A.I.G. Bonuses - The Last Straw
By Jerome Grossman
The national explosion of anger over the bonuses awarded to financial officers at American International Group indicates that the tipping point has been reached in the accumulated resentments on American financial inequality.. For generations, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the income gap between the 95% of U.S. population lumped together as working class and middle class, and the 5% who earned $250,000 or more per year, has widened significantly. The 5% have more clout. They dominate U.S. politics, education, culture, taxation rules, charitable institutions, media, and business, acting as a kind of American nobility with benefits handed down from generation to generation.
Then comes a time when a relatively insignificant event captures the attention of the masses who begin to connect their anger at the current violation with the other half-remembered abuses. Then comes real change. Sometimes a popular leader emerges to dramatize the exploitation, like William Jennings Bryan, who galvanized the Democratic Party with “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold,” dramatizing the economic ills plaguing farmers and industrial workers. He won the Democratic nomination twice although not the presidency. But he won many of his reforms, backed by an aroused citizenry, were adopted, including the income tax, popular election of senators, woman suffrage, popular knowledge of newspaper ownership etc.
Today Americans are worried that the bailout was designed for the benefit of those who created the crisis. They suspect that America has been taken over by a small class of connected insiders who use money to control elections, buy influence, systematically weaken financial regulation and get government money to bail them out when they get into trouble.
The A.I.G. bonuses remind the 95% of:
• The bailouts of the banks and bankers from their own mistakes
• The failure to bail-out the average citizen from unfair mortgages and job layoffs
• The bankers who gambled with depositor money at enormous risk to build bonuses for themselves
• The low tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans on the top portion of their earnings now at 35%, once 91% under Eisenhower, 70% under Nixon, 50% under Reagan. What happened to the progressive tax based on ability to pay?
• The special tax rate for capital gains of 20% used by the wealthiest Americans
• The special tax breaks given to insiders as earmarks
• Some business executives maintain control by appointing their friends to boards of directors
• Some business executives vote themselves enormous salaries
• Some business executives vote themselves stock options, some of which are back-dated to take advantage of stock price increases
• Some business executives vote themselves enormous retirement packages not based on performance
• Some business executives discharge workers and speed up the rest of the work force to increase short term profits and stock prices
• Some business executives maintain headquarters outside the U.S.A. and shift corporate income from country to country to avoid taxes
Will the anger about A.I.G. bonuses subside? Or will an organization of citizens spring up to fight for their interests? Will another William Jennings Bryan denounce the current abuses and agitate for fairer wages and fairer division of the profits of our technological society? Will the current anger dissipate into the day-to-day problems of an economy in decline? Will the A.I.G. bonuses be the last straw?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Better to Bribe Than to Kill
Better to Bribe Than to Kill
By Jerome Grossman
There are four power centers in the Obama foreign-policy establishment, each led by heavyweights with close relationships to the president: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser James Jones, and Vice President Joseph Biden. Gates and Jones have strong military backgrounds; Clinton and Biden come from political and civilian experience. Which one will have the president's ear?
Obama has a big decision to make on Afghanistan where U.S. forces have been fighting for almost eight years and where the president says we are not winning. About 35,000 US troops are in action there alongside the same number of soldiers from NATO allies. Obama has commissioned the development of a plan for Afghanistan due in April, but he is sending 17,000 more troops before the plan is ready, surely a sign that military matters are not going well in the allied effort.
Loquacious Biden has preempted the discussion. On March 10 he said that 70% of the Taliban are essentially mercenaries who possibly could be negotiated with instead of fought and said that the U.S.likely will try this approach." Five percent of the Taliban is incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another twenty-five percent or so are not quite sure, in my view, of the intensity of their commitment to the insurgency........ And roughly 70% are involved because of the money, because of them being......paid.” Notice that Biden ignores Afghan nationalism and the universal resentment against foreign invasion, expressed repeatedly over the centuries, most recently by armed resistance against the Soviet Union and the British Empire.
Biden is suggesting a strategy based on U.S. experience with the Sunnis in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan immediately after the September 11 tragedy, it defeated the Taliban with air power and dollars, with few soldiers. U.S. forces learned that the opposing forces could be defeated with cash, or at least sent back to their villages with the help of bribed local warlords.
General David Petraeus repeated this teqnique in the Anbar province of Iraq, where he was able to buy the cooperation of the local sheiks and then put 100,000 Sunni insurgent warriors on the U.S. payroll where they remain to this day. That was and is the prime reason for the sudden decline in insurgency in Iraq. Petraeus also threw into the deal guns for the vacationing warriors, who decided to wait for the U.S. to leave before using those guns against their Shia rivals.
There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere in Pakistan. The Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed. Poor, primitive Afghanistan is a nation of brigands with a corrupt central government to match. If we can end the war by purchase, so much the better. Better to bribe than to kill.
By Jerome Grossman
There are four power centers in the Obama foreign-policy establishment, each led by heavyweights with close relationships to the president: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser James Jones, and Vice President Joseph Biden. Gates and Jones have strong military backgrounds; Clinton and Biden come from political and civilian experience. Which one will have the president's ear?
Obama has a big decision to make on Afghanistan where U.S. forces have been fighting for almost eight years and where the president says we are not winning. About 35,000 US troops are in action there alongside the same number of soldiers from NATO allies. Obama has commissioned the development of a plan for Afghanistan due in April, but he is sending 17,000 more troops before the plan is ready, surely a sign that military matters are not going well in the allied effort.
Loquacious Biden has preempted the discussion. On March 10 he said that 70% of the Taliban are essentially mercenaries who possibly could be negotiated with instead of fought and said that the U.S.likely will try this approach." Five percent of the Taliban is incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another twenty-five percent or so are not quite sure, in my view, of the intensity of their commitment to the insurgency........ And roughly 70% are involved because of the money, because of them being......paid.” Notice that Biden ignores Afghan nationalism and the universal resentment against foreign invasion, expressed repeatedly over the centuries, most recently by armed resistance against the Soviet Union and the British Empire.
Biden is suggesting a strategy based on U.S. experience with the Sunnis in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan immediately after the September 11 tragedy, it defeated the Taliban with air power and dollars, with few soldiers. U.S. forces learned that the opposing forces could be defeated with cash, or at least sent back to their villages with the help of bribed local warlords.
General David Petraeus repeated this teqnique in the Anbar province of Iraq, where he was able to buy the cooperation of the local sheiks and then put 100,000 Sunni insurgent warriors on the U.S. payroll where they remain to this day. That was and is the prime reason for the sudden decline in insurgency in Iraq. Petraeus also threw into the deal guns for the vacationing warriors, who decided to wait for the U.S. to leave before using those guns against their Shia rivals.
There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere in Pakistan. The Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed. Poor, primitive Afghanistan is a nation of brigands with a corrupt central government to match. If we can end the war by purchase, so much the better. Better to bribe than to kill.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Too Big to Fail
Too Big to Fail
By Jerome Grossman
At least twenty oversized American banks have histories of reckless behavior, including bad lending and gambling with derivatives, that have left them insolvent, in fact, bankrupt. They have poisoned the economy and should pay the price for their mistakes just like every other business.
However, because their machinations affect so many investors, depositors and other businesses, they have been given a pass, saved by massive injection of federal government funds. By basic capitalist standards, this is a gross violation of business integrity, weakening the structure of our economic system. The violated principle is summarized as “Too big to fail.” One Nobel Prize winning economist called it “looting”.
The managers of such institutions knew how to take advantage of their special status. They took excessive risk for mountainous profits that would entitle them to massive bonuses if successful - or a government bailout if the investment failed. The techniques were often complicated; but some were based on inadequate reserves that purposely underestimated the financial exposure. The managers were in financial clover: heads I win, tails you lose, “Too big to fail.”
In the current crisis, the government is rescuing the managers once again, lending $700 billion as bailout money. That amount, leveraged on an accepted basis of ten to one, could have supported $7 trillion of lending capacity in a new or reorganized bank, more than enough to serve the nation's business. We didn’t go that route; they are “Too big to fail.” President Obama has given primary responsibility for the financial crisis to Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, and Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury. The president can do better than these two conventional figures stuck in the past.
There may be an uncomfortable analogy in the position of the United States in world affairs: “Too big to fail.” Decade after decade we overspend on military equipment, organize the largest military budget the world has ever seen, enter failed military quagmires in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we get token troop support from nations around the world even though their populations disapprove of our military invasions. A remarkable 737 American military bases with hundreds of thousands of American troops are situated in 130 countries, a worldwide presence that protects the governing elites on virtually every continent. Is the U.S.A. “Too big to fail” because its collapse would upset the political and military status quo all over the world?
Where does the U.S. get the money to finance its domestic and foreign errors? In large part from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the other countries that buy U.S. Treasury bonds in the hope that they will be redeemable despite our enormous national debt of $10,942,165,294,650.89 or roughly eleven (11) trillion dollars. China's economy depends on the sales of goods to the U.S. The Saudis have big investments in the U.S. and depend on U.S. military power to protect them from their own people and keep the oil flowing. The Japanese are inheriting our automobile business
In spite of their mistakes, the banks and the U.S. maintain their prime positions in the world because they are “Too big to fail.” How long can it last? Their gross errors of management are too expensive, depressing profits and living standards by forcing greatly increased costs on the entire world. Adam Smith, the patron saint of capitalism, would tell the nation and the world that these arrangements are too inefficient and unstable to be continued indefinitely.
By Jerome Grossman
At least twenty oversized American banks have histories of reckless behavior, including bad lending and gambling with derivatives, that have left them insolvent, in fact, bankrupt. They have poisoned the economy and should pay the price for their mistakes just like every other business.
However, because their machinations affect so many investors, depositors and other businesses, they have been given a pass, saved by massive injection of federal government funds. By basic capitalist standards, this is a gross violation of business integrity, weakening the structure of our economic system. The violated principle is summarized as “Too big to fail.” One Nobel Prize winning economist called it “looting”.
The managers of such institutions knew how to take advantage of their special status. They took excessive risk for mountainous profits that would entitle them to massive bonuses if successful - or a government bailout if the investment failed. The techniques were often complicated; but some were based on inadequate reserves that purposely underestimated the financial exposure. The managers were in financial clover: heads I win, tails you lose, “Too big to fail.”
In the current crisis, the government is rescuing the managers once again, lending $700 billion as bailout money. That amount, leveraged on an accepted basis of ten to one, could have supported $7 trillion of lending capacity in a new or reorganized bank, more than enough to serve the nation's business. We didn’t go that route; they are “Too big to fail.” President Obama has given primary responsibility for the financial crisis to Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, and Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury. The president can do better than these two conventional figures stuck in the past.
There may be an uncomfortable analogy in the position of the United States in world affairs: “Too big to fail.” Decade after decade we overspend on military equipment, organize the largest military budget the world has ever seen, enter failed military quagmires in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we get token troop support from nations around the world even though their populations disapprove of our military invasions. A remarkable 737 American military bases with hundreds of thousands of American troops are situated in 130 countries, a worldwide presence that protects the governing elites on virtually every continent. Is the U.S.A. “Too big to fail” because its collapse would upset the political and military status quo all over the world?
Where does the U.S. get the money to finance its domestic and foreign errors? In large part from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the other countries that buy U.S. Treasury bonds in the hope that they will be redeemable despite our enormous national debt of $10,942,165,294,650.89 or roughly eleven (11) trillion dollars. China's economy depends on the sales of goods to the U.S. The Saudis have big investments in the U.S. and depend on U.S. military power to protect them from their own people and keep the oil flowing. The Japanese are inheriting our automobile business
In spite of their mistakes, the banks and the U.S. maintain their prime positions in the world because they are “Too big to fail.” How long can it last? Their gross errors of management are too expensive, depressing profits and living standards by forcing greatly increased costs on the entire world. Adam Smith, the patron saint of capitalism, would tell the nation and the world that these arrangements are too inefficient and unstable to be continued indefinitely.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
U.S. Out of Iraq - NOW
U.S. Out of Iraq - NOW
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama captured the soul of the Democratic Party when he denounced the American invasion of Iraq as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. His election to the presidency proved that the voters trusted him to end the war as he promised.
While Americans are grateful that this six year old war will soon be over, they wonder at the delay in pulling our troops from Iraq. More than 4000 Americans have been killed; more than 30,000 have been wounded in this war generally regarded as a mistake. Our military leaders say that we should leave "responsibly." What does that mean? Responsible to whom? To the Iraqis, whose public wants us to leave at once? To the corrupt Iraqi government whose leaders want us to stay as long as we supply the dollars?
Our first responsibility is to the men and women of the U. S. military. No more deaths. No more wounds. How would you like to be the last soldier to die for a mistake?
Obama promised a pullout within 16 months. Now, his senior officials tell the New York Times that will be extended to 19 months. How many Americans will be killed or wounded in those three months? Why? To protect the military equipment? Leave it there for the Iraqis. When we invaded, our operation against a shooting enemy took one month. Getting out should take the same one month.
If we are serious
President Obama plans to leave behind a "residual force" to continue training Iraqis, to hunt down foreign terrorist cells, to guard the American Embassy and other American installations. That doesn't sound like much of a withdrawal. The residual tasks are what we have been doing for six years. Right now, there are about 142,000 American military in Iraq and a like number of civilian contractors working for us. The duties of the residual force indicate that at least 100,000 Americans would remain in Iraq in addition to a sizeable number of contractors to help them. Not the pullout we expected. And if the fragile truce between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds disintegrates, U.S. forces are likely to stay in Iraq.
The U.S. now has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries. The Middle East contains 60% of the oil on earth. The U.S. has commercial, political, financial and cultural interests in every country in the area, some of the interests valued in the trillions of dollars. Will Iraq become the 131st country? Will the residual force become the U.S. military base? Removing all U.S. troops from Iraq – NOW – may reverse our reliance on military power, restore our international reputation and encourage the use of “soft power” in pursuit of American interests.
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama captured the soul of the Democratic Party when he denounced the American invasion of Iraq as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. His election to the presidency proved that the voters trusted him to end the war as he promised.
While Americans are grateful that this six year old war will soon be over, they wonder at the delay in pulling our troops from Iraq. More than 4000 Americans have been killed; more than 30,000 have been wounded in this war generally regarded as a mistake. Our military leaders say that we should leave "responsibly." What does that mean? Responsible to whom? To the Iraqis, whose public wants us to leave at once? To the corrupt Iraqi government whose leaders want us to stay as long as we supply the dollars?
Our first responsibility is to the men and women of the U. S. military. No more deaths. No more wounds. How would you like to be the last soldier to die for a mistake?
Obama promised a pullout within 16 months. Now, his senior officials tell the New York Times that will be extended to 19 months. How many Americans will be killed or wounded in those three months? Why? To protect the military equipment? Leave it there for the Iraqis. When we invaded, our operation against a shooting enemy took one month. Getting out should take the same one month.
If we are serious
President Obama plans to leave behind a "residual force" to continue training Iraqis, to hunt down foreign terrorist cells, to guard the American Embassy and other American installations. That doesn't sound like much of a withdrawal. The residual tasks are what we have been doing for six years. Right now, there are about 142,000 American military in Iraq and a like number of civilian contractors working for us. The duties of the residual force indicate that at least 100,000 Americans would remain in Iraq in addition to a sizeable number of contractors to help them. Not the pullout we expected. And if the fragile truce between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds disintegrates, U.S. forces are likely to stay in Iraq.
The U.S. now has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries. The Middle East contains 60% of the oil on earth. The U.S. has commercial, political, financial and cultural interests in every country in the area, some of the interests valued in the trillions of dollars. Will Iraq become the 131st country? Will the residual force become the U.S. military base? Removing all U.S. troops from Iraq – NOW – may reverse our reliance on military power, restore our international reputation and encourage the use of “soft power” in pursuit of American interests.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Afghan Cemetery
The Afghan Cemetery
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama indicated through his press secretary that his administration would review its policy toward Afghanistan before making a decision about sending additional troops to fight in that country. Richard Holbrooke, his envoy, was in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region talking with leaders about how best to address the military and political situation. Obama also met with advisers at the Pentagon and the State Department.
As recently as February 15, it was reported that Obama “is refusing to be rushed into his first decision to send troops into combat…… questioning the time table, the mission and even the composition of the new forces.” However, Obama changed his mind on February 17, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country, joining the 30,000 U.S. troops already there.
Obama will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. His order leaves crucial questions of strategy and tactics in Afghanistan unanswered until the strategy review is completed in April. Antiwar groups criticized Obama’s decision. Tom Andrews, director of Win Without War said, “The president is committing these troops before he's determined what the mission is….. We need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation.”
The hasty decision ignored the many negative comments about the prospects for a U.S. victory. General David Petraeus has called Afghanistan “the graveyard of empires”. Holbrooke reported “a purely military victory is not achievable.” British historians furnish the details of their three failed military attempts to pacify the country. Twenty years after the troops of the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in defeat, the last Russian general to command them said on Feb 13 that the Soviets’ devastating experience, losing more than 15,000 troops in Afghanistan battling guerrillas “is a dismal omen for the U.S.”
Supporters of expanded U.S. military operations in Afghanistan cite the successes of the American military against the Taliban in October and November, 2001, immediately after the tragedy of September 11. However, that victory was accomplished by air power and bribery. Airpower prevented Taliban military operations. Hundred dollar bills bought warlord allies in this corrupt country whose main product is opium.
Can we do it again, bribing our way through the drug lords? Perhaps. But history shows that Afghans don't stay bought and that the guerrillas motivated by rebellion and nationalism will fight the invaders for hundreds of years, making a bandit's living out of their tactics as they have done for time immemorial.
Don’t think that General Petraeus does not know how to use money as a weapon. While he was installing the “Surge” in Iraq adding 30,000 fresh troops with great fanfare, he was quietly bribing the insurgent Sunnis with $20 dollar bills and rifles, paying 100,000 warriors to stop fighting the Americans.
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama indicated through his press secretary that his administration would review its policy toward Afghanistan before making a decision about sending additional troops to fight in that country. Richard Holbrooke, his envoy, was in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region talking with leaders about how best to address the military and political situation. Obama also met with advisers at the Pentagon and the State Department.
As recently as February 15, it was reported that Obama “is refusing to be rushed into his first decision to send troops into combat…… questioning the time table, the mission and even the composition of the new forces.” However, Obama changed his mind on February 17, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country, joining the 30,000 U.S. troops already there.
Obama will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. His order leaves crucial questions of strategy and tactics in Afghanistan unanswered until the strategy review is completed in April. Antiwar groups criticized Obama’s decision. Tom Andrews, director of Win Without War said, “The president is committing these troops before he's determined what the mission is….. We need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation.”
The hasty decision ignored the many negative comments about the prospects for a U.S. victory. General David Petraeus has called Afghanistan “the graveyard of empires”. Holbrooke reported “a purely military victory is not achievable.” British historians furnish the details of their three failed military attempts to pacify the country. Twenty years after the troops of the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in defeat, the last Russian general to command them said on Feb 13 that the Soviets’ devastating experience, losing more than 15,000 troops in Afghanistan battling guerrillas “is a dismal omen for the U.S.”
Supporters of expanded U.S. military operations in Afghanistan cite the successes of the American military against the Taliban in October and November, 2001, immediately after the tragedy of September 11. However, that victory was accomplished by air power and bribery. Airpower prevented Taliban military operations. Hundred dollar bills bought warlord allies in this corrupt country whose main product is opium.
Can we do it again, bribing our way through the drug lords? Perhaps. But history shows that Afghans don't stay bought and that the guerrillas motivated by rebellion and nationalism will fight the invaders for hundreds of years, making a bandit's living out of their tactics as they have done for time immemorial.
Don’t think that General Petraeus does not know how to use money as a weapon. While he was installing the “Surge” in Iraq adding 30,000 fresh troops with great fanfare, he was quietly bribing the insurgent Sunnis with $20 dollar bills and rifles, paying 100,000 warriors to stop fighting the Americans.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Obama on Civil Liberties
Obama on Civil Liberties
By Jerome Grossman
In January I was watching the Senate confirmation hearing of President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta. How did we ever keep informed before C-SPAN?
As a passionate civil libertarian, I was so proud of Panetta as he denounced torture without any reservations stating that the CIA would follow the rules of the U.S. Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Then he said that the U.S. would no longer engage in rendition, the secret shuttling of detainees and prisoners to foreign nations who torture.
I was so happy that I had voted for Obama and had sent him a fat check. And Panetta became my hero, boldly changing the positions of the Bush administration and the secret activities of the CIA.
A couple of days later, quite by accident, I caught Panetta on C-SPAN again, before the same Senate committee, a surprise because the first hearing seemed to have covered all the questions. A senator asked Panetta a leading question on torture: “What would you do if you knew that a bomb, maybe nuclear, was about to be exploded and your prisoner knew when and where?” Panetta replied that he would ask for “additional authority”, that is, to torture in exceptional circumstances.
Panetta's position has moral and operational flaws. How can he be sure that the intelligence about a bomb is accurate? How does he know that the prisoner has the information sought and even if he does that he will tell the truth? If the exception is built into the system, won't it be used more and more to justify torture, to break down a prisoner by claiming the most extreme danger whether or not it is present?
Then another senator asked Panetta to expand his views on rendition. He replied,” I'm glad you asked”, and proceeded to modify his initial statements: The CIA might continue its “extraordinary rendition”, transferring prisoners to third countries even those known to torturer, relying on their assurances of humane treatment. Just what the Bush administration claimed for eight years while the contracting countries routinely tortured. The senator may have asked: Why send prisoners or detainees abroad at great expense for mere interrogation? Wouldn't that jeopardize later judicial prosecutions? How can the interrogators’ actions be controlled from another faraway continent? Is it a good idea to farm out aspects of our legal system?
The Obama administration has decided “not to change the status quo immediately” on these issues according to Gregory Craig, the White House Counsel. Civil libertarians ought to take notice and express their disappointment about these matters as well as the continuation of electronic eavesdropping of phone calls without a warrant.
It was clear that the White House was having second thoughts about the very important changes in civil liberties described as Obama policy by Panetta in his first appearance. That is unfortunate and unwise. In the election, the American people repudiated the way the Bush administration operated. There needs to be a dramatic change of direction, especially on civil liberties, and without hesitation. That is the prime reason why Barack Obama was elected president.
By Jerome Grossman
In January I was watching the Senate confirmation hearing of President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta. How did we ever keep informed before C-SPAN?
As a passionate civil libertarian, I was so proud of Panetta as he denounced torture without any reservations stating that the CIA would follow the rules of the U.S. Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Then he said that the U.S. would no longer engage in rendition, the secret shuttling of detainees and prisoners to foreign nations who torture.
I was so happy that I had voted for Obama and had sent him a fat check. And Panetta became my hero, boldly changing the positions of the Bush administration and the secret activities of the CIA.
A couple of days later, quite by accident, I caught Panetta on C-SPAN again, before the same Senate committee, a surprise because the first hearing seemed to have covered all the questions. A senator asked Panetta a leading question on torture: “What would you do if you knew that a bomb, maybe nuclear, was about to be exploded and your prisoner knew when and where?” Panetta replied that he would ask for “additional authority”, that is, to torture in exceptional circumstances.
Panetta's position has moral and operational flaws. How can he be sure that the intelligence about a bomb is accurate? How does he know that the prisoner has the information sought and even if he does that he will tell the truth? If the exception is built into the system, won't it be used more and more to justify torture, to break down a prisoner by claiming the most extreme danger whether or not it is present?
Then another senator asked Panetta to expand his views on rendition. He replied,” I'm glad you asked”, and proceeded to modify his initial statements: The CIA might continue its “extraordinary rendition”, transferring prisoners to third countries even those known to torturer, relying on their assurances of humane treatment. Just what the Bush administration claimed for eight years while the contracting countries routinely tortured. The senator may have asked: Why send prisoners or detainees abroad at great expense for mere interrogation? Wouldn't that jeopardize later judicial prosecutions? How can the interrogators’ actions be controlled from another faraway continent? Is it a good idea to farm out aspects of our legal system?
The Obama administration has decided “not to change the status quo immediately” on these issues according to Gregory Craig, the White House Counsel. Civil libertarians ought to take notice and express their disappointment about these matters as well as the continuation of electronic eavesdropping of phone calls without a warrant.
It was clear that the White House was having second thoughts about the very important changes in civil liberties described as Obama policy by Panetta in his first appearance. That is unfortunate and unwise. In the election, the American people repudiated the way the Bush administration operated. There needs to be a dramatic change of direction, especially on civil liberties, and without hesitation. That is the prime reason why Barack Obama was elected president.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Ted Kennedy: His First Election
Ted Kennedy: His First Election
By Jerome Grossman
An interesting sidebar to Ted Kennedy's inspiring political history harks back to his first run for the Senate in 1962. It was, as some labeled it, a "battle of the clans": Opposing Kennedy in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary was Edward McCormack, nephew of House Speaker John McCormack; Kennedy's Republican opponent was Yankee scion George Cabot Lodge; and on the left was Independent peace candidate Harvard Prof. H. Stuart Hughes, chair of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and grandson of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
I was Campaign Manager and Chester Hartman was the organizer of the massive signature drive required to place Hughes on the ballot. Hughes needed 72,000 signatures, a purposely prohibitive number in that era of McCarthyism and nobody in fact had tried to reach it since the law had first been passed.
In this talented field, Hughes polled 50,013 votes, 2.3% of the votes cast. However, we collected a startling 149,000 signatures in ten weeks for a "peace candidate." The Cuban Missile Crisis arrived in October just before the election. With the integrity that was his hallmark, Hughes went against the popular hysteria: he accused President Kennedy of acting over hastily in imposing the blockade of Cuba, of bypassing the United Nations, and unnecessarily stirring up an atmosphere of national emergency. His position cost Hughes thousands of votes.
In the process we built a town-by-town organization all over the state, a structure that remains in place today. A clear result has been the election over recent decades of so many progressive voices to the state's first-rate Congressional delegation, including Michael Harrington, Father Robert Drinan, Gerry Studds, Jim McGovern, Barney Frank, Ed Markey, John Tierney, Michael Capuano and John Kerry.
The Hughes campaign built the strongest statewide peace movement in the country, a movement that changed the face and reputation of Massachusetts politics.
By Jerome Grossman
An interesting sidebar to Ted Kennedy's inspiring political history harks back to his first run for the Senate in 1962. It was, as some labeled it, a "battle of the clans": Opposing Kennedy in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary was Edward McCormack, nephew of House Speaker John McCormack; Kennedy's Republican opponent was Yankee scion George Cabot Lodge; and on the left was Independent peace candidate Harvard Prof. H. Stuart Hughes, chair of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and grandson of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
I was Campaign Manager and Chester Hartman was the organizer of the massive signature drive required to place Hughes on the ballot. Hughes needed 72,000 signatures, a purposely prohibitive number in that era of McCarthyism and nobody in fact had tried to reach it since the law had first been passed.
In this talented field, Hughes polled 50,013 votes, 2.3% of the votes cast. However, we collected a startling 149,000 signatures in ten weeks for a "peace candidate." The Cuban Missile Crisis arrived in October just before the election. With the integrity that was his hallmark, Hughes went against the popular hysteria: he accused President Kennedy of acting over hastily in imposing the blockade of Cuba, of bypassing the United Nations, and unnecessarily stirring up an atmosphere of national emergency. His position cost Hughes thousands of votes.
In the process we built a town-by-town organization all over the state, a structure that remains in place today. A clear result has been the election over recent decades of so many progressive voices to the state's first-rate Congressional delegation, including Michael Harrington, Father Robert Drinan, Gerry Studds, Jim McGovern, Barney Frank, Ed Markey, John Tierney, Michael Capuano and John Kerry.
The Hughes campaign built the strongest statewide peace movement in the country, a movement that changed the face and reputation of Massachusetts politics.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Castro Wants U.S. Out of Guantánamo
Castro Wants U.S. Out of Guantánamo
By Jerome Grossman
President Barack Obama has earned justified praise all over the world for announcing that he will close the United States prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba within a year. This military colony has incarcerated hundreds of people seized in the U.S. - Afghan war of 2001-02 and the Iraq war that began in 2003. Because Guantánamo is outside the United States, the U.S. has argued that these so-called "unlawful combatants" are not subject to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners. They have not been tried and some have been tortured.
Cuban leader Fidel Castro praised Obama after his election as "honest" and "noble" but on January 29 he demanded that Obama return Guantánamo to Cuba "without conditions". Castro said, “Maintaining a military base in Cuba against the will of the people violates the most elemental principles of international law..... Not respecting Cuba's will is an arrogant act and an abuse of immense power against a little country.”
The United States does maintain an important naval station at Guantánamo Bay covering 28,000 acres. The site was leased to the U.S. in 1903 by a treaty that was renewed in 1934. Since 1960, the Castro government has refused to accept the token annual rent of $5,000 from the U.S. and has repeatedly pressured for the return of the base.
The U.S. helped the people of Cuba liberate themselves from the Spanish overlords in 1898. While they had the power to do so, the U.S. did not directly annex Cuba only because of its pretensions to being an anti-imperialist nation, an important political issue at that time. However, Cuba was forced to grant the U.S. special privileges to intervene in Cuban affairs at any time which we did in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920 by landing our Marines. The revolution led by Castro ended that arrangement.
The U.S. has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries, arrangements entered into willingly by the nations concerned. When a country asks us to leave, that request is within their right under international law. To ignore such a demand would call into question U.S. motives and raise the spectre that the bases were forced upon “little countries” by military or economic pressures. The only superpower has a basic interest in maintaining international law and could enhance its position as world hegemon by giving up Guantánamo Bay as the host country requests.
Because no superpower, ancient or modern, has ever surrendered its military and economic preeminence voluntarily, it would be unrealistic to ask the U.S. to do so. But there are ways of leading, even dominating, that lessen the resentment of those led. One method is the use of "soft power" to promote education, health care, infrastructure, etc instead of spending money and manpower on military bases that flaunt superpower occupation and offend local nationalist sentiment.
By Jerome Grossman
President Barack Obama has earned justified praise all over the world for announcing that he will close the United States prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba within a year. This military colony has incarcerated hundreds of people seized in the U.S. - Afghan war of 2001-02 and the Iraq war that began in 2003. Because Guantánamo is outside the United States, the U.S. has argued that these so-called "unlawful combatants" are not subject to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners. They have not been tried and some have been tortured.
Cuban leader Fidel Castro praised Obama after his election as "honest" and "noble" but on January 29 he demanded that Obama return Guantánamo to Cuba "without conditions". Castro said, “Maintaining a military base in Cuba against the will of the people violates the most elemental principles of international law..... Not respecting Cuba's will is an arrogant act and an abuse of immense power against a little country.”
The United States does maintain an important naval station at Guantánamo Bay covering 28,000 acres. The site was leased to the U.S. in 1903 by a treaty that was renewed in 1934. Since 1960, the Castro government has refused to accept the token annual rent of $5,000 from the U.S. and has repeatedly pressured for the return of the base.
The U.S. helped the people of Cuba liberate themselves from the Spanish overlords in 1898. While they had the power to do so, the U.S. did not directly annex Cuba only because of its pretensions to being an anti-imperialist nation, an important political issue at that time. However, Cuba was forced to grant the U.S. special privileges to intervene in Cuban affairs at any time which we did in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920 by landing our Marines. The revolution led by Castro ended that arrangement.
The U.S. has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries, arrangements entered into willingly by the nations concerned. When a country asks us to leave, that request is within their right under international law. To ignore such a demand would call into question U.S. motives and raise the spectre that the bases were forced upon “little countries” by military or economic pressures. The only superpower has a basic interest in maintaining international law and could enhance its position as world hegemon by giving up Guantánamo Bay as the host country requests.
Because no superpower, ancient or modern, has ever surrendered its military and economic preeminence voluntarily, it would be unrealistic to ask the U.S. to do so. But there are ways of leading, even dominating, that lessen the resentment of those led. One method is the use of "soft power" to promote education, health care, infrastructure, etc instead of spending money and manpower on military bases that flaunt superpower occupation and offend local nationalist sentiment.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Old Razzle Dazzle
The Old Razzle Dazzle
By Jerome Grossman
If President Barack Obama rescues America, and indeed the entire world, from the ravages of recession/depression, the gratitude of the populace will be boundless. His party will sweep the congressional elections of 2010; his reelection in 2012 will be by acclamation.
If Obama's stimulus plan fails and the economy sinks into depression, he will bear the blame, and he and his party will be swept from power. Obama says the stimulus “serves two functions-creating jobs and stimulating the economy in the short term and laying the groundwork for overhauls in energy, health care and infrastructure that would be felt for decades.”
But some Democrats say that his package could end up missing both targets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the stimulus bill "could prove less than the quick jolt that President Obama is seeking," because of necessary delays in spending on longer projects.
To protect his political flank in 20i0 and 2012, Obama has catered to the policies of the Republicans, so that 40% of the entire package is composed of tax cuts. Vice President Joe Biden said "That's not what the Democrats wanted." But they accepted the Republican tax proposals to get their support and votes for the package. Then, in case of failure, Republicans could not attack politically in 2010 and 2012 because the bill included their own tax cut wish list.
However, after receiving the tax concessions, the GOP failed to deliver their votes. From being dispirited after losing the White House and the Congress, they now have a strategy: to blame Obama if the economy fails to rally, to blame Obama for the waste of trillions, to blame Obama for the anticipated inflation.
Today, Obama is in a very strong position. Virtually the entire country wants him to succeed. Guarding against possible failure, he wanted both parties on the same hook, the stimulus bill. In remarkable and unprecedented gestures of bipartisanship, he praised Ronald Reagan, met with GOP officials, dined with conservative pundits, solicited their advice and ideas, appointed Republicans to his Cabinet and policymaking positions, to name only a few outreaches. Obama made all those compromises for nothing.
So far, Obama has failed to achieve the desired cooperation or the bipartisan cover for his stimulus bill. The Republicans now have a political strategy for future elections. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on Obama’s future failure and the continuation of our economic troubles. Let us hope they are wrong in their use of the old razzle dazzle style of politics.
By Jerome Grossman
If President Barack Obama rescues America, and indeed the entire world, from the ravages of recession/depression, the gratitude of the populace will be boundless. His party will sweep the congressional elections of 2010; his reelection in 2012 will be by acclamation.
If Obama's stimulus plan fails and the economy sinks into depression, he will bear the blame, and he and his party will be swept from power. Obama says the stimulus “serves two functions-creating jobs and stimulating the economy in the short term and laying the groundwork for overhauls in energy, health care and infrastructure that would be felt for decades.”
But some Democrats say that his package could end up missing both targets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the stimulus bill "could prove less than the quick jolt that President Obama is seeking," because of necessary delays in spending on longer projects.
To protect his political flank in 20i0 and 2012, Obama has catered to the policies of the Republicans, so that 40% of the entire package is composed of tax cuts. Vice President Joe Biden said "That's not what the Democrats wanted." But they accepted the Republican tax proposals to get their support and votes for the package. Then, in case of failure, Republicans could not attack politically in 2010 and 2012 because the bill included their own tax cut wish list.
However, after receiving the tax concessions, the GOP failed to deliver their votes. From being dispirited after losing the White House and the Congress, they now have a strategy: to blame Obama if the economy fails to rally, to blame Obama for the waste of trillions, to blame Obama for the anticipated inflation.
Today, Obama is in a very strong position. Virtually the entire country wants him to succeed. Guarding against possible failure, he wanted both parties on the same hook, the stimulus bill. In remarkable and unprecedented gestures of bipartisanship, he praised Ronald Reagan, met with GOP officials, dined with conservative pundits, solicited their advice and ideas, appointed Republicans to his Cabinet and policymaking positions, to name only a few outreaches. Obama made all those compromises for nothing.
So far, Obama has failed to achieve the desired cooperation or the bipartisan cover for his stimulus bill. The Republicans now have a political strategy for future elections. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on Obama’s future failure and the continuation of our economic troubles. Let us hope they are wrong in their use of the old razzle dazzle style of politics.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A Stimulus Project That Works
A Stimulus Project That Works
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama is pressing for a quick jolt to the economy to make up for the dramatic decline in public consumption that has left our business system gasping. The dream of endless consumption of goods and services has no limits as our species chews up the planet in the race between endless population growth and the finite resources of Mother Earth.
In the current economic crisis, we are all Keynesians, followers of John Maynard Keynes, who believed that a program of government spending on public works would increase national purchasing power and promote employment. The latest proposal considered by Congress calls for spending $825 billion, including $550 billion "For spending on infrastructure, science, energy and education programs over two years” and $275 billion "For tax cuts for individuals and businesses."
That bill will not give Obama his quick jolt. In total dollars it is inadequate: The stimulus needs to be $1 trillion for each of the next two years. From past experience in the US and Japan much if not most of the income generated will be put into bank accounts or used to pay debts. The proposed spending on infrastructure et al takes time to organize and is subject to delays, sometimes as long as two years. The tax credits to business are unlikely to stimulate investment and employment, which depend on an increased flow of sales.
Furthermore, the Congress program is too complicated, trying to correct social deficiencies when the problem is how to stimulate a quick jolt to restore purchasing power to give business the incentive to hire workers and invest in equipment. First things first.
Here is a simple plan to accomplish the objectives immediately and effectively without a new bureaucracy. For numerical simplicity, assume that there are one hundred million families in our nation of 300 million people. Mail to each family a numbered coupon giving ten thousand dollars for the purchase of goods and services only, a total of one trillion dollars. The coupon must be used within 60 days, and then sent to the U.S. Treasury by the vendors within 60 days. Repeat: only for goods and services, not for deposit in banks, not for payment of debts. Every family would participate in the plan, would understand it, and would benefit.The coupon would be worthless if not spent within 60 days, encouraging immediate spending.
This program gives the economy an immediate jolt of $1 trillion. The operating cost is minimal. No delay to set up a bureaucracy. The U.S. Treasury and Census Bureau have all the names and addresses. Repeat the $1 trillion project in 2011 to encourage business by promising the continuance of the purchasing power.
We are all Keynesians now, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Let’s use a Keynesian formula and objective in its purest form. Will it cost too much? Professor Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and chief economic advisor to President Reagan said, “Without that rise in government spending the economic downturn would be deeper and longer.” The production lost in a deeper and longer recession would amount to at least $5 trillion. The Keynesian formula will pay for itself.
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama is pressing for a quick jolt to the economy to make up for the dramatic decline in public consumption that has left our business system gasping. The dream of endless consumption of goods and services has no limits as our species chews up the planet in the race between endless population growth and the finite resources of Mother Earth.
In the current economic crisis, we are all Keynesians, followers of John Maynard Keynes, who believed that a program of government spending on public works would increase national purchasing power and promote employment. The latest proposal considered by Congress calls for spending $825 billion, including $550 billion "For spending on infrastructure, science, energy and education programs over two years” and $275 billion "For tax cuts for individuals and businesses."
That bill will not give Obama his quick jolt. In total dollars it is inadequate: The stimulus needs to be $1 trillion for each of the next two years. From past experience in the US and Japan much if not most of the income generated will be put into bank accounts or used to pay debts. The proposed spending on infrastructure et al takes time to organize and is subject to delays, sometimes as long as two years. The tax credits to business are unlikely to stimulate investment and employment, which depend on an increased flow of sales.
Furthermore, the Congress program is too complicated, trying to correct social deficiencies when the problem is how to stimulate a quick jolt to restore purchasing power to give business the incentive to hire workers and invest in equipment. First things first.
Here is a simple plan to accomplish the objectives immediately and effectively without a new bureaucracy. For numerical simplicity, assume that there are one hundred million families in our nation of 300 million people. Mail to each family a numbered coupon giving ten thousand dollars for the purchase of goods and services only, a total of one trillion dollars. The coupon must be used within 60 days, and then sent to the U.S. Treasury by the vendors within 60 days. Repeat: only for goods and services, not for deposit in banks, not for payment of debts. Every family would participate in the plan, would understand it, and would benefit.The coupon would be worthless if not spent within 60 days, encouraging immediate spending.
This program gives the economy an immediate jolt of $1 trillion. The operating cost is minimal. No delay to set up a bureaucracy. The U.S. Treasury and Census Bureau have all the names and addresses. Repeat the $1 trillion project in 2011 to encourage business by promising the continuance of the purchasing power.
We are all Keynesians now, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Let’s use a Keynesian formula and objective in its purest form. Will it cost too much? Professor Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and chief economic advisor to President Reagan said, “Without that rise in government spending the economic downturn would be deeper and longer.” The production lost in a deeper and longer recession would amount to at least $5 trillion. The Keynesian formula will pay for itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
