of years.
3. Institute a rationing system for gasoline and heating oil with special allotments for transportation to and from work.
4. Allow a tax credit or refund for people of lower income to offset the increased tax.
5. Encourage (with a tax break) work by telecommuting that would reduce pollution, traffic and unhealthy stress on workers who sit in gridlock twice a day.
6. Promote a nationally coordinated program of car pooling, ride sharing and more efficient mass transit.
Reducing U.S. addiction to foreign oil would ease the Federal Budget Deficit. Foreign oil suppliers are awash in trillions of U.S. dollars and are using some of them to buy American assets and corporations in the largest transfer of wealth in the history of humanity, without firing a shot.
Goldman Sachs says that the price of oil could reach $200 a barrel this year. Without a plan, our costs could go even higher. Enough is enough. Let's have some serious political leadership for change to stop indulging ourselves in our uncontrolled appetite for oil.
By Jerome Grossman
High oil prices and a hotly contested election have turned the energy debate into political football. Calls for a gasoline tax holiday this summer would produce miniscule savings to drivers. Cries to force OPEC to pump more oil have been futile as the cartel enjoys enormous profits and wants more. Drilling in Alaska and offshore Florida and California risks serious environmental damage. Demands to tax the multi-billion dollar profits of the oil companies lack political clout and would be opposed by corporate America coast – to – coast.
There are only two ways to reduce prices: increase supplies or reduce demand. This is basic Capitalism 101. Increasing supplies is limited by environmental concerns and cartel power. Reducing demand in the United States, the nation that consumes about a quarter of global production would have an immediate effect on oil prices, bringing them down dramatically but still several hundreds of percent over cost.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Increase the current tax on gasoline to a level that would dramatically decrease auto driving, reduce air pollution and global warming while using the money generated to repair roads and bridges and to modernize mass transportation.
2. Subsidize the auto companies in their retooling to produce cars that obtain 50 miles to a gallon. Why should we wait until 2020 when the technology is available now? Let the automakers repay over a period of years.
3. Institute a rationing system for gasoline and heating oil with special allotments for transportation to and from work.
4. Allow a tax credit or refund for people of lower income to offset the increased tax.
5. Encourage (with a tax break) work by telecommuting that would reduce pollution, traffic and unhealthy stress on workers who sit in gridlock twice a day.
6. Promote a nationally coordinated program of car pooling, ride sharing and more efficient mass transit.
Reducing U.S. addiction to foreign oil would ease the Federal Budget Deficit. Foreign oil suppliers are awash in trillions of U.S. dollars and are using some of them to buy American assets and corporations in the largest transfer of wealth in the history of humanity, without firing a shot.
Goldman Sachs says that the price of oil could reach $200 a barrel this year. Without a plan, our costs could go even higher. Enough is enough. Let's have some serious political leadership for change to stop indulging ourselves in our uncontrolled appetite for oil.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Yes, We Can Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Yes, We Can Abolish Nuclear Weapons
By Jerome Grossman
A major disappointment in the presidential race has been the failure of the three surviving candidates to address nuclear weapons, the greatest existential threat to planet Earth, to the human race itself, and of course, by extension to the United States of America.
The failure is extraordinary because the abolition of nuclear weapons has been raised recently and repeatedly by some of the most respected and powerful personages in the U.S. military, the federal government, and corporate America. How could a serious election virtually ignore this powerful initiative?
A January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn and former Secretary of Defense William Perry called for a “world free of nuclear weapons” and urged the United States to lead an international effort to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. They argued for a multilateral verifiable plan with strong enforcement mechanisms. They stated: “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”
Last month, in response to a question about her reaction to Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton said that she would “obliterate” Iran in that eventuality. In a later interview she again threatened “massive retaliation.”
Her remarks were unwise and destabilizing, echoing the irresponsible statements of President Ahmadinejad of Iran who has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and then tried to modify the statement. Hillary knows not to answer a hypothetical question, particularly when Iran does not have nuclear weapons according to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that stated that Iran ended its unsuccessful program to build them in 2003. Clinton should have used the question to rally support for stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the reduction of nuclear arsenals that exist in eight countries. She might have pointed out that such an attack was unlikely because Israel deters other countries with its own nukes, some of them on submarines constantly patrolling the Mediterranean.
Overt threats like those by Ahmadinejad and Clinton to use nuclear weapons are dangerous because they initiate a process that might become uncontrollable. Nuclear war must never happen and even to contemplate it weakens international inhibitions of their use.
Most importantly, Clinton wasted an opportunity to rally support behind the well-documented and responsible proposal to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons. That is the crucial issue for the survival of America. Will the next president accept the challenge?
By Jerome Grossman
A major disappointment in the presidential race has been the failure of the three surviving candidates to address nuclear weapons, the greatest existential threat to planet Earth, to the human race itself, and of course, by extension to the United States of America.
The failure is extraordinary because the abolition of nuclear weapons has been raised recently and repeatedly by some of the most respected and powerful personages in the U.S. military, the federal government, and corporate America. How could a serious election virtually ignore this powerful initiative?
A January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn and former Secretary of Defense William Perry called for a “world free of nuclear weapons” and urged the United States to lead an international effort to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. They argued for a multilateral verifiable plan with strong enforcement mechanisms. They stated: “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”
Last month, in response to a question about her reaction to Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton said that she would “obliterate” Iran in that eventuality. In a later interview she again threatened “massive retaliation.”
Her remarks were unwise and destabilizing, echoing the irresponsible statements of President Ahmadinejad of Iran who has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and then tried to modify the statement. Hillary knows not to answer a hypothetical question, particularly when Iran does not have nuclear weapons according to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that stated that Iran ended its unsuccessful program to build them in 2003. Clinton should have used the question to rally support for stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the reduction of nuclear arsenals that exist in eight countries. She might have pointed out that such an attack was unlikely because Israel deters other countries with its own nukes, some of them on submarines constantly patrolling the Mediterranean.
Overt threats like those by Ahmadinejad and Clinton to use nuclear weapons are dangerous because they initiate a process that might become uncontrollable. Nuclear war must never happen and even to contemplate it weakens international inhibitions of their use.
Most importantly, Clinton wasted an opportunity to rally support behind the well-documented and responsible proposal to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons. That is the crucial issue for the survival of America. Will the next president accept the challenge?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Unity Ticket: Obama and Hillary
The Unity Ticket: Obama and Hillary
By Jerome Grossman
Traveling serenely down Pennsylvania Avenue on his way to the White House, Barack Obama had an accident that he should have anticipated. If anybody knew of Jeremiah Wright's opinions and meanness and self-centeredness, it was Obama, whose twenty year association with the pastor included close family relationships as well as significant political cooperation. However, Obama tried to repudiate Wright when he excluded him from the presidential campaign but Jeremiah refused to be excluded. He had messages, many hateful messages, to be delivered to the world and nothing was going to stop him from using this rare opportunity.
Obama has been hurt and his campaign will suffer in the nomination struggle and in the general election in November. How important was Wright in the beginning of Obama's political career? Why did the association last for 20 years? Why did it take so long for Obama to renounce his pastor and denounce his opinions?
Obama remains the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, damaged but viable. Perhaps it was better for the Wright explosion to have happened in April than in October. Better to give Hillary a leg up now than to give McCain an advantage just before the election. There is no doubt that the controversy would have exploded whether or not Hillary was in the race. Wright could not have been contained and is still on the prowl. Hopefully, the story will be old news by Election Day.
Now, Barack and Hillary need each other to put a Democrat in the White House. Party unity is in serious danger. On both sides strong feelings and even hatreds are erupting in public and in private. Not about issues: both are hopelessly centrist, offering virtually identical programs on domestic and foreign policy. The angry partisans are excited by the contrasting personalities, the differences in style and the intensity of the horserace. But underlying these conflicts are the strong feelings about race and gender, as the first African-American and the first Woman battle to break the ultimate ceiling.
The Republicans, handicapped by Bush’s unpopularity, presiding over recession, over failure in Iraq and chained to a reputation for incompetence, can win only if the Democrats become disunited and fratricidal. GOP political contributions have diminished, their Congressional retirements have risen, and their voting turnouts have declined.
A Democratic Unity Ticket with Obama as president and Hillary as vice president would satisfy party factions, lower the temperature, lead to a landslide victory in November. Obama would bring to the marriage the young, the black, and the liberal suburbanites. Hillary would attract her proven constituency of older voters, women, whites, workers and Hispanics. On to victory.
Would Obama accept Hillary? Would Hillary play second fiddle? Would they work together as did Cheney and Bush, Gore and Clinton? Or would she be frozen out any effective power the way President Kennedy isolated his vice president, Lyndon Johnson? Would Hillary be satisfied to be the lady-in-waiting for the presidency? Could Hillary learn to cooperate and surrender rivalry? Or would she prefer to build up her power in the Senate to raise her prospects for future presidential runs?
Let's get these questions answered. Then unite. The choice may be to win together or lose separately. On to victory.
By Jerome Grossman
Traveling serenely down Pennsylvania Avenue on his way to the White House, Barack Obama had an accident that he should have anticipated. If anybody knew of Jeremiah Wright's opinions and meanness and self-centeredness, it was Obama, whose twenty year association with the pastor included close family relationships as well as significant political cooperation. However, Obama tried to repudiate Wright when he excluded him from the presidential campaign but Jeremiah refused to be excluded. He had messages, many hateful messages, to be delivered to the world and nothing was going to stop him from using this rare opportunity.
Obama has been hurt and his campaign will suffer in the nomination struggle and in the general election in November. How important was Wright in the beginning of Obama's political career? Why did the association last for 20 years? Why did it take so long for Obama to renounce his pastor and denounce his opinions?
Obama remains the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, damaged but viable. Perhaps it was better for the Wright explosion to have happened in April than in October. Better to give Hillary a leg up now than to give McCain an advantage just before the election. There is no doubt that the controversy would have exploded whether or not Hillary was in the race. Wright could not have been contained and is still on the prowl. Hopefully, the story will be old news by Election Day.
Now, Barack and Hillary need each other to put a Democrat in the White House. Party unity is in serious danger. On both sides strong feelings and even hatreds are erupting in public and in private. Not about issues: both are hopelessly centrist, offering virtually identical programs on domestic and foreign policy. The angry partisans are excited by the contrasting personalities, the differences in style and the intensity of the horserace. But underlying these conflicts are the strong feelings about race and gender, as the first African-American and the first Woman battle to break the ultimate ceiling.
The Republicans, handicapped by Bush’s unpopularity, presiding over recession, over failure in Iraq and chained to a reputation for incompetence, can win only if the Democrats become disunited and fratricidal. GOP political contributions have diminished, their Congressional retirements have risen, and their voting turnouts have declined.
A Democratic Unity Ticket with Obama as president and Hillary as vice president would satisfy party factions, lower the temperature, lead to a landslide victory in November. Obama would bring to the marriage the young, the black, and the liberal suburbanites. Hillary would attract her proven constituency of older voters, women, whites, workers and Hispanics. On to victory.
Would Obama accept Hillary? Would Hillary play second fiddle? Would they work together as did Cheney and Bush, Gore and Clinton? Or would she be frozen out any effective power the way President Kennedy isolated his vice president, Lyndon Johnson? Would Hillary be satisfied to be the lady-in-waiting for the presidency? Could Hillary learn to cooperate and surrender rivalry? Or would she prefer to build up her power in the Senate to raise her prospects for future presidential runs?
Let's get these questions answered. Then unite. The choice may be to win together or lose separately. On to victory.
Friday, April 25, 2008
The Cost of Iraq War
The Cost of Iraq War
By Jerome Grossman
Long-term estimates of the financial costs of the Iraq war range from one trillion to three trillion dollars. That is not a misprint. The number is actually" trillion," that is one thousand billion, an astronomical number difficult to comprehend when translated into dollars.
Here are some of the costs components: soldiers pay, cost of equipment and military materiel, subsidies for training and equipping the Iraqi military, reconstruction of destroyed Iraqi infrastructure, replacement of U.S.military equipment destroyed or worn out in combat, extended care of U.S. wounded soldiers that may last a lifetime, bribery of the Sunni Sheiks, no-bid contracts to favored companies and much more.
After more then five years of warfare, invasion and occupation without resolution, American taxpayers should be angry about this waste. Eighty percent of Americans believe the war was a mistake. Two thirds believe American troops should leave Iraq. Why aren't they acting out as their ancestors did in 1776 against the stamp tax and the tax on tea? For the first time in U.S. history, there is no war tax. As a consequence, people do not see the vast amount of GDP that goes to the war as the lost output that it is. Nor do they feel the cost of the borrowing that will be paid in years to come. If every American was required to pay a war tax for the Iraq War, the war would end tomorrow.
The question naturally arises of what else our country could have done with the money. Barack Obama told voters in West Virginia" that the war was costing each American household $100 a month. Just think about what battles we could be fighting instead of fighting this misguided war."
Hillary Clinton said in Indiana recently that the war was costing $12 billion a month "and was crowding out urgent national needs. We've got to begin not only to withdraw our troops, but bring that money back home."
On the other hand, John McCain says repeatedly that success in Iraq justifies any cost and that overspending in other areas is causing the strain on the federal budget. He says that the government can afford whatever the war costs as well as a big corporate tax cut if it reins in wasteful federal spending.
Whether the cost of the war is current or deferred, Obama and Clinton are correct. Bring home the troops. Bring home the money. Care for the veterans. Care for the American people. Rebuild America's infrastructure. Restore America's reputation. It can be done and will be done.
By Jerome Grossman
Long-term estimates of the financial costs of the Iraq war range from one trillion to three trillion dollars. That is not a misprint. The number is actually" trillion," that is one thousand billion, an astronomical number difficult to comprehend when translated into dollars.
Here are some of the costs components: soldiers pay, cost of equipment and military materiel, subsidies for training and equipping the Iraqi military, reconstruction of destroyed Iraqi infrastructure, replacement of U.S.military equipment destroyed or worn out in combat, extended care of U.S. wounded soldiers that may last a lifetime, bribery of the Sunni Sheiks, no-bid contracts to favored companies and much more.
After more then five years of warfare, invasion and occupation without resolution, American taxpayers should be angry about this waste. Eighty percent of Americans believe the war was a mistake. Two thirds believe American troops should leave Iraq. Why aren't they acting out as their ancestors did in 1776 against the stamp tax and the tax on tea? For the first time in U.S. history, there is no war tax. As a consequence, people do not see the vast amount of GDP that goes to the war as the lost output that it is. Nor do they feel the cost of the borrowing that will be paid in years to come. If every American was required to pay a war tax for the Iraq War, the war would end tomorrow.
The question naturally arises of what else our country could have done with the money. Barack Obama told voters in West Virginia" that the war was costing each American household $100 a month. Just think about what battles we could be fighting instead of fighting this misguided war."
Hillary Clinton said in Indiana recently that the war was costing $12 billion a month "and was crowding out urgent national needs. We've got to begin not only to withdraw our troops, but bring that money back home."
On the other hand, John McCain says repeatedly that success in Iraq justifies any cost and that overspending in other areas is causing the strain on the federal budget. He says that the government can afford whatever the war costs as well as a big corporate tax cut if it reins in wasteful federal spending.
Whether the cost of the war is current or deferred, Obama and Clinton are correct. Bring home the troops. Bring home the money. Care for the veterans. Care for the American people. Rebuild America's infrastructure. Restore America's reputation. It can be done and will be done.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Winning Elections While Rebuilding America
Winning Elections While Rebuilding America
By Jerome Grossman
The Democrats must renew their bond with the working class. Listen to Peter Canellos:"During the five decades that the New Deal coalition governed national politics, from the 1930s to the 1980s, the relationship between the Democratic Party and working-class voters was an economic bond. Generations of Americans took it as an act of faith that Republicans represented the moneyed elites while Democrats stood up for the little guy. Since 1980, that relationship has eroded and now it's in tatters. Democrats have lost significant support among the working class.... Thirty years ago, the Democrats would have had a a ready response (to blue-collar dissatisfaction). By pursuing redistributive programs, from make-work jobs to urban development programs to costly expansion of rural infrastructure, the Democrats provided some economic first aid to distressed people and communities: …."
Hold your dollars, folks. Peter Canellos is not running for office. He is the Washington Bureau Chief of the Boston Globe. But he knows the lessons of political history in these United States and demonstrates how the Democrats have mobilized the working class by offering strong economic incentives. The two Democratic candidates for president, hopelessly centrist, should take notice.
The bitterness of the workers should evoke an authentic program to compensate for the three decade decline in wages and working conditions. Such a program should include reform of the labor laws that favor corporations over unions, a national minimum wage providing for decent living conditions, full employment legislation that guarantees a job to all who wish to work, national single-payer health insurance subsidized by the federal government, serious enforcement of occupational safety and health conditions in the workplace, replacement and maintenance of our decrepit system of highways, railroads, bridges, airports, etc.
Or would you rather spend three trillion dollars on Iraq?
Beyond the social benefits of spreading the benefits of our productive society more evenly, such a redistributive program might lead to political victory and occupation of the White House by the Democratic candidate. For references I submit Harry Hopkins and Franklin Delano Roosevelt who knew how to win elections while rebuilding the nation.
By Jerome Grossman
The Democrats must renew their bond with the working class. Listen to Peter Canellos:"During the five decades that the New Deal coalition governed national politics, from the 1930s to the 1980s, the relationship between the Democratic Party and working-class voters was an economic bond. Generations of Americans took it as an act of faith that Republicans represented the moneyed elites while Democrats stood up for the little guy. Since 1980, that relationship has eroded and now it's in tatters. Democrats have lost significant support among the working class.... Thirty years ago, the Democrats would have had a a ready response (to blue-collar dissatisfaction). By pursuing redistributive programs, from make-work jobs to urban development programs to costly expansion of rural infrastructure, the Democrats provided some economic first aid to distressed people and communities: …."
Hold your dollars, folks. Peter Canellos is not running for office. He is the Washington Bureau Chief of the Boston Globe. But he knows the lessons of political history in these United States and demonstrates how the Democrats have mobilized the working class by offering strong economic incentives. The two Democratic candidates for president, hopelessly centrist, should take notice.
The bitterness of the workers should evoke an authentic program to compensate for the three decade decline in wages and working conditions. Such a program should include reform of the labor laws that favor corporations over unions, a national minimum wage providing for decent living conditions, full employment legislation that guarantees a job to all who wish to work, national single-payer health insurance subsidized by the federal government, serious enforcement of occupational safety and health conditions in the workplace, replacement and maintenance of our decrepit system of highways, railroads, bridges, airports, etc.
Or would you rather spend three trillion dollars on Iraq?
Beyond the social benefits of spreading the benefits of our productive society more evenly, such a redistributive program might lead to political victory and occupation of the White House by the Democratic candidate. For references I submit Harry Hopkins and Franklin Delano Roosevelt who knew how to win elections while rebuilding the nation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
