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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
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.
Friday, April 11, 2008
About Iraq
About Iraq
By Jerome Grossman
• The puppet regime in Iraq wants U.S. troops to stay to protect it from the insurgents and other dissatisfied groups, to supply money, and to act as a cover for "the most corrupt government in the Middle East.”
• The Sunni Awakening Councils in Anbar Province are heavily subsidized by U.S. dollars supplied by the U.S. military. We pay 90,000 Sunnis $30 a month and supply them with weapons, a subsidy far higher than the average wage in Iraq.
• The U.S. invasion was in violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, hence in violation of U.S. law.
• Al Qaeda in Iraq is only a small fraction of the insurgency, between 1000 to 2000 fighters. It is fueled in large part by nationalist and anti-foreigner sentiment.
• The so-called bloodbath after U.S. withdrawal is questionable and is being used as an excuse by the Iraqi puppets and the U.S. hard-liners for an extended occupation.
• The U.S. residual force to protect infrastructure, to train Iraqis and to fight insurgents is a continuation of the occupation by another name and must be repudiated.
• The U.S. must not maintain any military bases in Iraq.
• U.S. withdrawal must not depend on the situation in Iraq and the region because there will always be a reason to stay.
• There is no way to prevent Iranian influence on the Iraqi Shiite government. From an imperial standpoint, this is the greatest U.S. mistake. During the Saddam Hussein Sunni regime, Iran’s Shiite government gave sanctuary to Iraq’s religious and civil Shiite leaders. When President Ahmadinejard of Iran visited Baghdad recently, he was greeted by Iraqi officials with kisses, embraces, music and flowers.
• The U.S. should try to make a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan whom we subsidized after the Soviets left. Let us try to avoid the failed experiences of USSR and UK in Afghanistan.
• Some smart policemen have suggested treating terrorism as a criminal conspiracy rather than a military attack, more effective and less expensive in lives and money. Regimes across the globe will be overthrown. We must not react automatically in defense of the status quo.
• The financial costs of the Iraq war are staggering. That has special relevance now given the recession, the banking crisis, the aging U.S. infrastructure, the health-care crisis, etc. The Iraqi government has billions of surplus funds due to the high price of oil. They should be paying for U.S. forces in Iraq. Instead, the U.S. continues to finance the Iraqi government with outright grants rather than loans to be repaid.
• For diplomatic credibility, for decent respect for popular opinion at home and abroad, for avoidance of a boycott of American products abroad, it is crucial that the U.S. places a total ban on torture, live up to the Geneva Conventions, eliminate the rendition program, and eliminate the secret prisons and the assassination program.
• There are in Iraq about as many U.S. sponsored contractors as there are U.S. troops. Many are armed and trigger-happy, not really accountable to the U.S. and Iraqi governments. They should be withdrawn with U.S. troops. The jobs should go to Iraqis, now suffering from high unemployment, even if they are less efficient, in the interest of social stability by reducing unemployment.
• The Iraqi Congress voted by a large margin for U.S. military withdrawal. Yet, a Status of Forces Agreement has been negotiated between Iraq and the U.S. delineating rights and procedures for American military. This agreement was passed by the Iraqi Congress but was never submitted to the U.S. Congress for approval, a violation of the U.S. Constitution and an indication of a long U.S. occupation.
By Jerome Grossman
• The puppet regime in Iraq wants U.S. troops to stay to protect it from the insurgents and other dissatisfied groups, to supply money, and to act as a cover for "the most corrupt government in the Middle East.”
• The Sunni Awakening Councils in Anbar Province are heavily subsidized by U.S. dollars supplied by the U.S. military. We pay 90,000 Sunnis $30 a month and supply them with weapons, a subsidy far higher than the average wage in Iraq.
• The U.S. invasion was in violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, hence in violation of U.S. law.
• Al Qaeda in Iraq is only a small fraction of the insurgency, between 1000 to 2000 fighters. It is fueled in large part by nationalist and anti-foreigner sentiment.
• The so-called bloodbath after U.S. withdrawal is questionable and is being used as an excuse by the Iraqi puppets and the U.S. hard-liners for an extended occupation.
• The U.S. residual force to protect infrastructure, to train Iraqis and to fight insurgents is a continuation of the occupation by another name and must be repudiated.
• The U.S. must not maintain any military bases in Iraq.
• U.S. withdrawal must not depend on the situation in Iraq and the region because there will always be a reason to stay.
• There is no way to prevent Iranian influence on the Iraqi Shiite government. From an imperial standpoint, this is the greatest U.S. mistake. During the Saddam Hussein Sunni regime, Iran’s Shiite government gave sanctuary to Iraq’s religious and civil Shiite leaders. When President Ahmadinejard of Iran visited Baghdad recently, he was greeted by Iraqi officials with kisses, embraces, music and flowers.
• The U.S. should try to make a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan whom we subsidized after the Soviets left. Let us try to avoid the failed experiences of USSR and UK in Afghanistan.
• Some smart policemen have suggested treating terrorism as a criminal conspiracy rather than a military attack, more effective and less expensive in lives and money. Regimes across the globe will be overthrown. We must not react automatically in defense of the status quo.
• The financial costs of the Iraq war are staggering. That has special relevance now given the recession, the banking crisis, the aging U.S. infrastructure, the health-care crisis, etc. The Iraqi government has billions of surplus funds due to the high price of oil. They should be paying for U.S. forces in Iraq. Instead, the U.S. continues to finance the Iraqi government with outright grants rather than loans to be repaid.
• For diplomatic credibility, for decent respect for popular opinion at home and abroad, for avoidance of a boycott of American products abroad, it is crucial that the U.S. places a total ban on torture, live up to the Geneva Conventions, eliminate the rendition program, and eliminate the secret prisons and the assassination program.
• There are in Iraq about as many U.S. sponsored contractors as there are U.S. troops. Many are armed and trigger-happy, not really accountable to the U.S. and Iraqi governments. They should be withdrawn with U.S. troops. The jobs should go to Iraqis, now suffering from high unemployment, even if they are less efficient, in the interest of social stability by reducing unemployment.
• The Iraqi Congress voted by a large margin for U.S. military withdrawal. Yet, a Status of Forces Agreement has been negotiated between Iraq and the U.S. delineating rights and procedures for American military. This agreement was passed by the Iraqi Congress but was never submitted to the U.S. Congress for approval, a violation of the U.S. Constitution and an indication of a long U.S. occupation.
Monday, April 7, 2008
John McCain, War Hero
John McCain, War Hero
By Jerome Grossman
Up to this point in the race for president of the United States, the uncrowned but virtually certain nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, is doing remarkably well in the public opinion polls. McCain is holding his own against both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. According to all the polls, if the election were held today, he would have an even chance of victory.
This is surprising because of the political difficulties of the Republican Party; short of money, besieged by factional quarrels, a support base with less than customary enthusiasm, an unpopular president presiding over an economy in recession and two unresolved wars.
Yet, McCain is competitive in spite of these overwhelming negatives. One explanation offered is his life history, especially his military service in the Vietnam War. As squadron leader in combat flying, he was shot down, gravely wounded, captured by the enemy, held prisoner for five years, and tortured by his Vietnamese captors. Obama and Clinton have no military experience.
Could this heroic experience be the basis for his political popularity? The American voters have often rewarded their military heroes with the presidency, among them George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Harrison, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George H. W. Bush (the father).
However, in the last four elections, authentic war heroes were defeated by rivals who not only did not serve but appeared to have made special efforts not to serve. In 1992, war hero George H. W. Bush (the father) lost to Bill Clinton. In 1996 war hero Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. In 2000, war hero Al Gore lost to George W. Bush (the son). In 2004, war hero John Kerry lost to George W. Bush. It is difficult to explain the political rejection of these war heroes, while most Americans intensely “support the troops,” wherever they are, whatever they do.
On Election Day, 2008, the United States will be engaged in at least two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time it will have the largest military budget in the history of the world plus 737 military bases in 130 countries on every continent. McCain is gung-ho for the two wars and very supportive of the military program. Will the election of war hero John McCain be regarded as another ratification of US military policy by the American public, a policy which includes the entire planet as its sphere of influence and operation? Will President McCain rely on his military experience and U.S. military dominance to solve the inevitable problems posed by American hegemony?
By Jerome Grossman
Up to this point in the race for president of the United States, the uncrowned but virtually certain nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, is doing remarkably well in the public opinion polls. McCain is holding his own against both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. According to all the polls, if the election were held today, he would have an even chance of victory.
This is surprising because of the political difficulties of the Republican Party; short of money, besieged by factional quarrels, a support base with less than customary enthusiasm, an unpopular president presiding over an economy in recession and two unresolved wars.
Yet, McCain is competitive in spite of these overwhelming negatives. One explanation offered is his life history, especially his military service in the Vietnam War. As squadron leader in combat flying, he was shot down, gravely wounded, captured by the enemy, held prisoner for five years, and tortured by his Vietnamese captors. Obama and Clinton have no military experience.
Could this heroic experience be the basis for his political popularity? The American voters have often rewarded their military heroes with the presidency, among them George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Harrison, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George H. W. Bush (the father).
However, in the last four elections, authentic war heroes were defeated by rivals who not only did not serve but appeared to have made special efforts not to serve. In 1992, war hero George H. W. Bush (the father) lost to Bill Clinton. In 1996 war hero Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. In 2000, war hero Al Gore lost to George W. Bush (the son). In 2004, war hero John Kerry lost to George W. Bush. It is difficult to explain the political rejection of these war heroes, while most Americans intensely “support the troops,” wherever they are, whatever they do.
On Election Day, 2008, the United States will be engaged in at least two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time it will have the largest military budget in the history of the world plus 737 military bases in 130 countries on every continent. McCain is gung-ho for the two wars and very supportive of the military program. Will the election of war hero John McCain be regarded as another ratification of US military policy by the American public, a policy which includes the entire planet as its sphere of influence and operation? Will President McCain rely on his military experience and U.S. military dominance to solve the inevitable problems posed by American hegemony?
Friday, April 4, 2008
Generalities Without Content
Generalities Without Content
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer the voters the same agenda: their positions on issues are quite similar and match the Democratic Congressional stands. As long as their centrist positions differ from the right wing conservative positions of the discredited Bush administration, they can rally enough Democrats and Independents for victory in November.
This situation gives a significant edge to Obama, whose personality, charisma and oratorical skills completely overshadow Clinton. Hillary compensates by producing details of the issues, acting as the smartest girl in the class, but not offering new approaches to old problems. For example, she could break the impasse on health care by offering a single-payer government-run system including every American, a system used by virtually every industrial nation. But Hillary would rather offer an improved version of the current system, staying within the Democratic consensus.
Supporters of Barack Obama praise him for his foreign policy. In The American Prospect magazine, April 2008, the entire front cover blazes in multicolor with the message, "The Obama Doctrine, Barack Obama's challenge to the foreign policy establishment."
Some challenge. The article offers "the most sweeping liberal critique in decades." Examples offered: dignity promotion, enlightened global leadership, freedom from want, freedom from fear, elimination of misery, promotion of liberty, justice, and prosperity. The only specific policy listed is the destruction of Al Qaeda as though that is all that is necessary to achieve these worthy objectives.
Across the 50 states, more than 100 candidates ran for president although only 18 of them were selected by the presidential commission to appear on the televised debates. They represented a wide spectrum of parties and views. It is fair to say that virtually every candidate would agree with the generalities, the bromides attributed to the Obama campaign. Do these motherhood goals constitute a foreign policy challenging the establishment?
An authentic challenge to the foreign policy establishment would be to advocate specific changes to accomplish the stated objectives. The devil is in the details. The credibility of any program is in the “how to.” Please, beloved candidates, tell the American voters what you will actually do. The people are fed up with generalities without content.
Offering bromides without policy is an insult to the voters and a failure of democracy, one of the reasons why 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. One of the candidates should break this logjam by offering credible specifics. From the history of politics, we know that person will be the one running behind the others. But if that doesn't happen, it is the responsibility of the media to stir the pot, to demand relevant answers. Where are they?
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer the voters the same agenda: their positions on issues are quite similar and match the Democratic Congressional stands. As long as their centrist positions differ from the right wing conservative positions of the discredited Bush administration, they can rally enough Democrats and Independents for victory in November.
This situation gives a significant edge to Obama, whose personality, charisma and oratorical skills completely overshadow Clinton. Hillary compensates by producing details of the issues, acting as the smartest girl in the class, but not offering new approaches to old problems. For example, she could break the impasse on health care by offering a single-payer government-run system including every American, a system used by virtually every industrial nation. But Hillary would rather offer an improved version of the current system, staying within the Democratic consensus.
Supporters of Barack Obama praise him for his foreign policy. In The American Prospect magazine, April 2008, the entire front cover blazes in multicolor with the message, "The Obama Doctrine, Barack Obama's challenge to the foreign policy establishment."
Some challenge. The article offers "the most sweeping liberal critique in decades." Examples offered: dignity promotion, enlightened global leadership, freedom from want, freedom from fear, elimination of misery, promotion of liberty, justice, and prosperity. The only specific policy listed is the destruction of Al Qaeda as though that is all that is necessary to achieve these worthy objectives.
Across the 50 states, more than 100 candidates ran for president although only 18 of them were selected by the presidential commission to appear on the televised debates. They represented a wide spectrum of parties and views. It is fair to say that virtually every candidate would agree with the generalities, the bromides attributed to the Obama campaign. Do these motherhood goals constitute a foreign policy challenging the establishment?
An authentic challenge to the foreign policy establishment would be to advocate specific changes to accomplish the stated objectives. The devil is in the details. The credibility of any program is in the “how to.” Please, beloved candidates, tell the American voters what you will actually do. The people are fed up with generalities without content.
Offering bromides without policy is an insult to the voters and a failure of democracy, one of the reasons why 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. One of the candidates should break this logjam by offering credible specifics. From the history of politics, we know that person will be the one running behind the others. But if that doesn't happen, it is the responsibility of the media to stir the pot, to demand relevant answers. Where are they?
Friday, March 28, 2008
Oh, What a Lucky Man is Johnny McCain
Oh, What a Lucky Man is Johnny McCain
By Jerome Grossman
When this presidential campaign began many months ago, the conventional wisdom was that any Democratic candidate could defeat any Republican candidate. The basis for that generalization was that President Bush's failures in Iraq, Katrina and the economy had weakened the GOP hold on the presidency. The president's approval rating was about 30% on a good day. The party and the candidates were far behind the Democrats in fundraising. The grassroots were discouraged, the independents were looking for change, and the Democrats were full of enthusiasm and energy, enjoying their electoral victories in the 2006 election that gave them control of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.
Now, seven months before the November election, the political conditions have not changed, the economy is in even worse shape, but, strangely enough, Senator John McCain has wrapped up the GOP nomination and is actually competitive with his Democratic rivals. McCain has been mighty lucky. He faced a weak field of GOP rivals for the nomination and saw them fade and then drop out for a variety of reasons. As the leading hawk in the field, he benefited from the limited success of the military surge in Iraq. And he was fortunate that the story about his relationship with the female lobbyist was printed after McCain won close contests with Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and Florida. If the New York Times had broken the story earlier, McCain would have been out of the race, and the paper had been sitting on the details for months.
Now, McCain is enjoying another big break as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton trade attacks giving McCain a free ride, at least temporarily. As a result, the presumptive Republican nominee has crept ahead of both in national polls. While the battling Democrats are defining each other negatively, McCain is sailing along serenely, trying to establish his credentials on foreign and domestic policy.
McCain has a lot of work to do to reach the White House. He must overcome his negative of age in a society that worships youth: he will be 72 years old soon, and sometimes looks like 90. His acknowledged experience lies in military affairs but he must prove his competence in handling the ailing economy. He must find a way to win the rust belt states Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, angry about NAFTA by appealing to workers and Roman Catholics. Organizationally, McCain needs to maintain his long-standing appeal to independent voters while holding together the many opposing factions in the Republican Party. At the same time, McCain needs to demonstrate that his administration will be different from the Bush administrations. Above all, he must keep his focus on his strengths: support for the military and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and chasing terrorists all over the world. And, of course, he will try to convince the voters that Obama (or Clinton) is too inexperienced for leadership in time of war.
In the inevitable presidential debates this autumn, Obama and McCain will be a study in dramatic contrast, not seen since the smooth John F. Kennedy wiped out the sweating Richard Nixon on television in 1960. Obama - tall, athletic, handsome, with a gift for oratory and improvisation. McCain - short, dumpy, showing his age and infirmity, unsmiling and with a short temper. If I were McCain, I might not show up.
These long-term challenges are very difficult in the current political environment. Voters remain weary of the Iraq war, worried about the economy and disenchanted with the lame duck Republican president. All of the energy is on the Democratic side, but McCain is hanging in there, competitive in the polls, playing out a weak hand that is capable of an upset. And above all, relying on his luck that has brought him to the very edge of unlimited power.
By Jerome Grossman
When this presidential campaign began many months ago, the conventional wisdom was that any Democratic candidate could defeat any Republican candidate. The basis for that generalization was that President Bush's failures in Iraq, Katrina and the economy had weakened the GOP hold on the presidency. The president's approval rating was about 30% on a good day. The party and the candidates were far behind the Democrats in fundraising. The grassroots were discouraged, the independents were looking for change, and the Democrats were full of enthusiasm and energy, enjoying their electoral victories in the 2006 election that gave them control of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.
Now, seven months before the November election, the political conditions have not changed, the economy is in even worse shape, but, strangely enough, Senator John McCain has wrapped up the GOP nomination and is actually competitive with his Democratic rivals. McCain has been mighty lucky. He faced a weak field of GOP rivals for the nomination and saw them fade and then drop out for a variety of reasons. As the leading hawk in the field, he benefited from the limited success of the military surge in Iraq. And he was fortunate that the story about his relationship with the female lobbyist was printed after McCain won close contests with Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and Florida. If the New York Times had broken the story earlier, McCain would have been out of the race, and the paper had been sitting on the details for months.
Now, McCain is enjoying another big break as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton trade attacks giving McCain a free ride, at least temporarily. As a result, the presumptive Republican nominee has crept ahead of both in national polls. While the battling Democrats are defining each other negatively, McCain is sailing along serenely, trying to establish his credentials on foreign and domestic policy.
McCain has a lot of work to do to reach the White House. He must overcome his negative of age in a society that worships youth: he will be 72 years old soon, and sometimes looks like 90. His acknowledged experience lies in military affairs but he must prove his competence in handling the ailing economy. He must find a way to win the rust belt states Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, angry about NAFTA by appealing to workers and Roman Catholics. Organizationally, McCain needs to maintain his long-standing appeal to independent voters while holding together the many opposing factions in the Republican Party. At the same time, McCain needs to demonstrate that his administration will be different from the Bush administrations. Above all, he must keep his focus on his strengths: support for the military and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and chasing terrorists all over the world. And, of course, he will try to convince the voters that Obama (or Clinton) is too inexperienced for leadership in time of war.
In the inevitable presidential debates this autumn, Obama and McCain will be a study in dramatic contrast, not seen since the smooth John F. Kennedy wiped out the sweating Richard Nixon on television in 1960. Obama - tall, athletic, handsome, with a gift for oratory and improvisation. McCain - short, dumpy, showing his age and infirmity, unsmiling and with a short temper. If I were McCain, I might not show up.
These long-term challenges are very difficult in the current political environment. Voters remain weary of the Iraq war, worried about the economy and disenchanted with the lame duck Republican president. All of the energy is on the Democratic side, but McCain is hanging in there, competitive in the polls, playing out a weak hand that is capable of an upset. And above all, relying on his luck that has brought him to the very edge of unlimited power.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Ignored Costs of the Iraq War
The Ignored Costs of the Iraq War
By Jerome Grossman
Five years into the war in Iraq, the nation awaits the day of reckoning for the enormous cost of this misbegotten adventure, conceived in ignorance, conducted in arrogance and staining our democracy. The saddest costs are suffered by American soldiers, 4000 deaths and 40,000 wounded; the millions of Iraqis killed or wounded or displaced; and the monetary cost to the U.S. taxpayer now estimated at $3 trillion.
But there are many other hidden costs damaging to our nation that President Bush ignores when he describes this cruel war as "noble, necessary, and just", contrary to world opinion, contrary to friend and foe.
The Costs Ignored:
• U.S. intelligence has been discredited as inaccurate and politicized
• U.S. Is known worldwide as a nation that uses torture as an instrument of policy
• The war has increased the military power and political influence of Iran
• The war has put internal and external pressure on key U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan
• The war has affected Israel by weakening the governments of Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel
• The war has diminished the reputation of the U.S. in every country and dramatically increased hostility to the U.S. in the Muslim world, affecting the sales of American products
• The war has driven up the cost of oil
• The war has indicated the vulnerability of the U.S. military to guerrilla strategy and tactics
• The war cost is curtailing our country's ability to solve urgent domestic problems of infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc...
The war in Iraq is a costly failure at every level. It must be ended at the earliest possible time to save lives and money in order to establish a sane and sensible foreign policy that will truly protect our country and rebuild U.S. relationships and reputation.
It won’t be easy for the U.S. to leave Iraq. Resistance will come from imperial ambition, domestic political advantage, and oil business interests.. The argument will be made that withdrawal from Iraq without victory might stimulate similar demands in the 130 countries where the U.S. has a total of 737 bases.
And finally, we should remember the experience of other great powers. From 1882 until 1922, the British promised the international community 66 times that they would leave Egypt, but they never did until they were forced out.
By Jerome Grossman
Five years into the war in Iraq, the nation awaits the day of reckoning for the enormous cost of this misbegotten adventure, conceived in ignorance, conducted in arrogance and staining our democracy. The saddest costs are suffered by American soldiers, 4000 deaths and 40,000 wounded; the millions of Iraqis killed or wounded or displaced; and the monetary cost to the U.S. taxpayer now estimated at $3 trillion.
But there are many other hidden costs damaging to our nation that President Bush ignores when he describes this cruel war as "noble, necessary, and just", contrary to world opinion, contrary to friend and foe.
The Costs Ignored:
• U.S. intelligence has been discredited as inaccurate and politicized
• U.S. Is known worldwide as a nation that uses torture as an instrument of policy
• The war has increased the military power and political influence of Iran
• The war has put internal and external pressure on key U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan
• The war has affected Israel by weakening the governments of Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel
• The war has diminished the reputation of the U.S. in every country and dramatically increased hostility to the U.S. in the Muslim world, affecting the sales of American products
• The war has driven up the cost of oil
• The war has indicated the vulnerability of the U.S. military to guerrilla strategy and tactics
• The war cost is curtailing our country's ability to solve urgent domestic problems of infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc...
The war in Iraq is a costly failure at every level. It must be ended at the earliest possible time to save lives and money in order to establish a sane and sensible foreign policy that will truly protect our country and rebuild U.S. relationships and reputation.
It won’t be easy for the U.S. to leave Iraq. Resistance will come from imperial ambition, domestic political advantage, and oil business interests.. The argument will be made that withdrawal from Iraq without victory might stimulate similar demands in the 130 countries where the U.S. has a total of 737 bases.
And finally, we should remember the experience of other great powers. From 1882 until 1922, the British promised the international community 66 times that they would leave Egypt, but they never did until they were forced out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
