When Egyptian youth began their occupation of the Cairo square, it was difficult for the Israeli public to take it seriously. They knew that the Egyptian army dominated the government, that the so-called dictator Hosni Mubarak served at army pleasure. One of the most popular jokes circulating in Israel during the first outburst of protest in Egypt read "Dear Egyptian Rioters, Please don't damage the pyramids. We will not rebuild."
Israel's seeming indifference in the current continuing crisis is matched by its indifference to popular outrage in almost every nation over its 44 year occupation of the West Bank territories once controlled by Palestinians. This indifference was sustained by its belief that authoritarian Arab regimes would keep their subjects’ rage in check and that the survival of the authoritarian Arab regimes would be defended under the United States security umbrella for geopolitical reasons and especially for the continuity of the oil business. The deference to the US was responsible for the stability of Egypt's and Jordan’s peace accords with Israel.
This functioning of power reaches beyond the limits of representative democracy into sanctified areas of corporate profits, national income and world hegemony. Hosni Mubarak is out of power but Israel may once again become the pariah nation in the region. If democracy becomes a way of life there, at least one of the nascent political parties will make demands of Israel. A change of government in Egypt, still undetermined, is likely to undermine Israel's strategic situation, even the degree of US support, as America might be forced to choose between Israel and the wildly profitable flow of Arab oil.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
A Test of American Exceptionalism
General James Clapper, Director of US National Intelligence, told a Senate Committee that his group was aware of the deep-seated problems and tensions in the Muslim Middle East nations long before the current riots.
The secret 18 page classified report was ordered by President Obama. It concluded that the area was ripe for popular revolt due to massive unemployment, the large impatient youth population, rising food prices, and corrupt government practices.
However, neither the White House, the State Department, the CIA nor the Defense Department was able to muster enough pressure on their Middle East allies to change policies to avert the current revolutions.
Has President Obama launched a similar study of the condition and attitudes of American workers, suffering from some of the same pressing wounds?
Unemployment in America is receiving media attention but not a serious program to solve the crisis - and the real numbers reveal a catastrophic decline in family income. While the official unemployment numbers are about 9% and not declining, worker income has been reduced even more dramatically because so many discouraged workers have stopped looking for work, so many qualified workers are working at wages far below their skill levels, so many are working part-time, that the accurate number of unemployment is likely at 25 million.
Figuring a typical family of four, the 25 million grows to 100 million people whose standards of living have been dramatically reduced even with government assistance. That is one third of the total 300 million population of the United States – an authentic crisis. How long will it take before there are popular uprisings in the US, uprisings led by the youngest workers, those with the most anger, perhaps with the most idealism, with the uncompromising determination and energy to stake out positions in the public square and to maintain their demands until the nation takes care of all its citizens?
The richest nation in world history can do no less. The land drained by the mighty Mississippi should take inspiration from the revolution of the land of the ancient Nile. Not to respond would be a negative redefinition of our proud tradition of American Exceptionalism. We like to think of ourselves as a new kind of nation, a unique model for the political world, the proverbial City on the Hill. This crisis is a test. Prove that we are as noble as we say we are. The whole world is watching.
The secret 18 page classified report was ordered by President Obama. It concluded that the area was ripe for popular revolt due to massive unemployment, the large impatient youth population, rising food prices, and corrupt government practices.
However, neither the White House, the State Department, the CIA nor the Defense Department was able to muster enough pressure on their Middle East allies to change policies to avert the current revolutions.
Has President Obama launched a similar study of the condition and attitudes of American workers, suffering from some of the same pressing wounds?
Unemployment in America is receiving media attention but not a serious program to solve the crisis - and the real numbers reveal a catastrophic decline in family income. While the official unemployment numbers are about 9% and not declining, worker income has been reduced even more dramatically because so many discouraged workers have stopped looking for work, so many qualified workers are working at wages far below their skill levels, so many are working part-time, that the accurate number of unemployment is likely at 25 million.
Figuring a typical family of four, the 25 million grows to 100 million people whose standards of living have been dramatically reduced even with government assistance. That is one third of the total 300 million population of the United States – an authentic crisis. How long will it take before there are popular uprisings in the US, uprisings led by the youngest workers, those with the most anger, perhaps with the most idealism, with the uncompromising determination and energy to stake out positions in the public square and to maintain their demands until the nation takes care of all its citizens?
The richest nation in world history can do no less. The land drained by the mighty Mississippi should take inspiration from the revolution of the land of the ancient Nile. Not to respond would be a negative redefinition of our proud tradition of American Exceptionalism. We like to think of ourselves as a new kind of nation, a unique model for the political world, the proverbial City on the Hill. This crisis is a test. Prove that we are as noble as we say we are. The whole world is watching.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Protecting US interests in Egypt
The Obama administration's official position on the Egyptian uprising has been changing almost daily. Their immediate response was to back President Hosni Mubarak, to the dismay of the protesters. On January 27, VP Joseph Biden went so far as to insist that Mubarak was not a dictator. Then that position was reversed, President Obama himself abandoned Mubarak saying it would be better if the transition process began now and not in September. Today, February 7, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned against a hasty exit for Mubarak, saying that moving him could threaten the country's transition to democracy.
At the same time, all administration spokespersons insist that these decisions must be made by “The people of Egypt”, even though it appears that the United States is pushing Egypt in multiple directions according to the numbers and strength of the protesters in the Egyptian square.
The US ought to follow its own advice and stay out of the internal Egyptian crisis except as it affects basic US interests. It has massive clout with Egypt because of its $2 billion a year support of the Egyptian military and economy.
The US could protect its interests by insisting that it would support a new government if the following conditions were met: The 1979 peace agreement Israel would be continued. The Suez Canal would remain open to all shipments of oil regardless of origin. Egypt would continue to cooperate with the world community in the struggle to eliminate terrorism. Egypt would adhere to United Nations prohibitions against the use of torture.
The US would have a policy that met international norms and protected its vital interests The US would affect Egyptian foreign policy without intervening in local political combat. The path for cooperation between the two nations would be clear. The US would have a coherent policy based on its own needs not relying on the number of protesters in the Egyptian square. The uncertainty of US policy would be eliminated. The world’s only superpower should protect its interests without waiting to measure which way the wind was blowing.
At the same time, all administration spokespersons insist that these decisions must be made by “The people of Egypt”, even though it appears that the United States is pushing Egypt in multiple directions according to the numbers and strength of the protesters in the Egyptian square.
The US ought to follow its own advice and stay out of the internal Egyptian crisis except as it affects basic US interests. It has massive clout with Egypt because of its $2 billion a year support of the Egyptian military and economy.
The US could protect its interests by insisting that it would support a new government if the following conditions were met: The 1979 peace agreement Israel would be continued. The Suez Canal would remain open to all shipments of oil regardless of origin. Egypt would continue to cooperate with the world community in the struggle to eliminate terrorism. Egypt would adhere to United Nations prohibitions against the use of torture.
The US would have a policy that met international norms and protected its vital interests The US would affect Egyptian foreign policy without intervening in local political combat. The path for cooperation between the two nations would be clear. The US would have a coherent policy based on its own needs not relying on the number of protesters in the Egyptian square. The uncertainty of US policy would be eliminated. The world’s only superpower should protect its interests without waiting to measure which way the wind was blowing.
Monday, January 10, 2011
How to Reduce Deaths by Guns
For the safety of all Americans, the purchase and use of firearms must be controlled and regulated by the federal government in a uniform system applying to all gun owners in all states. Qualifications for ownership and use should include: passing a written test, a physical test, and a medical test as well as training in use of firearms.
A fair and workable system should have as a basic principle that every gun owner should have a reason to have a gun: military, security officer, police, hunter, target shooter. There should be uniform regulation in all states so that a person cannot buy a gun in one state but then take it to another state to evade regulations.
Enforcement should be the responsibility of the local police chiefs, who know the angry and unstable people in their area, who have self-interest and motivation because their officers are most often in the line of fire. All guns should be stored in the local police station, signed out for use, and then returned to the police station. No guns should be allowed at home to avoid children or unauthorized persons having accidents, to avoid the use of guns as a tool to settle an angry argument, to avoid gun use in a vehicle during road rage, to avoid availability during mental depression.
The cost of installing such a system would be far less than the current cost of gun incidents. It would give law-enforcement another tool at the local level where most crime and accidents take place.
Legitimate use of guns under safe procedures would be protected, even encouraged - but murders, suicides, and deaths by gun accident and errors would be reduced dramatically.
A fair and workable system should have as a basic principle that every gun owner should have a reason to have a gun: military, security officer, police, hunter, target shooter. There should be uniform regulation in all states so that a person cannot buy a gun in one state but then take it to another state to evade regulations.
Enforcement should be the responsibility of the local police chiefs, who know the angry and unstable people in their area, who have self-interest and motivation because their officers are most often in the line of fire. All guns should be stored in the local police station, signed out for use, and then returned to the police station. No guns should be allowed at home to avoid children or unauthorized persons having accidents, to avoid the use of guns as a tool to settle an angry argument, to avoid gun use in a vehicle during road rage, to avoid availability during mental depression.
The cost of installing such a system would be far less than the current cost of gun incidents. It would give law-enforcement another tool at the local level where most crime and accidents take place.
Legitimate use of guns under safe procedures would be protected, even encouraged - but murders, suicides, and deaths by gun accident and errors would be reduced dramatically.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
General Petraeus Says.......
The broader counter insurgency strategy of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, and the Karzai government of Afghanistan,is "to win over the population with good government and economic opportunity", as well as with improved security.
Modern, literate, supremely powerful United States of America has some of the same problems as backward, illiterate Afghanistan, riven by civil war and tribal rivalries, occupied by 150,000 soldiers from Western nations bearing different religions, technologies and cultures.
The 100,000 American troops represent a nation with a string of problems, conditions that need solution –“to win over the population with good government and economic opportunity”. Some of the evidence can be found in the latest public opinion polls showing that only 27.6% believe the direction of the country is correct, 65.8 believe it wrong. 74% disapprove of the performance of the U.S. Congress. And President Obama has a job approval rating of 45.5% versus disapproval of 47.9. Americans have serious political differences that we solve ourselves without foreign interference, interferences that we would totally reject as outright imperialism.
General Petraeus has said repeatedly that there are merely 50 to 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Interfering in the Afghan civil war diverts us from our prime problems at home. Thank you General Petraeus, for reminding us of our primary responsibility, "to win over the population with good government and economic opportunity." – in the United States of America.
Modern, literate, supremely powerful United States of America has some of the same problems as backward, illiterate Afghanistan, riven by civil war and tribal rivalries, occupied by 150,000 soldiers from Western nations bearing different religions, technologies and cultures.
The 100,000 American troops represent a nation with a string of problems, conditions that need solution –“to win over the population with good government and economic opportunity”. Some of the evidence can be found in the latest public opinion polls showing that only 27.6% believe the direction of the country is correct, 65.8 believe it wrong. 74% disapprove of the performance of the U.S. Congress. And President Obama has a job approval rating of 45.5% versus disapproval of 47.9. Americans have serious political differences that we solve ourselves without foreign interference, interferences that we would totally reject as outright imperialism.
General Petraeus has said repeatedly that there are merely 50 to 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Interfering in the Afghan civil war diverts us from our prime problems at home. Thank you General Petraeus, for reminding us of our primary responsibility, "to win over the population with good government and economic opportunity." – in the United States of America.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Drama in the Wikileaks
Wikileaks is a sensation, providing an unprecedented view of backroom bargaining by embassies all over the world, harsh assessments of foreign leaders and insider views of nuclear and terrorist threats. Like its predecessors the Obama administration says the diplomacy must remain secret. Wikileaks says all governments abuse secrecy by hiding facts and negotiations that should be made public. Here are a few examples:
• American and South Korean officials have discussed the formation of a United Korea should North Korea's economic and political troubles cause the North to implode.
• The US has offered political and large financial incentives to many countries to persuade them to take some of the prisoners now held in Guantanamo Bay Jail, untried and therefore unconvicted.
• When Afghanistan's vice president visited the United Arab Emirates this year, local authorities discovered he was carrying $52 million in cash. Perhaps for a drug deal?
• China's Politburo directed the invasion into Google's computer systems in China. Other cables said that China has broken into US government computers, those of US allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses.
• American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for CIA officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan.
The drama in the Wikileaks cables often comes from diplomats' stories of meetings with foreign figures, as well as games of diplomatic poker, the raw use of US power, and US assets spent profusely on legal and illegal strategies.
• American and South Korean officials have discussed the formation of a United Korea should North Korea's economic and political troubles cause the North to implode.
• The US has offered political and large financial incentives to many countries to persuade them to take some of the prisoners now held in Guantanamo Bay Jail, untried and therefore unconvicted.
• When Afghanistan's vice president visited the United Arab Emirates this year, local authorities discovered he was carrying $52 million in cash. Perhaps for a drug deal?
• China's Politburo directed the invasion into Google's computer systems in China. Other cables said that China has broken into US government computers, those of US allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses.
• American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for CIA officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan.
The drama in the Wikileaks cables often comes from diplomats' stories of meetings with foreign figures, as well as games of diplomatic poker, the raw use of US power, and US assets spent profusely on legal and illegal strategies.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Nuclear Weapons Debate
The atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed my life. I dedicated myself to the elimination of atomic and nuclear arms to preserve planet Earth, to save the human species. Total elimination of the weapons and responsible international controls are the only political solutions. After I failed with ten presidents, I welcomed the Obama initiative and the New Start Treaty with great enthusiasm. I still do. But they are only a beginning. There will be serious problems along the way. This analysis points to some of them.
A world with fewer nuclear weapons, or a world with no nuclear weapons, would enhance the military power of the United States. As the only superpower, the US spends as much on its military as all other nations combined. It has more than 1000 bases in 140 countries, and the capacity to deliver significant numbers of troops and equipment anywhere on Earth within 24 hours. No other nation can come close to matching such immediate power and those who might are not building a counterforce.
Instead, actual or potential rivals seek protection from the US colossus by arming themselves with nuclear weapons to deter a potential conventional, non-nuclear, attack by the American juggernaut. A world without nuclear weapons would increase the power of the US to intimidate or destroy its rivals without fear of nuclear retaliation.
That is one of the reasons why virtually all American military leaders, past and present, as well as experienced diplomats, support President Barack Obama's treaty with Russia that reduces the number of long-range nuclear weapons and provides for mutual inspection of arsenals. This agreement will make it easier to enforce the Non-Proliferation Treaty that discourages all nations and forbids other signatory nations from building their own nuclear weapons. These are important first steps toward a world without any nuclear weapons, steps that also affect the current balance of power between nations. It won't be easy to reach the goal of elimination, but humanity does have a plan, a plan approved by the military, the diplomats, and the moralist, a rare combination.
However, the endgame of no nuclear weapons will put the military control of the planet in the grasp of the US, a nation with only 5% of the human population obtaining military dominance over the other 95%. The only way this could be justified is to link it with the survival of the human species. It may be a choice all nations will have to accept. How long would US military dominance survive? If history is a guide, the other nations will unite to overcome US superpower. To prevent loss of hegemony, one would expect the US to resist the coalition of opponents before they unite.
There is another argument against the Obama scenario. There has not been a major war since 1945, perhaps because the major powers have nuclear weapons and the result would be mutual annihilation. If nuclear weapons were to be effectively outlawed and dropped from all arsenals, would the likelihood of non-nuclear war be increased? Would the absence of the nuclear weapons of mass destruction lead us back to our former habits, to the awful pattern of mass armies killing with pre-nuclear types of weapons? Would rejection of nuclear weapons require a total rejection of the use of force?
Is the human species capable of such a radical change in defying thousands of years of human history, misery and warfare? Don't be so quick to say no. The pace of human adaptation to change has quickened remarkably as more prompt adjustments are made to match changes in the environment and human understanding.
A world with fewer nuclear weapons, or a world with no nuclear weapons, would enhance the military power of the United States. As the only superpower, the US spends as much on its military as all other nations combined. It has more than 1000 bases in 140 countries, and the capacity to deliver significant numbers of troops and equipment anywhere on Earth within 24 hours. No other nation can come close to matching such immediate power and those who might are not building a counterforce.
Instead, actual or potential rivals seek protection from the US colossus by arming themselves with nuclear weapons to deter a potential conventional, non-nuclear, attack by the American juggernaut. A world without nuclear weapons would increase the power of the US to intimidate or destroy its rivals without fear of nuclear retaliation.
That is one of the reasons why virtually all American military leaders, past and present, as well as experienced diplomats, support President Barack Obama's treaty with Russia that reduces the number of long-range nuclear weapons and provides for mutual inspection of arsenals. This agreement will make it easier to enforce the Non-Proliferation Treaty that discourages all nations and forbids other signatory nations from building their own nuclear weapons. These are important first steps toward a world without any nuclear weapons, steps that also affect the current balance of power between nations. It won't be easy to reach the goal of elimination, but humanity does have a plan, a plan approved by the military, the diplomats, and the moralist, a rare combination.
However, the endgame of no nuclear weapons will put the military control of the planet in the grasp of the US, a nation with only 5% of the human population obtaining military dominance over the other 95%. The only way this could be justified is to link it with the survival of the human species. It may be a choice all nations will have to accept. How long would US military dominance survive? If history is a guide, the other nations will unite to overcome US superpower. To prevent loss of hegemony, one would expect the US to resist the coalition of opponents before they unite.
There is another argument against the Obama scenario. There has not been a major war since 1945, perhaps because the major powers have nuclear weapons and the result would be mutual annihilation. If nuclear weapons were to be effectively outlawed and dropped from all arsenals, would the likelihood of non-nuclear war be increased? Would the absence of the nuclear weapons of mass destruction lead us back to our former habits, to the awful pattern of mass armies killing with pre-nuclear types of weapons? Would rejection of nuclear weapons require a total rejection of the use of force?
Is the human species capable of such a radical change in defying thousands of years of human history, misery and warfare? Don't be so quick to say no. The pace of human adaptation to change has quickened remarkably as more prompt adjustments are made to match changes in the environment and human understanding.
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Occupier in Afghanistan
Disagreements between Afghan President Hamad Karzai and the US over how the war should be pursued burst into the open at a coalition summit November 20 -- 21. In a face-to-face confrontation photographed in Lisbon, Portugal by the Wall Street Journal, President Barack Obama rejected Afghan demands to curtail raids and airstrikes, telling Karzai that he must listen to American concerns.
In a speech to the closed-door NATO session, Karzai named "civilian casualties, detentions, lawless behavior by some security companies, and, at times, the NATO posture as issues of serious concern to the Afghan people."
After the talks, Obama said that he is sensitive to Afghan requests and appreciates Karzai is "eager to assert full sovereignty including control of security operations within his country. If we are ponying up billions of dollars, if the expectation is that our troops are going to be there to ensure that President Karzai can continue to build and develop his country, then he's got to also pay attention to our concerns."
President Obama acknowledged that the issue of Afghan civilian casualties has caused real tensions. Yet, Obama said, "He's got to understand that I've got a bunch of young men and women who are in a foreign country being shot at, having to traverse terrain filled with IED's, and they need to protect themselves. So, if we are setting things up where they are just sitting ducks for the Taliban, that's not an acceptable answer either."
Obama talks to Karzai as an occupier, setting its own rules, killing civilians when necessary, spending billions of dollars, suffering death and casualties to American soldiers, sullying the name of America while rescuing the un-willing, corrupt and complaining ally, fighting in another country’s civil war. Lest we forget, the Taliban did not attack us on September 11, 2001, but here we are ten years later, sitting ducks for the Taliban who are proud to be fighting against the invading foreigner 7,000 miles from home, the foreigner prepared to waste precious lives and resources until 2014 and perhaps beyond.
In a speech to the closed-door NATO session, Karzai named "civilian casualties, detentions, lawless behavior by some security companies, and, at times, the NATO posture as issues of serious concern to the Afghan people."
After the talks, Obama said that he is sensitive to Afghan requests and appreciates Karzai is "eager to assert full sovereignty including control of security operations within his country. If we are ponying up billions of dollars, if the expectation is that our troops are going to be there to ensure that President Karzai can continue to build and develop his country, then he's got to also pay attention to our concerns."
President Obama acknowledged that the issue of Afghan civilian casualties has caused real tensions. Yet, Obama said, "He's got to understand that I've got a bunch of young men and women who are in a foreign country being shot at, having to traverse terrain filled with IED's, and they need to protect themselves. So, if we are setting things up where they are just sitting ducks for the Taliban, that's not an acceptable answer either."
Obama talks to Karzai as an occupier, setting its own rules, killing civilians when necessary, spending billions of dollars, suffering death and casualties to American soldiers, sullying the name of America while rescuing the un-willing, corrupt and complaining ally, fighting in another country’s civil war. Lest we forget, the Taliban did not attack us on September 11, 2001, but here we are ten years later, sitting ducks for the Taliban who are proud to be fighting against the invading foreigner 7,000 miles from home, the foreigner prepared to waste precious lives and resources until 2014 and perhaps beyond.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Toward Fairer Taxes
On November 28, billionaire Warren Buffett will tell the world on ABC television that rich people should pay more in taxes. “I think that people at the high end - people like me - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.”
Buffett supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans to increase income taxes for those couples with $250,000 gross income - and so do I. And this may be the right time to endorse Pelosi for her effective and dignified leadership as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Capable and honorable, trapped in a situation of terrible unemployment, she can’t be held personally responsible for the political annihilation of the Democrats. Allowing the bankers to precipitate the crisis, was a national flaw.
President Obama’s deficit commission proposes raising the age at which one can receive Social Security benefits to 69 by 2075. A great many people in their 60s have lost or are about to lose their jobs and have little hope of finding another. Raising the retirement age would extend the period of receiving no income for many people approaching 70. The commission would end deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest while raising the gasoline tax, levying tax increases on the middle class while giving tax cuts to the wealthy.
Americans should not be stampeded into cutting increasingly critical Social Security protections. It's time to ask those who have reaped the benefits of runaway tax cuts and growing income inequality to pay their fair share, not cut Social Security. It's time to require income taxes on all earnings above $106,800. Doing so would fully address the projected shortfall for 75 years.
Buffett supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans to increase income taxes for those couples with $250,000 gross income - and so do I. And this may be the right time to endorse Pelosi for her effective and dignified leadership as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Capable and honorable, trapped in a situation of terrible unemployment, she can’t be held personally responsible for the political annihilation of the Democrats. Allowing the bankers to precipitate the crisis, was a national flaw.
President Obama’s deficit commission proposes raising the age at which one can receive Social Security benefits to 69 by 2075. A great many people in their 60s have lost or are about to lose their jobs and have little hope of finding another. Raising the retirement age would extend the period of receiving no income for many people approaching 70. The commission would end deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest while raising the gasoline tax, levying tax increases on the middle class while giving tax cuts to the wealthy.
Americans should not be stampeded into cutting increasingly critical Social Security protections. It's time to ask those who have reaped the benefits of runaway tax cuts and growing income inequality to pay their fair share, not cut Social Security. It's time to require income taxes on all earnings above $106,800. Doing so would fully address the projected shortfall for 75 years.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Showboating the Federal Deficit
President Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility to suggest solutions to the nation’s fiscal problems. The commission was to be bipartisan; incorporating Democratic and Republican ideas with the obvious effect that the Democrats, at that time controlling the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House was surrendering their political advantage in advance of negotiations.
Then the President appointed two chairmen of the commission; Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chair has a big business background and a small government agenda; and Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chair, had been a US senator whose voting record was solidly cautious conservative.
It is no surprise that these Obama chairs led their commission to endorse proposals that would solve the long-term deficit by cutting back Social Security, Medicare and other social welfare programs. Thus the poor, the sick and the elderly would pay for the tax breaks and bailouts for the already wealthy.
In addition, the co-chairs are proposing a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases - tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that mean a lot to middle-class Americans, including the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest, raising the age of social security eligibility, increasing the Federal Gasoline Tax, etc.
The suggested changes would erase nearly $4 trillion from projected deficits through 2020 and stabilize the accumulated federal debt now hovering about $14 trillion. Half of this enormous debt is directly attributable to the tax reductions installed by President George W. Bush and the growing cost of the US military establishment that rules the world. Our country spends more on its military than all other nations in the world combined. We have more than 1000 military bases on the soil of 175 of the 192 member states of the United Nations Most of these countries buy US Treasury Bonds in spite of the big US deficit. Is there an element of compulsion here? Does China actually represent a military threat to the United States? For all the saber-rattling during the Russian-Georgia crisis, did anyone really think Americans were going to die for South Ossetia? The U.S. Navy has eleven large carrier battle groups structured to fight the Imperial Japanese Navy. The Imperial Japanese Navy?
Yes, the Bowles-Simpson panel seeks a cut in the military budget of $100 billion per year. Anybody want to bet on that reduction passing this Congress or any other Congress representing 435 congressional districts each with at least one juicy contract from the Pentagon?
They must be kidding.
Then the President appointed two chairmen of the commission; Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chair has a big business background and a small government agenda; and Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chair, had been a US senator whose voting record was solidly cautious conservative.
It is no surprise that these Obama chairs led their commission to endorse proposals that would solve the long-term deficit by cutting back Social Security, Medicare and other social welfare programs. Thus the poor, the sick and the elderly would pay for the tax breaks and bailouts for the already wealthy.
In addition, the co-chairs are proposing a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases - tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that mean a lot to middle-class Americans, including the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest, raising the age of social security eligibility, increasing the Federal Gasoline Tax, etc.
The suggested changes would erase nearly $4 trillion from projected deficits through 2020 and stabilize the accumulated federal debt now hovering about $14 trillion. Half of this enormous debt is directly attributable to the tax reductions installed by President George W. Bush and the growing cost of the US military establishment that rules the world. Our country spends more on its military than all other nations in the world combined. We have more than 1000 military bases on the soil of 175 of the 192 member states of the United Nations Most of these countries buy US Treasury Bonds in spite of the big US deficit. Is there an element of compulsion here? Does China actually represent a military threat to the United States? For all the saber-rattling during the Russian-Georgia crisis, did anyone really think Americans were going to die for South Ossetia? The U.S. Navy has eleven large carrier battle groups structured to fight the Imperial Japanese Navy. The Imperial Japanese Navy?
Yes, the Bowles-Simpson panel seeks a cut in the military budget of $100 billion per year. Anybody want to bet on that reduction passing this Congress or any other Congress representing 435 congressional districts each with at least one juicy contract from the Pentagon?
They must be kidding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
