Roode History

Think Big on Health Care

2008-11-18T09:57:00.000-08:00

November 16, 2008, 9:30 pm

Think Big

In this installment of Health Care Watch, Stuart M. Butler and Ezekiel Emanuel talk about what President-elect Barack Obama should and shouldn’t do on health care reform. Go to Mr. Butler’s post.

Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist, is the chairman of the department of bioethics at the Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health. He is the author of “Health Care, Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America.”(Full biography.)

The election of Barack Obama is a historical transformative event. As he and his new administration wrestle with health care reform here are five points to be kept in mind.

1) “Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will not themselves be realized.” So said Daniel Burnham, the architect and urban planner (and fellow Chicagoan).

In health care, big plans are necessary not only to motivate people but as a matter of sound policy. The health care system is broken. It is not enough to just add more people to a broken system. Health care reform must reorganize the system to deliver higher quality care while keeping costs under control. Incremental change that just covers more people will not be sustainable. Reform must include changing the delivery system and how we pay for care. The health care system needs major surgery, not more Band-aids.

More important, as negotiation specialists note, you don’t begin with your compromise position. If we have to settle for incremental Band-aids, it should be only as a last resort.

2) Health care policy is fiscal policy.

Forget Social Security or defense, health care costs are the long-term driving force in federal and state budgets. To control the deficit and keep the country solvent, health care must be solved. Therefore, when the president-elect considers senior economic advisers, one test should be whether they really get health care policy.

Fortunately, Peter Orzag at the Congressional Budget Office does. So do some of the people rumored to be leading candidates for appointments — Larry Summers at the Treasury, Jim Cooper at the Office of Management and Budget and Jason Furman at the Domestic Policy Council. This is very encouraging.

3) Comprehensive health care reform is cheaper.

One of the secrets of health care reform that has not yet sunk in, is that bigger changes to the system actually cost less. Consider the Lewin Group’s analysis of the different health care from plans, which I wrote about in an earlier post.

4) No plan is perfect, institutionalize tinkering.

Health care reform will be incredibly complex. As improvements are made, problems will arise and unintended consequences will occur. There will need to be numerous mid-course corrections. Good reform will make addressing these issues easy by not requiring major legislation for each adjustment.

5) Everything is connected.

Health care reform cannot be considered in isolation. The new administration must remember that health care is so big — $1 out of every $6 in the economy, dwarfing automobiles and all other economic segments. Everything is affected by health policy, and every decision should be examined for its impact on health care reform.

Consequently, if the heart of Mr. Obama’s economic policy is job creation, then it is contradictory to have a health care reform built on an employer mandate or to fund reform with a payroll tax. Employer mandates and payroll taxes stymie job formation.

Similarly, every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bail out, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health care reform effort. This builds grass roots support.

Since 1913, the United States has been trying to achieve comprehensive health care reform. If the Obama administration finally does it, it will truly be history making. The challenge is huge, but the rewards — for the administration and every citizen — will be even “huger.

David Brooks gets evicerated

2008-10-12T13:32:00.000-07:00

New York Times Death Spiral Watch (Yet Another David Brooks Edition)

Michael Berube speaks to conservatives:

[Y]ou could take poor flailing David Brooks as a model. One day after this humble blog suggested that high-end conservative pundits will slurp down any old slop they’re fed by the party, Brooks was slopping out this review of Sarah Palin’s debate performance:

this debate was about Sarah Palin. She held up her end of an energetic debate that gave voters a direct look at two competing philosophies. She established debating parity with Joe Biden. And in a country that is furious with Washington, she presented herself as a radical alternative. By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night...

Only a week later, having realized to his horror that writing columns like this will soon deprive him of dinner-party conversation with sane people, Brooks has decided to call Palin a “fatal cancer to the Republican party.” Now that’s the way to throw someone under the couch, folks—if you want to maintain some sense of self-respect as a Serious Person.

Here is Brooks:

David Brooks: [Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley.... He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices...

Every time the New YorK Times publishes a column by David Brooks, a fairy has its wings torn off by a predator and dies of blood loss.

Causes of financial crisis McClatchy

2008-10-12T06:59:00.000-07:00

McClatchy Washington Bureau

these are the guys who did the best fact-based job of investihgating WMD claims before Iraq
they called the actual inspectors & mid-level bureaucrats who know the scoop and like IF stone read the government reports carefully - too tedious & boring for most reporters Pete

Posted on Sat, Oct. 11, 2008

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: October 11, 2008 04:56:24 PM

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height vrom 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

_ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

_ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

_ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

(e-mail: khall )at)mcclatchydc.com)

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

Troopergate trivia

2008-10-11T06:28:00.000-07:00

the Palins pressured the Public Safety guy to fire their neer-do-well brother in law.
Alaska Republicans vote unanimously to release report.
Big Whoop!!
only trouble - lying, multiple stories and lack of transparency.
Do it in public.
Explain your motives clearly.
do not use secret political leverage.
The governor's husband does not give up 1st amendment rights any more than Billy Carter gave his right to endorse beer.
As Franklin said, beer is proof that god wants us to be happy.
yelling at brother's in law is also allowed.
have fun, Pete

My Gal

2008-09-18T12:03:00.001-07:00

SHOUTS & MURMURS

My Gal

by George Saunders September 22, 2008 New Yorker

Explaining how she felt when John McCain offered her the Vice-Presidential spot, my Vice-Presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, said something very profound: “I answered him ‘Yes’ because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.”

Isn’t that so true? I know that many times, in my life, while living it, someone would come up and, because of I had good readiness, in terms of how I was wired, when they asked that—whatever they asked—I would just not blink, because, knowing that, if I did blink, or even wink, that is weakness, therefore you can’t, you just don’t. You could, but no—you aren’t.

That is just how I am.

Do you know the difference between me and a Hockey Mom who has forgot her lipstick?

A dog collar.

Do you know the difference between me and a dog collar smeared with lipstick?

Not a damn thing.

We are essentially wired identical.

So, when Barack Obama says he will put some lipstick on my pig, I am, like, Are you calling me a pig? If so, thanks! Pigs are the most non-Élite of all barnyard animals. And also, if you put lipstick on my pig, do you know what the difference will be between that pig and a pit bull? I’ll tell you: a pit bull can easily kill a pig. And, as the pig dies, guess what the Hockey Mom is doing? Going to her car, putting on more lipstick, so that, upon returning, finding that pig dead, she once again looks identical to that pit bull, which, staying on mission, the two of them step over the dead pig, looking exactly like twins, except the pit bull is scratching his lower ass with one frantic leg, whereas the Hockey Mom is carrying an extra hockey stick in case Todd breaks his again. But both are going, like, Ha ha, where’s that dumb pig now? Dead, that’s who, and also: not a smidge of lipstick.

A lose-lose for the pig.

There’s a lesson in that, I think.

Who does that pig represent, and that collar, and that Hockey Mom, and that pit bull?

You figure it out. Then give me a call.

Seriously, give me a call.

Now, let us discuss the Élites. There are two kinds of folks: Élites and Regulars. Why people love Sarah Palin is, she is a Regular. That is also why they love me. She did not go to some Élite Ivy League college, which I also did not. Her and me, actually, did not go to the very same Ivy League school. Although she is younger than me, so therefore she didn’t go there slightly earlier than I didn’t go there. But, had I been younger, we possibly could have not graduated in the exact same class. That would have been fun. Sarah Palin is hot. Hot for a politician. Or someone you just see in a store. But, happily, I did not go to college at all, having not finished high school, due to I killed a man. But had I gone to college, trust me, it would not have been some Ivy League Élite-breeding factory but, rather, a community college in danger of losing its accreditation, built right on a fault zone, riddled with asbestos, and also, the crack-addicted professors are all dyslexic.

Sarah Palin was also the mayor of a very small town. To tell the truth, this is where my qualifications begin to outstrip even hers. I have never been the mayor of anything. I can’t even spell right. I had help with the above, but now— Murray, note to Murray: do not correct what follows. Lets shoe the people how I rilly spel Mooray and punshuate so thay can c how reglar I am, and ther 4 fit to leed the nashun, do to: not sum mistir fansy pans.

OK Mooray. Get corecting agin!

Thanks, Murray, you’re fabulous. Very good at what you do. Actually, Murray, come to think of it, you are so good, I suspect you are some kind of Élite. You are fired, Murray, as soon as this article is done. I’m going to hire someone Regular, who is not so excellent, and lives off the salt of the land and the fat of his brow and the sweat of his earth. Although I hope he’s not a screw-up.

I’m finding it hard to concentrate, as my eyes are killing me, due to I have not blinked since I started writing this. And, me being Regular, it takes a long time for me to write something this long.

Where was I? Ah, yes: I hate Élites. Which is why, whenever I am having brain surgery, or eye surgery, which is sometimes necessary due to all my non-blinking, I always hire some random Regular guy, with shaking hands if possible, who is also a drunk, scared of the sight of blood, and harbors a secret dislike for me.

Now, let’s talk about slogans. Ours is: Country First. Think about it. When you think of what should come first, what does? Us ourselves? No. That would be selfish. Our personal families? Selfish. God? God is good, I love Him, but, as our slogan suggests, no, sorry, God, You are not First. No, you don’t, Lord! How about: the common good of all mankind! Is that First? Don’t make me laugh with your weak blinking! No! Mercy is not First and wisdom is not First and love is super but way near the back, and ditto with patience and discernment and compassion and all that happy crap, they are all back behind Country, in the back of my S.U.V., which— Here is an example! Say I am about to run over a nun or orphan, or an orphan who grew up to become a nun—which I admire that, that is cool, good bootstrapping there, Sister—but then God or whomever goes, “It is My will that you hit that orphaned nun, do not ask Me why, don’t you dare, and I say unto thee, if you do not hit that nun, via a skillful swerve, your Country is going to suffer, and don’t ask Me how, specifically, as I have not decided that yet!” Well, I am going to do my best to get that nun in one felt swope, because, at the Convention, at which my Vice-Presidential candidate kicked mucho butt, what did the signs there say? Did they say “Orphaned Nuns First” and then there is a picture of a sad little nun with a hobo pack?

Not in my purview.

Sarah Palin knows a little something about God’s will, knowing God quite well, from their work together on that natural-gas pipeline, and what God wills is: Country First. And not just any country! There was a slight error on our signage. Other countries, such as that one they have in France, reading our slogan, if they can even read real words, might be all, like, “Hey, bonjour, they are saying we can put our country, France, first!” Non, non, non, France! What we are saying is, you’d better put our country first, you merde-heads, or soon there will be so much lipstick on your pit bulls it will make your berets spin!

In summary: Because my candidate, unlike your winking/blinking Vice-Presidential candidate, who, though, yes, he did run as the running mate when the one asking him to run did ask him to run, which that I admire, one thing he did not do, with his bare hands or otherwise, is, did he ever kill a moose? No, but ours did. And I would. Please bring a moose to me, over by me, and down that moose will go, and, if I had a kid, I would take a picture of me showing my kid that dead moose, going, like, Uh, sweetie, no, he is not resting, he is dead, due to I shot him, and now I am going to eat him, and so are you, oh yes you are, which is responsible, as God put this moose here for us to shoot and eat and take a photo of, although I did not, at that time, know why God did, but in years to come, God’s will was revealed, which is: Hey, that is a cool photo for hunters about to vote to see, plus what an honor for that moose, to be on the Internet.

How does the moose feel about it? Who knows? Probably not great. But do you know what the difference is between a dead moose with lipstick on and a dead moose without lipstick?

Lipstick.

Think about it.

Moose are, truth be told, Élites. They are big and fast and sort of rule the forest. Sarah took that one down a notch. Who’s Élite now, Bullwinkle?

Not Sarah.

She’s just Regular as heck. ♦

Moooo Alaska crony capitalism

2008-09-18T12:03:00.000-07:00

September 17, 2008, 9:06 pm Timothy Egan NYT Moooooo
People should stop picking on vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin because she hired a high school classmate to oversee the state agriculture division, a woman who said she was qualified for the job because she liked cows when she was a kid. And they should lay off the governor for choosing another childhood friend to oversee a failing state-run dairy, allowing the Soviet-style business to ding taxpayers for $800,000 in additional losses.
What these critics don’t understand is that crony capitalism is how things are done in Alaska. They reward failure in the Last Frontier state. In that sense, it’s not unlike like Wall Street’s treatment of C.E.O.’s who run companies into the ground.
Look at Carly Fiorina, John McCain’s top economic surrogate — if you can find her this week, after the news and her narrative fused in a negative way. Dismissed as head of Hewlett-Packard after the company’s stock plunged and nearly 20,000 workers were let go, she was rewarded with $44 million in compensation. Sweet!
Thank God McCain wants to appoint a commission to study the practice that enriched his chief economic adviser. On the campaign trail this week, McCain and Palin pledged to “stop multimillion dollar payouts to C.E.O.’s” of failed companies. Good. Go talk to Fiorina at your next strategy session.
Palin’s Alaska is a cultural cousin to this kind of capitalism. The state may seem like a rugged arena for risky free-marketers. In truth, it’s a strange mix of socialized projects and who-you-know hiring practices.
Let’s start with those cows. A few years ago, I met Harvey Baskin, one of the last of Alaska’s taxpayer-subsidized dairy farmers, at his farm outside Anchorage. The state had spent more than $120 million to create farms where none existed before. The epic project was a miserable failure.
“You want to know how to lose money in a hurry?” Harvey told me, while kicking rock-hard clumps of frozen manure. “Become a farmer with the state of Alaska as your partner. This is what you call negative farming.”
That lesson was lost on Palin. As the Wall Street Journal reported this week, Governor Palin overturned a decision to shutter a money-losing, state-run creamery — Matanuska Maid — when her friends in Wasilla complained about losing their subsidies. She fired the board that recommended closure, and replaced it with one run by a childhood friend. After six months, and nearly $1 million in fresh losses, the board came to the same conclusion as the earlier one: Matanuska Maid could not operate without being a perpetual burden on the taxpayers.
This is Heckuva-Job-Brownie government, Far North version.
On a larger scale, consider the proposal to build a 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline, which Palin touts as one of her most significant achievements. Private companies complained they couldn’t build it without government help. That’s where Palin came to the rescue, ensuring that the state would back the project to the tune of $500 million.
And let’s not talk about voodoo infrastructure without one more mention of the bridge that Palin has yet to tell the truth about. The plan was to get American taxpayers to pay for a span that would be 80 feet higher than the Brooklyn Bridge, and about 20 feet short of the Golden Gate — all to serve a tiny airport with a half-dozen or so flights a day and a perfectly good five-minute ferry. Until it was laughed out of Congress, Palin backed it — big time, as the current vice president would say.
Why build it? Because it’s Alaska, where people are used to paying no state taxes and getting the rest of us to buck up for things they can’t afford. Alaska, where the first thing a visitor sees upon landing in Anchorage is the sign welcoming you to Ted Stevens International Airport. Stevens, of course, is the 84-year-old Republican senator indicted on multiple felony charges. He may still win re-election thanks to Palin’s popularity at the top of the ballot.
Alaskans will get $231 per person in federal earmarks — 10 times more than people in Barack Obama’s home state. That’s this year, with Palin as governor. Palin as mayor was even better at suckingat the federal pork teat- $1384 per person for Wasilla – about 50 times what your town gets on average.
If Palin were a true reformer, she would tell Congress thanks, but no thanks to that other bridge to nowhere.
Yes, there is another one — a proposal to connect Anchorage to an empty peninsula, speeding the commute to Palin’s hometown by a few minutes. It could cost up to $2 billion. The official name is Don Young’s Way, after the congressman who got the federal bridge earmarks. Of late, he’s spent more $1 million in legal fees fending off corruption investigations. Oh, and Young’s son-in-law has a stake in the property at one end of the bridge.
Some of these projects might be fully explained should Palin ever open herself up to questions. This week she sat down for her second interview — with Sean Hannity of Fox, who has shown sufficient “deference” to Palin, as the campaign requested.
One question: When Palin says “government has got to get out of the way” of the private sector, as she proclaimed this week, does that apply to dairy farms, bridges and gas pipelines in her state? I didn’t think so.

Worst Mistake in the History of the World

2007-09-02T11:14:00.000-07:00

Opinion : Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

By Jared Diamond University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

Discover Magazine, May 1987 Pages 64-66

Illustrations by Elliott Danfield

To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn’t the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly bodies. From biology we learned that we weren’t specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence.

At first, the evidence against this revisionist interpretation will strike twentieth century Americans as irrefutable. We’re better off in almost every respect than people of the Middle Ages, who in turn had it easier than cavemen, who in turn were better off than apes. Just count our advantages. We enjoy the most abundant and varied foods, the best tools and material goods, some of the longest and healthiest lives, in history. Most of us are safe from starvation and predators. We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat. What neo-Luddite among us would trade his life for that of a medieval peasant, a caveman, or an ape?

For most of our history we supported ourselves by hunting and gathering: we hunted wild animals and foraged for wild plants. It’s a life that philosophers have traditionally regarded as nasty, brutish, and short. Since no food is grown and little is stored, there is (in this view) no respite from the struggle that starts anew each day to find wild foods and avoid starving. Our escape from this misery was facilitated only 10,000 years ago, when in different parts of the world people began to domesticate plants and animals. The agricultural revolution spread until today it’s nearly universal and few tribes of hunter-gatherers survive.

From the progressivist perspective on which I was brought up, to ask "Why did almost all our hunter-gatherer ancestors adopt agriculture?" is silly. Of course they adopted it because agriculture is an efficient way to get more food for less work. Planted crops yield far more tons per acre than roots and berries. Just imagine a band of savages, exhausted from searching for nuts or chasing wild animals, suddenly grazing for the first time at a fruit-laden orchard or a pasture full of sheep. How many milliseconds do you think it would take them to appreciate the advantages of agriculture?

The progressivist party line sometimes even goes so far as to credit agriculture with the remarkable flowering of art that has taken place over the past few thousand years. Since crops can be stored, and since it takes less time to pick food from a garden than to find it in the wild, agriculture gave us free time that hunter-gatherers never had. Thus it was agriculture that enabled us to build the Parthenon and compose the B-minor Mass.

While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it’s hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here’s one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn’t emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"

While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen’s average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It’s almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.

So the lives of at least the surviving hunter-gatherers aren’t nasty and brutish, even though farmes have pushed them into some of the world’s worst real estate. But modern hunter-gatherer societies that have rubbed shoulders with farming societies for thousands of years don’t tell us about conditions before the agricultural revolution. The progressivist view is really making a claim about the distant past: that the lives of primitive people improved when they switched from gathering to farming. Archaeologists can date that switch by distinguishing remains of wild plants and animals from those of domesticated ones in prehistoric garbage dumps.

How can one deduce the health of the prehistoric garbage makers, and thereby directly test the progressivist view? That question has become answerable only in recent years, in part through the newly emerging techniques of paleopathology, the study of signs of disease in the remains of ancient peoples.

In some lucky situations, the paleopathologist has almost as much material to study as a pathologist today. For example, archaeologists in the Chilean deserts found well preserved mummies whose medical conditions at time of death could be determined by autopsy (Discover, October). And feces of long-dead Indians who lived in dry caves in Nevada remain sufficiently well preserved to be examined for hookworm and other parasites.

Usually the only human remains available for study are skeletons, but they permit a surprising number of deductions. To begin with, a skeleton reveals its owner’s sex, weight, and approximate age. In the few cases where there are many skeletons, one can construct mortality tables like the ones life insurance companies use to calculate expected life span and risk of death at any given age. Paleopathologists can also calculate growth rates by measuring bones of people of different ages, examine teeth for enamel defects (signs of childhood malnutrition), and recognize scars left on bones by anemia, tuberculosis, leprosy, and other diseases.

One straight forward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5’ 9" for men, 5’ 5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5’ 3" for men, 5’ for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.

Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from burial mounds in the Illinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and Illinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A. D. 1150. Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the hunter-gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly 50 per cent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced bya bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a theefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."

The evidence suggests that the Indians at Dickson Mounds, like many other primitive peoples, took up farming not by choice but from necessity in order to feed their constantly growing numbers. "I don’t think most hunger-gatherers farmed until they had to, and when they switched to farming they traded quality for quantity," says Mark Cohen of the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, co-editor with Armelagos, of one of the seminal books in the field, Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. "When I first started making that argument ten years ago, not many people agreed with me. Now it’s become a respectable, albeit controversial, side of the debate."

There are at least three sets of reasons to explain the findings that agriculture was bad for health. First, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition. (today just three high-carbohydrate plants–wheat, rice, and corn–provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease. (Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg argument, because crowding encourages agriculture and vice versa.) Epidemics couldn’t take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearnce of large cities.

Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing élite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae c. 1500 B. C. suggest that royals enjoyed a

better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on the average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth). Among Chilean mummies from c. A. D. 1000, the élite were distinguished not only by ornaments and gold hair clips but also by a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease.

Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U. S., it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an élite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be iimproted from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?

Farming may have encouraged inequality between the sexes, as well. Freed from the need to transport their babies during a nomadic existence, and under pressure to produce more hands to till the fields, farming women tended to have more frequent pregnancies than their hunter-gatherer counterparts–with consequent drains on their health. Among the Chilean mummies for example, more women than men had bone lesions from infectious disease.

Women in agricultural societies were sometimes made beasts of burden. In New Guinea farming communities today I often see women staggering under loads of vegetables and firewood while the men walk empty-handed. Once while on a field trip there studying birds, I offered to pay some villagers to carry supplies from an airstrip to my mountain camp. The heaviest item was a 110-pound bag of rice, which I lashed to a pole and assigned to a team of four men to shoulder together. When I eventually caught up with the villagers, the men were carrying light loads, while one small woman weighing less than the bag of rice was bent under it, supporting its weight by a cord across her temples.

As for the claim that agriculture encouraged the flowering of art by providing us with leisure time, modern hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers. The whole emphasis on leisure time as a critical factor seems to me misguided. Gorillas have had ample free time to build their own Parthenon, had they wanted to. While post-agricultural technological advances did make new art forms possible and preservation of art easier, great paintings and sculptures were already being produced by hunter-gatherers 15,000 years ago, and were still being produced as recently as the last century by such hunter-gatherers as some Eskimos and the Indians of the Pacific Northwest.

Thus with the advent of agriculture and élite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.

One answer boils down to the adage "Might makes right." Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. (Population densities of hunter-gatherers are rarely over on eperson per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 times that.) Partly, this is because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants. Partly, too, it’s because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it’s old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don’t have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years.

As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It’s not that hunter-gatherers abandonded their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn’t want.

At this point it’s instructive to recall the common complaint that archaeology is a luxury, concerned with the remote past, and offering no lessons for the present. Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.

Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and logest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we’re still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it’s unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture’s glittering façade, and that have so far eluded us?

Why are so many Americans in Jail

2007-07-16T11:59:00.001-07:00

Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?

Race and the transformation of criminal justice

Glenn C. Loury

8 The early 1990s were the age of drive-by shootings, drug deals gone bad, crack cocaine, and gangsta rap. Between 1960 and 1990, the annual number of murders in New Haven rose from six to 31, the number of rapes from four to 168, the number of robberies from 16 to 1,784—all this while the city’s population declined by 14 percent. Crime was concentrated in central cities: in 1990, two fifths of Pennsylvania’s violent crimes were committed in Philadelphia, home to one seventh of the state’s population. The subject of crime dominated American domestic-policy debates.

Most observers at the time expected things to get worse. Consulting demographic tables and extrapolating trends, scholars and pundits warned the public to prepare for an onslaught, and for a new kind of criminal—the anomic, vicious, irreligious, amoral juvenile “super-predator.” In 1996, one academic commentator predicted a “bloodbath” of juvenile homicides in 2005.

And so we prepared. Stoked by fear and political opportunism, but also by the need to address a very real social problem, we threw lots of people in jail, and when the old prisons were filled we built new ones.

But the onslaught never came. Crime rates peaked in 1992 and have dropped sharply since. Even as crime rates fell, however, imprisonment rates remained high and continued their upward march. The result, the current American prison system, is a leviathan unmatched in human history.

According to a 2005 report of the International Centre for Prison Studies in London, the United States—with five percent of the world’s population—houses 25 percent of the world’s inmates. Our incarceration rate (714 per 100,000 residents) is almost 40 percent greater than those of our nearest competitors (the Bahamas, Belarus, and Russia). Other industrial democracies, even those with significant crime problems of their own, are much less punitive: our incarceration rate is 6.2 times that of Canada, 7.8 times that of France, and 12.3 times that of Japan. We have a corrections sector that employs more Americans than the combined work forces of General Motors, Ford, and Wal-Mart, the three largest corporate employers in the country, and we are spending some $200 billion annually on law enforcement and corrections at all levels of government, a fourfold increase (in constant dollars) over the past quarter century.

Never before has a supposedly free country denied basic liberty to so many of its citizens. In December 2006, some 2.25 million persons were being held in the nearly 5,000 prisons and jails that are scattered across America’s urban and rural landscapes. One third of inmates in state prisons are violent criminals, convicted of homicide, rape, or robbery. But the other two thirds consist mainly of property and drug offenders. Inmates are disproportionately drawn from the most disadvantaged parts of society. On average, state inmates have fewer than 11 years of schooling. They are also vastly disproportionately black and brown.

How did it come to this? One argument is that the massive increase in incarceration reflects the success of a rational public policy: faced with a compelling social problem, we responded by imprisoning people and succeeded in lowering crime rates. This argument is not entirely misguided. Increased incarceration does appear to have reduced crime somewhat. But by how much? Estimates of the share of the 1990s reduction in violent crime that can be attributed to the prison boom range from five percent to 25 percent. Whatever the number, analysts of all political stripes now agree that we have long ago entered the zone of diminishing returns. The conservative scholar John DiIulio, who coined the term “super-predator” in the early 1990s, was by the end of that decade declaring in The Wall Street Journal that “Two Million Prisoners Are Enough.” But there was no political movement for getting America out of the mass-incarceration business. The throttle was stuck.

A more convincing argument is that imprisonment rates have continued to rise while crime rates have fallen because we have become progressively more punitive: not because crime has continued to explode (it hasn’t), not because we made a smart policy choice, but because we have made a collective decision to increase the rate of punishment.

One simple measure of punitiveness is the likelihood that a person who is arrested will be subsequently incarcerated. Between 1980 and 2001, there was no real change in the chances of being arrested in response to a complaint: the rate was just under 50 percent. But the likelihood that an arrest would result in imprisonment more than doubled, from 13 to 28 percent. And because the amount of time served and the rate of prison admission both increased, the incarceration rate for violent crime almost tripled, despite the decline in the level of violence. The incarceration rate for nonviolent and drug offenses increased at an even faster pace: between 1980 and 1997 the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent offenses tripled, and the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses increased by a factor of 11. Indeed, the criminal-justice researcher Alfred Blumstein has argued that none of the growth in incarceration between 1980 and 1996 can be attributed to more crime:

The growth was entirely attributable to a growth in punitiveness, about equally to growth in prison commitments per arrest (an indication of tougher prosecution or judicial sentencing) and to longer time served (an indication of longer sentences, elimination of parole or later parole release, or greater readiness to recommit parolees to prison for either technical violations or new crimes).

This growth in punitiveness was accompanied by a shift in thinking about the basic purpose of criminal justice. In the 1970s, the sociologist David Garland argues, the corrections system was commonly seen as a way to prepare offenders to rejoin society. Since then, the focus has shifted from rehabilitation to punishment and stayed there. Felons are no longer persons to be supported, but risks to be dealt with. And the way to deal with the risks is to keep them locked up. As of 2000, 33 states had abolished limited parole (up from 17 in 1980); 24 states had introduced three-strikes laws (up from zero); and 40 states had introduced truth-in-sentencing laws (up from three). The vast majority of these changes occurred in the 1990s, as crime rates fell.

This new system of punitive ideas is aided by a new relationship between the media, the politicians, and the public. A handful of cases—in which a predator does an awful thing to an innocent—get excessive media attention and engender public outrage. This attention typically bears no relation to the frequency of the particular type of crime, and yet laws—such as three-strikes laws that give mandatory life sentences to nonviolent drug offenders—and political careers are made on the basis of the public’s reaction to the media coverage of such crimes.

* * *

Despite a sharp national decline in crime, American criminal justice has become crueler and less caring than it has been at any other time in our modern history. Why?

The question has no simple answer, but the racial composition of prisons is a good place to start. The punitive turn in the nation’s social policy—intimately connected with public rhetoric about responsibility, dependency, social hygiene, and the reclamation of public order—can be fully grasped only when viewed against the backdrop of America’s often ugly and violent racial history: there is a reason why our inclination toward forgiveness and the extension of a second chance to those who have violated our behavioral strictures is so stunted, and why our mainstream political discourses are so bereft of self-examination and searching social criticism. This historical resonance between the stigma of race and the stigma of imprisonment serves to keep alive in our public culture the subordinating social meanings that have always been associated with blackness. Race helps to explain why the United States is exceptional among the democratic industrial societies in the severity and extent of its punitive policy and in the paucity of its social-welfare institutions.

Slavery ended a long time ago, but the institution of chattel slavery and the ideology of racial subordination that accompanied it have cast a long shadow. I speak here of the history of lynching throughout the country; the racially biased policing and judging in the South under Jim Crow and in the cities of the Northeast, Midwest, and West to which blacks migrated after the First and Second World Wars; and the history of racial apartheid that ended only as a matter of law with the civil-rights movement. It should come as no surprise that in the post–civil rights era, race, far from being peripheral, has been central to the evolution of American social policy.

The political scientist Vesla Mae Weaver, in a recently completed dissertation, examines policy history, public opinion, and media processes in an attempt to understand the role of race in this historic transformation of criminal justice. She argues—persuasively, I think—that the punitive turn represented a political response to the success of the civil-rights movement. Weaver describes a process of “frontlash” in which opponents of the civil-rights revolution sought to regain the upper hand by shifting to a new issue. Rather than reacting directly to civil-rights developments, and thus continuing to fight a battle they had lost, those opponents—consider George Wallace’s campaigns for the presidency, which drew so much support in states like Michigan and Wisconsin—shifted attention to a seemingly race-neutral concern over crime:

Once the clutch of Jim Crow had loosened, opponents of civil rights shifted the “locus of attack” by injecting crime onto the agenda. Through the process of frontlash, rivals of civil rights progress defined racial discord as criminal and argued that crime legislation would be a panacea to racial unrest. This strategy both imbued crime with race and depoliticized racial struggle, a formula which foreclosed earlier “root causes” alternatives. Fusing anxiety about crime to anxiety over racial change and riots, civil rights and racial disorder—initially defined as a problem of minority disenfranchisement—were defined as a crime problem, which helped shift debate from social reform to punishment.

Of course, this argument (for which Weaver adduces considerable circumstantial evidence) is speculative. But something interesting seems to have been going on in the late 1960s regarding the relationship between attitudes on race and social policy.

Before 1965, public attitudes on the welfare state and on race, as measured by the annually administered General Social Survey, varied year to year independently of one another: you could not predict much about a person’s attitudes on welfare politics by knowing their attitudes about race. After 1965, the attitudes moved in tandem, as welfare came to be seen as a race issue. Indeed, the year-to-year correlation between an index measuring liberalism of racial attitudes and attitudes toward the welfare state over the interval 1950–1965 was .03. These same two series had a correlation of .68 over the period 1966–1996. The association in the American mind of race with welfare, and of race with crime, has been achieved at a common historical moment. Crime-control institutions are part of a larger social-policy complex—they relate to and interact with the labor market, family-welfare efforts, and health and social-work activities. Indeed, Garland argues that the ideological approaches to welfare and crime control have marched rightward to a common beat: “The institutional and cultural changes that have occurred in the crime control field are analogous to those that have occurred in the welfare state more generally.” Just as the welfare state came to be seen as a race issue, so, too, crime came to be seen as a race issue, and policies have been shaped by this perception.

Consider the tortured racial history of the War on Drugs. Blacks were twice as likely as whites to be arrested for a drug offense in 1975 but four times as likely by 1989. Throughout the 1990s, drug-arrest rates remained at historically unprecedented levels. Yet according to the National Survey on Drug Abuse, drug use among adults fell from 20 percent in 1979 to 11 percent in 2000. A similar trend occurred among adolescents. In the age groups 12–17 and 18–25, use of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin all peaked in the late 1970s and began a steady decline thereafter. Thus, a decline in drug use across the board had begun a decade before the draconian anti-drug efforts of the 1990s were initiated.

Of course, most drug arrests are for trafficking, not possession, so usage rates and arrest rates needn’t be expected to be identical. Still, we do well to bear in mind that the social problem of illicit drug use is endemic to our whole society. Significantly, throughout the period 1979–2000, white high-school seniors reported using drugs at a significantly higher rate than black high-school seniors. High drug-usage rates in white, middle-class American communities in the early 1980s accounts for the urgency many citizens felt to mount a national attack on the problem. But how successful has the effort been, and at what cost?

Think of the cost this way: to save middle-class kids from the threat of a drug epidemic that might not have even existed by the time that drug incarceration began its rapid increase in the 1980s, we criminalized underclass kids. Arrests went up, but drug prices have fallen sharply over the past 20 years—suggesting that the ratcheting up of enforcement has not made drugs harder to get on the street. The strategy clearly wasn’t keeping drugs away from those who sought them. Not only are prices down, but the data show that drug-related visits to emergency rooms also rose steadily throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

An interesting case in point is New York City. Analyzing arrests by residential neighborhood and police precinct, the criminologist Jeffrey Fagan and his colleagues Valerie West and Jan Holland found that incarceration was highest in the city’s poorest neighborhoods, though these were often not the neighborhoods in which crime rates were the highest. Moreover, they discovered a perverse effect of incarceration on crime: higher incarceration in a given neighborhood in one year seemed to predict higher crime rates in that same neighborhood one year later. This growth and persistence of incarceration over time, the authors concluded, was due primarily to the drug enforcement practices of police and to sentencing laws that require imprisonment for repeat felons. Police scrutiny was more intensive and less forgiving in high-incarceration neighborhoods, and parolees returning to such neighborhoods were more closely monitored. Thus, discretionary and spatially discriminatory police behavior led to a high and increasing rate of repeat prison admissions in the designated neighborhoods, even as crime rates fell.

Fagan, West, and Holland explain the effects of spatially concentrated urban anti-drug-law enforcement in the contemporary American metropolis. Buyers may come from any neighborhood and any social stratum. But the sellers—at least the ones who can be readily found hawking their wares on street corners and in public vestibules—come predominantly from the poorest, most non-white parts of the city. The police, with arrest quotas to meet, know precisely where to find them. The researchers conclude:

Incarceration begets more incarceration, and incarceration also begets more crime, which in turn invites more aggressive enforcement, which then re-supplies incarceration . . . three mechanisms . . . contribute to and reinforce incarceration in neighborhoods: the declining economic fortunes of former inmates and the effects on neighborhoods where they tend to reside, resource and relationship strains on families of prisoners that weaken the family’s ability to supervise children, and voter disenfranchisement that weakens the political economy of neighborhoods.

The effects of imprisonment on life chances are profound. For incarcerated black men, hourly wages are ten percent lower after prison than before. For all incarcerated men, the number of weeks worked per year falls by at least a third after their release.

So consider the nearly 60 percent of black male high-school dropouts born in the late 1960s who are imprisoned before their 40th year. While locked up, these felons are stigmatized—they are regarded as fit subjects for shaming. Their links to family are disrupted; their opportunities for work are diminished; their voting rights may be permanently revoked. They suffer civic excommunication. Our zeal for social discipline consigns these men to a permanent nether caste. And yet, since these men—whatever their shortcomings—have emotional and sexual and family needs, including the need to be fathers and lovers and husbands, we are creating a situation where the children of this nether caste are likely to join a new generation of untouchables. This cycle will continue so long as incarceration is viewed as the primary path to social hygiene.

* * *

I have been exploring the issue of causes: of why we took the punitive turn that has resulted in mass incarceration. But even if the racial argument about causes is inconclusive, the racial consequences are clear. To be sure, in the United States, as in any society, public order is maintained by the threat and use of force. We enjoy our good lives only because we are shielded by the forces of law and order, which keep the unruly at bay. Yet in this society, to a degree virtually unmatched in any other, those bearing the brunt of order enforcement belong in vastly disproportionate numbers to historically marginalized racial groups. Crime and punishment in America has a color.

In his fine study Punishment and Inequality in America (2006), the Princeton University sociologist Bruce Western powerfully describes the scope, nature, and consequences of contemporary imprisonment. He finds that the extent of racial disparity in imprisonment rates is greater than in any other major arena of American social life: at eight to one, the black–white ratio of incarceration rates dwarfs the two-to-one ratio of unemployment rates, the three-to-one ration of non-marital childbearing, the two-to-one ratio of infant-mortality rates and one-to-five ratio of net worth. While three out of 200 young whites were incarcerated in 2000, the rate for young blacks was one in nine. A black male resident of the state of California is more likely to go to a state prison than a state college.

The scandalous truth is that the police and penal apparatus are now the primary contact between adult black American men and the American state. Among black male high-school dropouts aged 20 to 40, a third were locked up on any given day in 2000, fewer than three percent belonged to a union, and less than one quarter were enrolled in any kind of social program. Coercion is the most salient meaning of government for these young men.¬†Western estimates that nearly 60 percent of black male dropouts born between 1965 and 1969 were sent to prison on a felony conviction at least once before they reached the age of 35.

One cannot reckon the world-historic American prison build-up over the past 35 years without calculating the enormous costs imposed upon the persons imprisoned, their families, and their communities. (Of course, this has not stopped many social scientists from pronouncing on the net benefits of incarceration without doing so.) Deciding on the weight to give to a “thug’s” well-being—or to that of his wife or daughter or son—is a question of social morality, not social science. Nor can social science tell us how much additional cost borne by the offending class is justified in order to obtain a given increment of security or property or peace of mind for the rest of us. These are questions about the nature of the American state and its relationship to its people that transcend the categories of benefits and costs.

Yet the discourse surrounding punishment policy invariably discounts the humanity of the thieves, drug sellers, prostitutes, rapists, and, yes, those whom we put to death. It gives insufficient weight to the welfare, to the humanity, of those who are knitted together with offenders in webs of social and psychic affiliation. What is more, institutional arrangements for dealing with criminal offenders in the United States have evolved to serve expressive as well as instrumental ends. We have wanted to “send a message,” and we have done so with a vengeance. In the process, we have created facts. We have answered the question, who is to blame for the domestic maladies that beset us? We have constructed a national narrative. We have created scapegoats, indulged our need to feel virtuous, and assuaged our fears. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is them.

Incarceration keeps them away from us. Thus Garland: “The prison is used today as a kind of reservation, a quarantine zone in which purportedly dangerous individuals are segregated in the name of public safety.” The boundary between prison and community, Garland continues, is “heavily patrolled and carefully monitored to prevent risks leaking out from one to the other. Those offenders who are released ‘into the community’ are subject to much tighter control than previously, and frequently find themselves returned to custody for failure to comply with the conditions that continue to restrict their freedom. For many of these parolees and ex-convicts, the ‘community’ into which they are released is actually a closely monitored terrain, a supervised space, lacking much of the liberty that one associates with ‘normal life’.”

Deciding how citizens of varied social rank within a common polity ought to relate to one another is a more fundamental consideration than deciding which crime-control policy is most efficient. The question of relationship, of solidarity, of who belongs to the body politic and who deserves exclusion—these are philosophical concerns of the highest order. A decent society will on occasion resist the efficient course of action, for the simple reason that to follow it would be to act as though we were not the people we have determined ourselves to be: a people conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that we all are created equal. Assessing the propriety of creating a racially defined pariah class in the middle of our great cities at the start of the 21st century presents us with just such a case.

My recitation of the brutal facts about punishment in today’s America may sound to some like a primal scream at this monstrous social machine that is grinding poor black communities to dust. And I confess that these brutal facts do at times incline me to cry out in despair. But my argument is analytical, not existential. Its principal thesis is this: we law-abiding, middle-class Americans have made decisions about social policy and incarceration, and we benefit from those decisions, and that means from a system of suffering, rooted in state violence, meted out at our request. We had choices and we decided to be more punitive. Our society—the society we have made—creates criminogenic conditions in our sprawling urban ghettos, and then acts out rituals of punishment against them as some awful form of human sacrifice.

This situation raises a moral problem that we cannot avoid. We cannot pretend that there are more important problems in our society, or that this circumstance is the necessary solution to other, more pressing problems—unless we are also prepared to say that we have turned our backs on the ideal of equality for all citizens and abandoned the principles of justice. We ought to ask ourselves two questions: Just what manner of people are we Americans? And in light of this, what are our obligations to our fellow citizens—even those who break our laws?

* * *

To address these questions, we need to think about the evaluation of our prison system as a problem in the theory of distributive justice—not the purely procedural idea of ensuring equal treatment before the law and thereafter letting the chips fall where they may, but the rather more demanding ideal of substantive racial justice. The goal is to bring about through conventional social policy and far-reaching institutional reforms a situation in which the history of racial oppression is no longer so evident in the disparate life experiences of those who descend from slaves.

And I suggest we approach that problem from the perspective of John Rawls’s theory of justice: first, that we think about justice from an “original position” behind a “veil of ignorance” that obstructs from view our own situation, including our class, race, gender, and talents. We need to ask what rules we would pick if we seriously imagined that we could turn out to be anyone in the society. Second, following Rawls’s “difference principle,” we should permit inequalities only if they work to improve the circumstances of the least advantaged members of society. But here, the object of moral inquiry is not the distribution among individuals of wealth and income, but instead the distribution of a negative good, punishment, among individuals and, importantly, racial groups.

So put yourself in John Rawls’s original position and imagine that you could occupy any rank in the social hierarchy. Let me be more concrete: imagine that you could be born a black American male outcast shuffling between prison and the labor market on his way to an early death to the chorus of nigger or criminal or dummy. Suppose we had to stop thinking of us and them. What social rules would we pick if we actually thought that they could be us? I expect that we would still pick some set of punishment institutions to contain bad behavior and protect society. But wouldn’t we pick arrangements that respected the humanity of each individual and of those they are connected to through bonds of social and psychic affiliation? If any one of us had a real chance of being one of those faces looking up from the bottom of the well—of being the least among us¬—then how would we talk publicly about those who break our laws? What would we do with juveniles who go awry, who roam the streets with guns and sometimes commit acts of violence? What weight would we give to various elements in the deterrence-retribution-incapacitation-rehabilitation calculus, if we thought that calculus could end up being applied to our own children, or to us? How would we apportion blame and affix responsibility for the cultural and social pathologies evident in some quarters of our society if we envisioned that we ourselves might well have been born into the social margins where such pathology flourishes?

If we take these questions as seriously as we should, then we would, I expect, reject a pure ethic of personal responsibility as the basis for distributing punishment. Issues about responsibility are complex, and involve a kind of division of labor—what John Rawls called a “social division of responsibility” between “citizens as a collective body” and individuals: when we hold a person responsible for his or her conduct—by establishing laws, investing in their enforcement, and consigning some persons to prisons—we need also to think about whether we have done our share in ensuring that each person faces a decent set of opportunities for a good life. We need to ask whether we as a society have fulfilled our collective responsibility to ensure fair conditions for each person—for each life that might turn out to be our life.

We would, in short, recognize a kind of social responsibility, even for the wrongful acts freely chosen by individual persons. I am not arguing that people commit crimes because they have no choices, and that in this sense the “root causes” of crime are social; individuals always have choices. My point is that responsibility is a matter of ethics, not social science. Society at large is implicated in an individual person’s choices because we have acquiesced in—perhaps actively supported, through our taxes and votes, words and deeds—social arrangements that work to our benefit and his detriment, and which shape his consciousness and sense of identity in such a way that the choices he makes, which we may condemn, are nevertheless compelling to him—an entirely understandable response to circumstance. Closed and bounded social structures—like racially homogeneous urban ghettos—create contexts where “pathological” and “dysfunctional” cultural forms emerge; but these forms are neither intrinsic to the people caught in these structures nor independent of the behavior of people who stand outside them.

Thus, a central reality of our time is the fact that there has opened a wide racial gap in the acquisition of cognitive skills, the extent of law-abidingness, the stability of family relations, the attachment to the work force, and the like. This disparity in human development is, as a historical matter, rooted in political, economic, social, and cultural factors peculiar to this society and reflective of its unlovely racial history: it is a societal, not communal or personal, achievement. At the level of the individual case we must, of course, act as if this were not so. There could be no law, no civilization, without the imputation to particular persons of responsibility for their wrongful acts. But the sum of a million cases, each one rightly judged on its merits to be individually fair, may nevertheless constitute a great historic wrong. The state does not only deal with individual cases. It also makes policies in the aggregate, and the consequences of these policies are more or less knowable. And who can honestly say—who can look in the mirror and say with a straight face—that we now have laws and policies that we would endorse if we did not know our own situation and genuinely considered the possibility that we might be the least advantaged?

Even if the current racial disparity in punishment in our country gave evidence of no overt racial discrimination—and, perhaps needless to say, I view that as a wildly optimistic supposition—it would still be true that powerful forces are at work to perpetuate the consequences of a universally acknowledged wrongful past. This is in the first instance a matter of interpretation—of the narrative overlay that we impose upon the facts.

The tacit association in the American public’s imagination of “blackness” with “unworthiness” or “dangerousness” has obscured a fundamental ethical point about responsibility, both collective and individual, and promoted essentialist causal misattributions: when confronted by the facts of racially disparate achievement, racially disproportionate crime rates, and racially unequal school achievement, observers will have difficulty identifying with the plight of a group of people whom they (mistakenly) think are simply “reaping what they have sown.” Thus, the enormous racial disparity in the imposition of social exclusion, civic ex-communication, and lifelong disgrace has come to seem legitimate, even necessary: we fail to see how our failures as a collective body are implicated in this disparity. We shift all the responsibility onto their shoulders, only by irresponsibly—indeed, immorally—denying our own. And yet, this entire dynamic has its roots in past unjust acts that were perpetrated on the basis of race.

Given our history, producing a racially defined nether caste through the ostensibly neutral application of law should be profoundly offensive to our ethical sensibilities—to the principles we proudly assert as our own. Mass incarceration has now become a principal vehicle for the reproduction of racial hierarchy in our society. Our country’s policymakers need to do something about it. And all of us are ultimately responsible for making sure that they do. <

Glenn C. Loury is the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences in the department of economics at Brown University. He is the author of The Anatomy of Racial Inequality, and he was a 2002 Carnegie Scholar.

Originally published in the July/August 2007 issue of Boston Review.

FAULED COVERUP on Uranium

2007-02-05T02:33:00.000-08:00

A Failed Cover-Up
What the Libby Trial Is Revealing

By David Ignatius
Friday, February 2, 2007; A15

Why was the White House so nervous in the summer of 2003 about the CIA's reporting on alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger to build a nuclear bomb? That's the big question that runs through the many little details that have emerged in the perjury trial of Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The trial record suggests a simple answer: The White House was worried that the CIA would reveal that it had been pressured in 2002 and early 2003 to support administration claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and that in the Niger case, the CIA had tried hard to resist this pressure. The machinations of Cheney, Libby and others were an attempt to weave an alternative narrative that blamed the CIA.

The truth began to emerge on July 11, 2003, when CIA Director George Tenet issued a public statement disclosing that the agency had tried to warn the White House off the Niger allegations. In that sense, the Libby trial is about a cover-up that failed.

What helped start the whole brouhaha was a 2003 op-ed article by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, disclosing that his fact-finding trip to Niger the previous year had yielded no evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases. His piece opened with a devastating question: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?" A frantic White House tried to rebut Wilson's criticism by leaking the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA and had suggested sending him to Niger -- as if the CIA connection somehow contaminated Wilson's allegations and made the White House less culpable.

To understand the Libby case, it's important to look at the documentary evidence, which has been usefully compiled by washingtonpost.com.

The record begins with a Feb. 13, 2002, memo from a CIA briefer who had been "tasked" by Cheney on the uranium issue: "The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from DIA) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq's nuclear program." The CIA briefer responded the next day with a comment that should have aroused skepticism on whether Iraq needed to buy any more uranium: Iraq already had 550 tons of "yellowcake" ore -- 200 tons of it from Niger. But the CIA, eager to please, asked Wilson a few days later to go to Niger to investigate the claim.

A glimpse of the pressure coming from the vice president's office emerges from a memo from CIA briefer Craig R. Schmall, after he was interviewed in January 2004 by FBI agents investigating the leak of Plame's covert identity: "I mentioned also to the agents that Libby was in charge within the administration (or at least the White House side) for producing papers arguing the case for Iraqi WMD and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which explains Libby's and the Vice President's interest in the Iraq/Niger/Uranium case."

CIA and State Department documents show that analysts at both agencies became increasingly skeptical about the Niger allegation and tried to warn the White House. A memo from Schmall to Eric Edelman, then Cheney's national security adviser, recalled: "CIA on several occasions has cautioned . . . that available information on this issue was fragmentary and unconfirmed." A memo from Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the State Department's intelligence bureau, noted that his analysts had found the Niger claims "highly dubious."

The Niger issue wasn't included in Secretary of State Colin Powell's famous U.N. speech on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, according to Ford, "due to CIA concerns raised during the coordination regarding the veracity of the information on the alleged Iraq-Niger agreement." But despite CIA warnings, Bush referred to uranium purchases from Africa in his January 2003 State of the Union address, attributing it to British sources.

So we begin to understand why the White House was worried about the CIA in the summer of 2003: It feared the agency would breach the wall of silence about the claims regarding weapons of mass destruction. Robert Grenier, a CIA official who was the agency's Iraq mission manager, told colleagues that he remembered "a series of insistent phone calls" that month from Libby, who wanted the CIA to tell reporters that "other community elements such as State and DOD" had encouraged Wilson's Niger trip, not just Cheney.

The bottom line? Grenier was asked in court last week to explain the White House's 2003 machinations. Here's what he said: "I think they were trying to avoid blame for not providing [the truth] about whether or not Iraq had attempted to buy uranium." Let me say it again: This trial is about a cover-up that failed.

notes 1/17/2007

2007-01-17T12:11:00.000-08:00

CAPITAL - "Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to economy."

Natural Capital : seeds, animals, soil, climate, geography, minerals

Financial $$$, machines

Human Capital more and more important over time as technology & transport advance

& resources more mobile

CULTURE “patterns of human activity & symbolic structures that give activity significance.

Stories, learned skills, religion, material culture.

“codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals.

Norms of behavior such as law, morality & belief systems.

Anthropologists: human capacity to classify, codify & communicate experiences symbolically”

ADAM SMITH. Man is naturally inclined to trade. Trading leads to specialization & division of labor & economic efficiency. Larger the market greater the division of labor and specialization.

Guns Germs and steel – asks the question of why people like the natives of New Guinea and Africans & Amerindians have so much less modern technology & power than Eurasians.

Racial explanations come to dominate in U.S. in our period.

Contrary to race /genetic story told by “advanced” society New Zelanders, Indians etc

Often more intelligent and mentally agile than “advanced” societies

Survival tenuous, requires mental acuity. Cogs in mass-society depend more on immunity.

Hunter-gatherers All members of group relatively equal - No way to accumulate much – always moving Low population density - can only carry one kid – 4 years between kids

Private property (and theft) make no sense. Who would wait around a year guarding a fruit tree or berry bush? What can you steal from a Hunter gatherer.

Over time Less resources. Kill all the mammoths, dodo’s, seals, antelope, horses in NAmerica

AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION

Domesticable plants : Up to 90% biomass edible instead of 1/10 of 1%

Eurasia best selection – wheat, rice, peas, millet, poppy, oats, barley, figs, olives

South Amer – potato, manioc – llama, guinea pig

North America – sunflower, goosefoot – no animals

Mesoamerica – corn, beans, squash

East-West axis in Eurasia – all other continents north-South orientation

Easier to share plants thru similar climates at similar latitudes

Domesticable animals - renewable – self-portable protein food – milk -skins Manure for garden

can draw chariots for war, wagons, plows – use heavier soils / tough sods

Eurasia has most – Dogs goats sheep cows horses pig chicken donkey cat (pest control)

Fibres for clothes – wool – silkworms

SPECIALIZATION & DIVISION OF LABOR

Emergence of reliable & abundant food sources & food storage let agricultural societies get much more “advanced” & stratified. If looking for food all day CANNOT invent ceramics (for food storage), metal (plows, swords, guns)

Civilizations in Eurasia can borrow and trade with each other along Silk Road with animals for mobility. China, Indus Valley, Egypt, Mediterranean.

Technology & food = military power. Can feed soldiers & do war better longer. Horses & Camels great for war and trade. Chariots, knights, etc

Written language – helps preserve and transmit complex technology

Government bureaucratic orders

Epidemic diseases co-evolve with domesticable animals. Concentrated population & pigs, chickens, cows = flu, measles, smallpox. People in these societies develop resistance –

societies w/o domestic animals + concentrated population don’t

Peru is second advanced “monumental” society. Like Fertile Crescent different environments near each other – plain at edge of Andes. Humbolt current = fish. Cotton = nets & clothes. Potatoes upland. But : No animals, no other civilizations easy to trade with & Diseases.

Aztecs : corn, beans squash, avocados. But corn emerges late & fragile environment.

Military power much more important – Aztecs & Spanish militaristic parasites in agric area.

Pre

gas taxes are good for many reasons

2006-12-15T08:04:00.000-08:00

The Pigou Club Manifesto
In today's Wall Street Journal, I offer a manifesto for the Pigou Club, the elite group of pundits and policy wonks with the good sense to advocate higher Pigovian taxes. (Click here for a partial membership list.)

Raise the Gas Tax
By N. Gregory Mankiw

With the midterm election around the corner, here's a wacky idea you won't often hear from our elected leaders: We should raise the tax on gasoline. Not quickly, but substantially. I would like to see Congress increase the gas tax by $1 per gallon, phased in gradually by 10 cents per year over the next decade. Campaign consultants aren't fond of this kind of proposal, but policy wonks keep pushing for it. Here's why:

The environment. The burning of gasoline emits several pollutants. These include carbon dioxide, a cause of global warming. Higher gasoline taxes, perhaps as part of a broader carbon tax, would be the most direct and least invasive policy to address environmental concerns.

Road congestion. Every time I am stuck in traffic, I wish my fellow motorists would drive less, perhaps by living closer to where they work or by taking public transport. A higher gas tax would give all of us the incentive to do just that, reducing congestion on streets and highways.

Regulatory relief. Congress has tried to reduce energy dependence with corporate average fuel economy standards. These CAFE rules are heavy-handed government regulations replete with unintended consequences: They are partly responsible for the growth of SUVs, because light trucks have laxer standards than cars. In addition, by making the car fleet more fuel-efficient, the regulations encourage people to drive more, offsetting some of the conservation benefits and exacerbating road congestion. A higher gas tax would accomplish everything CAFE standards do, but without the adverse side effects.

The budget. Everyone who has studied the numbers knows that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. When baby-boomers retire and become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, either benefits for the elderly will have to be cut or taxes raised. The most likely political compromise will include some of each. A $1 per gallon hike in gas tax would bring in $100 billion a year in government revenue and make a dent in the looming fiscal gap.

Tax incidence. A basic principle of tax analysis -- taught in most freshman economics courses -- is that the burden of a tax is shared by consumer and producer. In this case, as a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax. Some of the tax would in effect be paid by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Economic growth. Public finance experts have long preached that consumption taxes are better than income taxes for long-run economic growth, because income taxes discourage saving and investment. Gas is a component of consumption. An increased reliance on gas taxes over income taxes would make the tax code more favorable to growth. It would also encourage firms to devote more R&D spending to the search for gasoline substitutes.

National security. Alan Greenspan called for higher gas taxes recently. "It's a national security issue," he said. It is hard to judge how much high oil consumption drives U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern politics. But Mr. Greenspan may well be right that the gas tax is an economic policy with positive spillovers to foreign affairs.

Is it conceivable that the policy wonks will ever win the battle with the campaign consultants? I think it is. Even after a $1 hike, the U.S. gas tax would still be less than half the level in, say, Great Britain, which last I checked is still a democracy. But don't expect those vying for office to come around until the American people recognize that while higher gas taxes are unattractive, the alternatives are even worse.

optional short but "big-picture" take-home essay

2006-12-06T07:21:00.000-08:00

Final Exam “big picture” essays OPTIONAL. Write essay(s) that play with the concepts below.
You won’t be able to cover everything so pick neat examples and make it tight
Make an outline. Don’t just throw anything you can remember at me in no particular order. Simplistic generalizations without qualification & good examples will get low grades. Anticipating counterarguments is very good. Mail to my e-mail by Sunday night. Bring a hard copy if you can. Abbreviations (B43, JFK, LBJ, JFD for Dulles) are fine. 2 page maximum unless you absolutely need
Foreign policy.
That brilliant geopolitical thinker Mark Twain (someone today's anti-imperialists can legitimately claim as an intellectual and moral forebear) once said "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."
Jimmy Carter generally agreed with Twain, and said "Human Rights" were primary. Whenever possible / practical we should be on the side of good. Clinton agreed and apologized for when we hadn't lived up to our principles of "all men =" "rule of law" etc. Both Clinton & Bush 41 (New World Order) tried to stop genocide & mass starvation in Somalia (& Clinton later in Bosnia & Kosovo.) Clinton apologized for not stopping Genocide in Rwanda.
A Pure "Realist" looks only
at American interests (Oil or military balance of power) and makes decisions just on that Basis. Nixon was mostly a realist, concerned with American/ world balance of power (with Kissinger). Almost everyone compromises with "realism" even if they have an ideological disposition to do otherwise. We can't fix everything.
Condi Rice wrote a "realist" essay in 2000 which disapproved of Clinton's humanitarian interventions in Somalia, Bosnia & Kosovo.
Some foreign policy thinkers believe America does not have to "do right." We can torture or overthrow or support thugs either because America is "a city on a hill" & uniquely "holy" or because the local situation (Vietnam, Guatemala, Iran) is part of a "good versus evil" struggle like the Cold War or the “War on Teror” so we can do anything in the name of this "good vs evil" struggle. If Guatemala or Iran or Vietnam are not "with us" in this big struggle they're "against us" so ....
•John Foster Dulles (FD), Ronald Reagan (RR), Bush43 (B43) under Cheney, and Nixon (NX) (in a different way but same results in Latin America & Vietnam) had strong commonalities in Foreign policy. They saw the world in certain ways and acted accordingly. Their outlooks often combined $$$ interests or oil and the rhetoric of America’s unique holiness.
Their actions contrast strongly with Jimmy Carter (JC), Bill Clinton (BC), JFK (usually except Cuba) & Bush41 (B41)(usually). Try to explain the “big picture” using Latin America perhaps with the most extreme contrasts. Mention carefully selected example(s) for every generalization. Talk about views (A) that emphasize “good vs evil” “with us or against us” “enemy of my enemy is my friend” “must not talk to evil” & US right to overthrow other governments & impose our values
Analyze & give cogent examples of the competing "Human rights" views (B) which generally include trying to understand the history & cultures of others & their grievances & respect their views “do unto others …” “all men are equal”, Internationalism & international law.
How have the paradigms worked in Vietnam?
North Korea recently (including Plutonium & Jimmy Carter in 1994 and B43 after 2000) Cuba?
Afghanistan since late 1970’s (including Bin Laden)?
Latin America vs Europe & Japan?

Economic “Big Picture”
Economics
The richest Americans (top 1/10 of 1%) now pay much lower tax rates than you will. CEO’s get hundreds of $$millions for bad performances while the companies with lower skews between top CEO and average workers make the best profits. Most Americans worry more about inflation from raising the minimum wage or moderately high taxes on the VERY rich than they do about millions of children in poverty or radically decreased opportunity for working middle class & poor. Congressional and B43 Republicans are passionately determined that Paris Hilton & Frist & Bush kids get many unearned $$millions tax free while low-income-3-job families pay high payroll taxes on their first dollar.
The New Deal created a huge middle-class in America. The Reagan Bush-43 tax revolution has radically changed the “shape” of American wealth distribution and opportunity. They have also had huge implications for future generations
Talk about why and how this happened. Mention as many important details as you can. You could include “state versus federal progressivity”, social security “reform” under Reagan, deficits, “two-free-lunch-economics” “Laffer curve”, Milton Friedman and Hayek, any illusions Americans might have

QUIZZES AFTER MIDTERM with answers

2006-12-05T17:50:00.000-08:00

10/23 EXTERNALITIES ESSAYS tell what economic and political principles (which we have studied in this course) are reflected in this proposal & the description of our economy now
taxing carbon dioxide emissions instead of employees' pay in a bid to stem global warming will help by Penalizing the negative externality of pollution instead of penalizing employment, thus increasing employment & reducing inequality & poverty and tightening up the labor market.
If your political principles included “all men are created equal” you wouldn’t dump your global-warming-externalities on Bangladesh and the more-vulnerable rest of the world. That makes this proposal progressive / Christian / American if foreigners are equal too.
If you believe economically that people should pay for their externalities, then taxing the carbon in the oil or coal would make sense by “paying” for the externality while discouraging the production of more CO2.

The chairman of the Federal reserve, Ben Bernacke, met recently with the members of the Fed Board to discuss ___level of economic activity__ .
If The Fed sees signs that indicate the threat of inflation the fed may __raise_ interest rates.
“SCLC” stands for Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
SCLC was dominated by Martin Luther King and other Black male preachers.
The event that led to SCLC’s formation was the Birmingham Bus Boycott.
“SNCC” stands for Student Non Violent Coordination Committee
SNCC began with LUNCH COUNTER SIT-INS which challenged the sanctity of PRIVATE PROPERTY
SNCC had _DIFFUSED DEMOCRATIC_ leadership.
SNCC was (A) far more (B) about equally (C) far less male-dominated than SCLC.
NAACP focused on _LITIGATION_ as the best way forward for Civil Rights
SNCC & SCLC focused on (2) _NON-VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION_
Russia lost (A) about the same (B) twice (C) 10 times (D) 90 times
the number of people the US lost in WWII.
A little kid became a culture hero in Russia for __TURNING IN HIS PARENTS_
In 1945 the American people thought of Josef Stalin as _NICE UNCLE JOE
Stalin expected that US and Great Britain _TO GO TO WAR BECAUSE CAPITALISTS ALWAYS DO after WWII.
US policy after WWII was guided by the basic principle of avoiding __THE MISTAKES AFTER WWI WHICH CAUSED WWII INCLUDING PUNITIVE PEACES, ECONOMIC CHAOS, NO INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION____
This general US policy (above) meant that Germany must _BE REBUILT__
The Soviets believed, in contrast, that Germany __MUST BE CRUSHED AND KEPT UNDER CONTROL
(11/3/2006) Assume “you” are young working-class American, not inheriting over $5 million & not holding large amounts of stocks or bonds. 15 words or LESS clearly written for each question. (1) Has Bush economic policy reduced or increased your tax load over time & why (2 reasons)? Your tax load has increased because B43 has increased spending faster than any president since WWII – not vetoing ANY spending. There is no free lunch, someone will have to pay the more-than-doubled debt. Since the tax load has shifted from the top brackets (most cuts for top 1%) to workers (payroll taxes from ~6% 1950 to over 40% now) you will have to pay a higher proportion of that debt.
(2) What would the effect on intergenerational equity (taxpayers in the future compared to taxpayers now) of a tax increase? It would decrease the debt for you and your kids by making taxpayers now pay for more of current spending.
(3) What did Dulles do in Vietnam around 1956? He stifled elections because Ho Chi Minh would have won big-time (Dulles saw the world in good vs evil “appeasement of Hitler” terms. If you’re not explicitly capitalist, like all good Christians, you’re not our friend & we want you gone so our Catholic friend can rule.
(4) In Egypt around 1956 Dulles _cut off funding for the Aswan High Dam__
because __Nasser wanted to be independent, not puppet & bought arms from Czechoslovakia _ then Nasser _Nationalized the Suez Canal to get $$$ for Dam and to stick it to colonial powers. Nasser also encouraged Algerian revolt against French colonialism.
(5) in Iran Dulles _thru CIA run by brother fomented riots to make Iran appear unstable & threatened by Communism and _OVERTTHREW__ a _ Democratic_ government because _The British needed the oil $$ (and we grabbed half) and we wanted a pliable puppet – the Shah _
(6) In the 1950’s & 1960’s the fastest growing religions were (pick 2) (a) Mainline (b) Fundamentalist (c) Social Gospel (d) Evangelical (e) New-Age
(7) These religions were more sympathetic to the Cold War Mentality because they divided the world into __GOOD VERSUS EVIL AND WE’RE THE GOOD __
(8)The leader America installed in Vietnam was (religion) __CATHOLIC___
ruling a _BUDDHIST__ country.
(10) Guatemalan politics 1945-1954 was inspired by example of __NEW DEAL IN AMERICA.
(11)The Guatemalans wanted _LAND REFORM like the US did in Germany & Japan
(12) Eisenhower’s last speech warned against influence of _MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX _
(13) Of recent politicians Ike’s nightmare would be DICK CHENEY WHO MADE HUGE $$$ ($60 MILLION) RUNNING PRIVATE COMPANY HALIBURTON WHICH GETS NO-BID CONTRACTS FROM MILITARY THANKS TO HIS “PRIVATIZATION” OF MANY FUNCTIONS.
11/10 quiz“Domino theory” said if Vietnam fell, Commie-Chinese influence would spread throughout Southeast Asia. Instead there was war between VIETNAM & CHINA.
A Bob Corker radio ad used word “Black” 6 times in 26 seconds, an example of WEDGE politics.
Bill Clinton had (a) increased (b) decreased taxes on the rich so we had a projected (a) surplus (b) deficit in our budget over the next 10 years.
Child poverty has _INCREASED` by 1.3 MILLION thanks to B43 tax policy. (direction & number guess)
JFK ran on a “MISSILE ” gap which was total BS.
LBJ waited to introduce his Voting rights bill until after BLOODY SUNDAY SUPPRESSION OF MLK’s VOTING RIGHTS MARCH SHOWN ON TV
Ghetto economies suffered because technology and capital investment reduced the
number of jobs in MANUFACTURING & HEAVY INDUSTRY
More jobs were being created in the _SERVICE_ sector of the economy.
LBJ ordered Hoover (FBI) so Federal govt finally investigated racist murders in
(city & State) _PHILADELPHIA MISSISSIPPI______
Prison population (as a % of population) have (a) decreased slightly (b) stayed about same (c) doubled (d) tripled (e) more than quadrupled – 6 OR 7 TIMES between 1971 and now.
This change indicates a shift from (a) Progressive (b) Social Darwinist thinking to (a) progressive (b) Social Darwinist thinking.
In the late 1960’s SNCC and Stokley Carmichael moved from non-violent direct action to
_BLACK POWER which had the slogan _POWER FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN
Courts went beyond the intent of the Civil Rights act to mandate _BUSSING_
to achieve school desegregation. Unpopular with both Blacks and whites, it created a backlash.
Courts also encouraged the creation of _MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICTS _
in reapportionment. This had the unintended result of polarizing political debate in the House of Representatives by concentrating polarized political views in different districts.
Quiz 11 17 What feature of US society is correlated with high percentages of incarceration and harsh sentences in other countries? HUGE INEQUALITY OF WEALTH SUCH AS IN Brazil or Mexico where rich life in fortified enclaves (gated communities on steroids) _
A recent quiz of members of leading Republican members of Congressional intelligence committees revealed that they still don’t really understand the difference between
_SHIITE_ and _SUNNI_ which is critical for understanding the course of the war in Iraq.
One way inequality in US increased very recently was a shift in tax load FROM. taxes collected by _FEDERAL GOVERNMENT_ TO taxes collected by _STATES_
In taxes collected second way, poorest 20% of population pay tax rates (a) ½ (b) ¾ (c) about same (d) twice (EVEN HIGHER IN Tennessee) the rate of the wealthiest 20%.
Diem and Nhu in South Vietnam were proposing PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH VIET- CONG (South Vietnamese indigenous resistance)_ just before Diem was assassinated.
The “Fraternity Initiation” effect means that most people get more committed to a cause
or organization the more they have to _SUFFER_ for it.
Charles DeGaule was so afraid of the effects of fighting a Guerilla war that at the end of the Algerian War he __TURNED THE NAMES OF MANY WHO HAD FOUGHT FOR THE FRENCH OVER TO THE ALGERIAN REBELS
In “Rewarding the Hereditary Elite” the author argues that repealing _INHERITANCE TAXES__ goes against the fundamental American principle of __MERITOCRACY_ & that
by increasing the gap between __SOCIAL CLASSES or RICH & POOR _
it is thus wasting __ TALENT _(POOR GUYS INVENT COOL STUFF OFTEN) .
The infant mortality rate in Washington DC is (a) ½ (b) about the same (c) 2 times
the rate in Bejing China.
What expense is most important in driving American Auto companies to move production to Canada? __HEALTH CARE COSTS __ (TWICE AS HIGH IN US AS IN COUNTRIES WHERE UNIVERSAL CARE IS PAID FOR BY TAXES )
In 1970 America had the least _WEALTH INEQUALITY_ of any country in the developed world in 1970, now it has the most.
The average Black family has about (a) 1/5 (b)40% (c) 60% (d) about same wealth as an average White family.
In the last four years the indebtedness of US households has (a) decreased 1/3 (b) stayed about the same (c) increased 1/3
When asked if the government usually did the right thing, (a) 90% (b) 70% (c) 50% (d) 30% of Americans said YES in 1960.
Between then and now this number is (a) up 10% (b) down 10% (c) down over 30%
Mention briefly 4 court decisions which are factors in this change by motivating the “Traditional values” or “Civil Rights” backlash or by increasing polarization Prayer in School, Brown vs Board of Education, Roe Vs Wade, Miranda Rights (against self incrimination – protects criminals)
Describe a change in the Civil Rights Movement leadership that helped drive a backlash against civil-rights. FROM POLITE MIDDLE-CLASS PREACHERS USING CHRISTIAN & PATRIOTIC RHETORIC AND NON-VIOLENCE TO RADICAL ANGRY “POWER FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN” RADICALS.
Mention two other things that made people cynical about politics. WATERGATE, VIETNAM DECEPTIONS, CHURCH INVESTIGATIONS OF CIA COUPS, ASSASSINATIONS & OLIVER-STONISH-STORIES
Wedge politics work by making politics nasty and thus driving down__VOTER TURNOUT ___
and motivating a small group by making them __ ANGRY_ or _FEARFUL_
How did Nixon & Kissinger impede a possible Vietnam peace settlement in 1968. SENDING EMISSARY TO SOUTH VIET LEADERS TELLING THEM NOT TO SETTLE, NIXON WOULD GET THEM BETTER TERMS LATER

Overthrow Questions & Answers

2006-12-04T03:37:00.000-08:00

Overthrow Chapter 8 “We’re Going to Smash Him”
How did Richard Nixon’s views of Latin American Policy differ from JFK’s
JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” “To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required — not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” Alliance for Progress – land reform, progressive taxation, support democratic left. Nixon – former corporate lawyer supports business elite he worked for & military which protects their interests & property
How did Henry Kissinger’s foreign policy views & actions reflect American ideals like the rule of law, human rights and democracy?
Concerned with stability and big-power balance of forces, & US credibility. Knows and cares nothing for the southern part of the world. If a few hundred thousand peasants have to die …. He’s worried about US USSR China nuclear war etc. US credibility is key. Convinced of usefulness of nuclear weapons in war (vs Ike) At one point wants Nixon to appear irrational to scare Soviets in Viet. Turned blind eye to oppression & inequality if “anti-commie” Democracy and Human rights are irrelevant.
What made the US determined to remove Allende & what were similar earlier precedents?
Allende wanted control of his country’s resources – copper and communications – and multi national corporations owned them. Earlier we grabbed Panama to build the canal & overthrew social democratic government in Guatemala at behest of United Fruit, because their unused land was going to be redistributed (after paying them) Taft “dollar diplomacy” also overthrew governments for benefit of US corporations or not .
How did the US plan to get rid of Allende bloodlessly & how well did that work?
We funneled $ to anti-commie “civic groups” and rightist candidates & planted anti-Allende stories in the press. It didn’t work, Allende won a plurality in the election. After that a campaign of “economic, political & psychological warfare” cut off loans and credit, to create disastrous financial situation. CIA helped spread rumors of food rationing, bank collapses, (false) plans to seize private homes. US stopped spare parts deliveries, putting - 1/3 buses and 20% taxis out of service in 2 years trying to “condemn Chilean people to deprivation and poverty”. We supported fascist paramilitary organizations, black-ops. A trucking strike supported by CIA stops food delivery. Military officers who believe in democracy & constitution were assassinated. Military coup kills Allende SEPTEMBER 11, 1973
A GRAVEYARD SMELL
What did American leaders believe about leaders in Iran, Guatemala & Chile and what was the reality? Kremlin directs a unified world-wide conspiracy. If a nationalist leader is not with us he’s against us. They will inevitably be puppets of the Kremlin. Turned out that there was no evidence of any Soviet manipulation and we got rid of leaders who shared American values in Iran & Guatemala. Allende was more radical, but was democratically elected and far from a Soviet puppet.
How did earlier experiences shape American views?
Nazi aggression before WWII was appeased with disastrous results. Nationalists & social democrats were seen as tools of the Soviets and thus forceful resistance was necessary.
How did our treatment of Africa & Latin America differ from how we treated Europe & Japan?
We allowed Europeans to have New Deal style governments, land reform, labor unions and democracy. We overthrew this kind of government in Guatemala or Africa, demanding pure anti-Communism and often supporting thugs and genocide.
Why did John Foster Dulles’ act in Guatemala? How did Dulles’ actions reflect American Ideals? Results? The Guatemalans wanted land reform (as in Germany & Japan) and Dulles cared much more about United Fruit, which he had represented. Dulles was a Nazi supporter earlier, and a strong Social Darwinist with little sympathy for democracy or social justice.
What effect did the coup in Iran in 1954 have on Iran since & the Middle East now? Iran has a fundamentalist government with a huge grudge and paranoia against US. They’re probably trying to get nukes in part because the B43’s have refused to talk and have threatened them. . Iran tried to talk after 9-11 and they’ve helped us against Taliban & other terror after 9-11.
What effects did American actions in Guatemala & Chile have on politics in Latin America?
As JFK predicted it made many fear going the democratic route. Che Guevara was in Guatemala and Castro has used our actions there as an excuse for his authoritarianism.
They Will Have Flies Walking Across Their Eyeballs
(1) What did the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 make America fear?
Soviets were being aggressive and expansionist, taking advantage of our setback in Iran.
(2) What did the Soviets fear? Their Islamic southern republics (“Turkmenistan, Khazakstan & other “stan’s”) would follow the Iranian example and revolt against Soviet colonial masters.
(3) What did US do to make life for Soviets in Afghanistan more miserable? Provide huge amounts of weapons and supplies thru Pakistanis. Carter a little, Reagan goes crazy.
(4) Who did we have to cooperate with to do this & what were features of our “subcontractors” which turned out to be problematic in the long run? We had to cooperate with an increasingly fundamentalist & undemocratic Pakistan which was making and proliferating nukes. We made the Pakistanis build up Islamic fundamentalists, and made the Saudi’s give the fundamentalists money – which was funneled through Bin Laden.
(5) What was the long term result? Who did we end up financing? Reagan helped empower Bin Laden whose thinking has created a world-wide network. 9-11 & the Cole attack and much other terror has resulted, helped a lot by Iraq II.
(6) Why was the US so forgiving of the Taliban before the Africa Embassy bombings? We were hoping to have oil pipeline built through Afghanistan.
Ch 13 THUNDER RUN
(7) Why did Richard Clark have a hard time getting a serious hearing on the threat of Osama Bin Laden in 2001? George Bush doesn’t like complex situations or having to decide disagreements. If there was a meeting there would be disagreement over whether to focus on Iraq or Bin Laden, How did Paul O’Neill describe the situation? We had decided to go after Iraq regardless of any lack of evidence. What was the evidence for Wolfowitz’s views? There was no evidence that Iraq had helped terrorists.
(8) What was the plan for what to do after Thunder Run & what were the expected troop levels in Iraq 60 days after “Thunder Run”? We’d leave quickly and there would only be 30,000 troops after 60 days
(9) What was the Powell Doctrine & who was publicly reprimanded for testifying that it was wise?
Always go in with overwhelming force to make sure chaos does not ensue. Commit whole country with serious debate and commitment of resources. Shinseki was reprimanded & retired.
(10) Who detested the Powell Doctrine and won the debate? Rumsfeld, who believed Iraq could be done with 80,000 troops. Rumsfeld called the Pentagon Bureaucracy our biggest enemy and reprimanded General Shinseki and any other generals who wanted to talk about postwar difficulties. He and B43 remained in denial as reports of an insurgency and then a civil war came more and more persistently from people on the ground.
(11) What country supported Sadaam Hussein strongly in the 1980’s, saving him from defeat when he was doing most of his killing & using poison gas? United States. Who was the Representative of that country? Don Rumsfeld.
(12) Who warned B43 most strongly against attacking Sadaam? Who was he connected to & what did he say? Brent Scocroft who was Bush41’s National Security Advisor. He said it would distract us from the war on terror, be a big gift to Bin Laden, and hurt desperately needed international co-operation against terror. CIA estimates confirm his predictions and then some on recruiting terrorists and we’ve dramatically strengthened the real threat, Iran.
CHAPTER 14 CATASTROPHIC SUCCESS
(13) What did B43 have in common with McKinley when he grabbed the Phillipines? B43 knew very little about Iraq and his administration ignores those who did know, in the Iraq Study Group. B43 believed he was guided by God and involved in a fight between good and evil, so didn’t need to know about culture and identity, such as the differences and conflicts between Shiite & Sunni, which has led to the current civil war. B43 expected US forces would be greeted as liberators and have an easy quick triumph.
(14) What happened to nation re-building in Afghanistan & Why? Reagan ignored Agfhanistan after helping blow it up. Perhaps if “government is the problem” rebuilding good governance is unimportant. B43 was too eager to invade Iraq to invest much time or money in Afghanistan. Both disliked the kind of nation building we did in Japan or Germany. It would also have required cooperation and sharing authority with the UN & Europeans and both Reagan & B43 believed America was uniquely holy and should “go it alone”.
(15) What happened to planning for the post-war in Iraq? It was squelched by Rumsfeld & Cheney. They also, against all advice, allowed the disbanding of the Iraqi army and government, guaranteeing many angry armed men and chaos. Hiring political partisans with no experience also crippled reconstruction planning & execution.
(16) What is the usual effect of “regime change” on American security?
Usually leads to disorder & decreased security because some presidents, don’t care or don’t have the attention span to rebuild. We also sometimes support thugs against JFK’s warning.
(17) Why are corporations so powerful in America & where have their effects been felt in “overthrow” operations? Social Darwinist doctrine (Laissez Faire, Friedman Hayek etc) strong. Lack of progressive or socialist tradition because of ethnic & religious differences stop solidarity), Jeffersonian tradition of suspicion of government
(18) What have been the results in oppressive or threatening regimes of engagement, punishments & rewards instead of overthrow? Engagement and pressure works, overthrow or infantile “not-talking-to-evil” fails. Examples North Korea (Plutonium under UN inspection 24/7 until B43 breaks off relations and threatens), Vietnam started slowly turning capitalist and became a buffer against China when we got out of the way. Cuba has kept Castro almost 50 years. With US engagement would be much better chance of change. With an implacable enemy threatening, authoritarians have an excuse to be authoritarian. China has opened up more and more as she engages with us and the world. Paranoia and violence like Dulles generates the same.
Neatest example of difference Human Rights International Law Progressives and Neoconservatives Manichean good-versus-evil torture-law-be-damned was when Dick Cheney used the Salvador Option death-squads-secret-murder (instead of progressive rebuilding of Germany & Japan as -pacifist-egalitarian-countries) as Iraq model

Overthrow questions batch 2 due Dec 1

2006-11-23T10:09:00.000-08:00

Week 14 Nov 27 End Cold War & Challenge of Globalization American Promise Chapter 31
November 29 Overthrow Chapter 12 They Will Have Flies Walking Across Their Eyeballs &
Chapter 13 Thunder Run
December 1 Overthrow Chapter 14 Catastrophic Success Question sheet due
If you’re doing an optional paper you don’t have to do question sheets but some of the questions will be on the final. Overthrow questions due Dec 1 below on Ch 12 Flies Walking, Ch 13 Thunder Run & Ch 14 Catastrophic Success
They Will Have Flies Walking Across Their Eyeballs
(complete sentences, maximum about 35 words per question unless otherwise noted)
(1) What did the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 make America fear?

(2) What did the Soviets fear?

(3) What did US do to make life for Soviets in Afghanistan more miserable?

(4) Who did we have to cooperate with to do this & what were features of our “subcontractors” which turned out to be problematic in the long run? (up to 100 words)

(5) What was the long term result? Who did we end up financing?

(6) Why was the US so forgiving of the Taliban before the Africa Embassy bombings?

Ch 13 THUNDER RUN
(7) Why did Richard Clark have a hard time getting a serious hearing on the threat of Osama Bin Laden in 2001? How did Paul O’Neill describe the situation? What was the evidence for Wolfowitz’s views? (up to 50 words)

(8) What was the plan for what to do after Thunder Run & what were the expected troop levels in Iraq 60 days after “Thunder Run”?

(9) What was the Powell Doctrine & who was publicly reprimanded for testifying that it was wise?
(10) Who detested the Powell Doctrine and won the debate?

(11) What country supported Sadaam Hussein strongly in the 1980’s, saving him from defeat when he was doing most of his killing & using poison gas? Who was the Representative of that country?

(12) Who warned B43 most strongly against attacking Sadaam? Who was he connected to & what did he say?

CHAPTER 14 CATASTROPHIC SUCCESS
(13) What did B43 have in common with McKinley when he grabbed the Phillipines? (up to 100 words)

(14) What happened to nation re-building in Afghanistan & Why?

(15) What happened to planning for the post-war in Iraq?

(16) What is the usual effect of “regime change” on American security?

(17) Why are corporations so powerful in America & where have their effects been felt in “overthrow” operations?

(18) What have been the results in oppressive or threatening regimes of engagement, punishments & rewards instead of overthrow?

READINGS & QUESTIONS 11 17

2006-11-16T21:02:00.000-08:00

WK 13 November 20 AMERICA MOVES RIGHT American Promise Chapter 30
November 22 Overthrow Chapter 9 Graveyard Smell Question sheet (below) due
WK 14 Nov 27 End Cold War & Challenge of Globalization American Promise Chapter 31
November 29 Overthrow Chapter 13 Thunder Run
December 1 Overthrow Chapter 14 Catastrophic Success Question sheet due
If you are doing an optional paper you do not have to do the question sheets.
Question sheet : Overthrow Chapter 8 “We’re Going to Smash Him” (75 words maximum per question, complete sentences. Evidence & examples. If I can’t read it your grade will suffer)

1. How did Richard Nixon’s views of Latin American Policy differ from JFK’s

2. How did Henry Kissinger’s foreign policy views & actions reflect American ideals like the rule of law, human rights and democracy?

3. What made the US determined to remove Allende & what were similar earlier precedents?

4.How did the US plan to get rid of Allende bloodlessly & how well did that work?

A GRAVEYARD SMELL
5. What did American leaders believe about leaders in Iran, Guatemala & Chile and what was the reality?

6. How did earlier experiences shape American views?

7. How did our treatment of Africa & Latin America differ from how we treated Europe & Japan?

8. Why did John Foster Dulles’ act in Guatemala? How did Dulles’ actions reflect American Ideals? Results?

9. What effect did the coup in Iran in 1954 have on Iran since & the Middle East now?

10. What effects did American actions in Guatemala & Chile have on politics in Latin America?

handout 11/13 Economy now, shame poverty ...

2006-11-11T07:04:00.000-08:00

Economic Policy Institute : Profits are up, but the wages and the incomes of average Americans are down. --Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages are still below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. Yet, productivity--the growth of the economic pie--is up by 13.5%.... --Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389.
More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt. --The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 35.7% over the last four years. --The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 115% of after-tax income, twice the level of 30 years ago.... --The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since WWII.... Rising health care costs are eroding families' already declining income. --Households are spending more on health care. Family health costs rose 43-45% for married couples with children, single mothers, and young singles from 2000 to 2003. --Employers are cutting back on health insurance. Last year, percent of people with employer-provided health insurance fell for the fourth year in a row. Nearly 3.7 million fewer people had employer-provided insurance in 2004 than in 2000. Taking population growth into account, 11 million more people would have had employer-provided health insurance in 2004 if the coverage rate had remained at the 2000 level.

December 8, Federal Reserve report, Flow of Funds Accounts of US, tells the tale of two economies: one drowning in debt, the other overflowing with so much cash that it doesn't know what to do with it.
For families: Record debt. Household debt is at a record high (121.2 percent) as a percentage of disposable income. This means that families are more burdened by their debt than ever before. Record reductions in home equity. Families have cashed out more home equity than ever before, $113 billion in the third quarter alone. This means families are financing more of their consumption by reducing their home equity-a trend that is not sustainable without further wage growth.
For companies: Highest cash holdings in nearly 40 years. Corporate cash holdings totaled 6.2 percent of their assets in the third quarter of 2005. Cash holdings for the last four quarters are at their highest level since 1966. Less investment. Instead of using the additional resources generated by high profits for productive investments, corporations are using their money to spread the wealth to their shareholders. Typical mechanisms are dividend pay-outs & share repurchases that help to boost share prices. Fewer dividend pay-outs relative to corporate profits have been largely compensated for by higher share repurchases.
Employment to population ratio is still 1.7 percentage points below its 2000 average, the equivalent of 4 million fewer people holding jobs.
Over similar period in Clinton recovery, payrolls grew by near 300,000 per month.
Bush43 job creation pace remains well below. For example, payrolls grew by 2 million jobs in 2005. In a similar period in Clinton recovery, payrolls grew by 3.5 million jobs. In percentage terms, payrolls grew 1.5% over the past year. The average over prior recoveries is twice that rate at 3.1%. Job growth in Bush43 recovery is the slowest on record September 6, 2005

The Larger Shame : Poverty In America
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The wretchedness coming across our television screens from Louisiana has illuminated the way children sometimes pay with their lives, even in America, for being born to poor families.

It has also underscored the Bush administration's ongoing reluctance or ineptitude in helping the poorest Americans. The scenes in New Orleans reminded me of the suffering I saw after a similar storm killed 130,000 people in Bangladesh in 1991 - except that Bangladesh's government showed more urgency in trying to save its most vulnerable citizens.

But Hurricane Katrina also underscores a much larger problem: the growing number of Americans trapped in a never-ending cyclone of poverty. And while it may be too early to apportion blame definitively for the mishandling of the hurricane, even President Bush's own administration acknowledges that America's poverty is worsening on his watch.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported a few days ago that the poverty rate rose again last year, with 1.1 million more Americans living in poverty in 2004 than a year earlier. After declining sharply under Bill Clinton, the number of poor people has now risen 17 percent under Mr. Bush.

If it's shameful that we have bloated corpses on New Orleans streets, it's even more disgraceful that the infant mortality rate in America's capital is twice as high as in China's capital. That's right - the number of babies who died before their first birthdays amounted to 11.5 per thousand live births in 2002 in Washington, compared with 4.6 in Beijing.

Indeed, according to the United Nations Development Program, an African-American baby in Washington has less chance of surviving its first year than a baby born in urban parts of the state of Kerala in India.

Under Mr. Bush, the national infant mortality rate has risen for the first time since 1958. The U.S. ranks 43rd in the world in infant mortality, according to the C.I.A.'s World Factbook; if we could reach the level of Singapore, ranked No. 1, we would save 18,900 children's lives each year.

So in some ways the poor children evacuated from New Orleans are the lucky ones because they may now get checkups and vaccinations. Nationally, 29 percent of children had no health insurance at some point in the last 12 months, and many get neither checkups nor vaccinations. On immunizations, the U.S. ranks 84th for measles and 89th for polio.

One of the most dispiriting elements of the catastrophe in New Orleans was the looting. I covered the 1995 earthquake that leveled much of Kobe, Japan, killing 5,500, and for days I searched there for any sign of criminal behavior. Finally I found a resident who had seen three men steal food. I asked him whether he was embarrassed that Japanese would engage in such thuggery.
"No, you misunderstand," he said firmly. "These looters weren't Japanese. They were foreigners."

The reasons for this are complex and partly cultural, but one reason is that Japan has tried hard to stitch all Japanese together into the nation's social fabric. In contrast, the U.S. - particularly under the Bush administration - has systematically cut people out of the social fabric by redistributing wealth from the most vulnerable Americans to the most affluent.

It's not just that funds may have gone to Iraq rather than to the levees in New Orleans; it's also that money went to tax cuts for the wealthiest rather than vaccinations for children.

None of this is to suggest that there are easy solutions for American poverty. As Ronald Reagan once said, "We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won." But we don't need to be that pessimistic - in the late 1990's, we made real headway. A ray of hope is beautifully presented in one of the best books ever written on American poverty, "American Dream," by my Times colleague Jason DeParle.

So the best monument to the catastrophe in New Orleans would be a serious national effort to address the poverty that afflicts the entire country. And in our shock and guilt, that may be politically feasible. Rich Lowry of The National Review, in defending Mr. Bush, offered an excellent suggestion: "a grand right-left bargain that includes greater attention to out-of-wedlock births from the Left in exchange for the Right's support for more urban spending." That would be the best legacy possible for Katrina.

Otherwise, long after the horrors have left TV screens, about 50 of the 77 babies who die each day, on average, will die needlessly, because of poverty. That's the larger hurricane of poverty that shames our land.

U.S. versus U.K. Health care Systems

Last week, in his New York Times column , Paul Krugman wrote about a study from the Journal of the American Medical Association , and the study is fascinating enough that it’s worth a second look. It was conducted by a group of epidemiologists at University College London (my parent’s alma mater!). The point was to compare the health of the United States and the United Kingdom. It’s an interesting question for a number of reasons, but principally because the United States spends $5274 per person, per year, on health care and the United Kingdom spends $2164, or substantially less than half as much. The question is—what do we get, in terms of health, that for extra $3100 a year?

Comparisons between countries are pretty tricky. So the study takes a number of precautions. Obviously the United States has a much larger percentage of immigrants, particularly Latino, and a large and (relatively poor) black population. So the comparison is limited to non-Hispanic whites in both countries. Health also differs, dramatically, by socio-economic status, so that everyone in the study was broken up into one of three groups by income and education. It was also limited to men and women between the ages of 55-64, and the age distribution of the two countries was identical.

So what do they find? The first conclusion is that Americans are really, really sick compared to the British. In every socio-economic group, for instance, the prevalence of diabetes is roughly double in the United States than it is in the United Kingdom. Rates of hypertension, heart disease, heart attacks, stroke, lung disease and cancer are also all higher in the United States. And not just a little big higher. Much higher. So, for example, 2.3 percent of the English have had a stroke, versus 3.8 percent of the Americans.

Is that because Americans have unhealthier lifestyles? Not really. Levels of smoking, in the two countries, are pretty similar. Americans are much more likely to be obese (31.3 versus 23 percent). But then 30 percent of the British were heavy drinkers, versus 14.4 percent of Americans. (One of the curious facts in the study: in both the United States and the United Kingdom, the more money you make and the more education you have, the more you drink. There are roughly twice as many heavy drinkers in the best educated English cohort as there are in the least educated English cohort. So much for class assumptions about alcohol.) The study’s author did a statistical exercise, where they assumed that the British group had exactly the same lifestyle risk factors as their American counterparts. The result? Nothing much changes. Americans were still far sicker than the British.

Krugman argues that this is evidence of how much more stressful living in America is than living in England. I think that's absolutely right. I would simply add that it is one more nail in the coffin of the notion that good health is something that can be purchased through fancy, high-tech drugs and doctors and hospitals,.I know the idea that health care is just another consumer good is pretty popular at the moment. But its very hard to read the JAMA study, see what our $5274 actually buys us--and still believe in that notion. Our health is in reality a function of the broader society in which we live--the pressures and conditions and environments in which we find ourselves. The next time we have a debate about, say, how much to tax the rich, or how to structure old age pensions, it would be nice if someone in Washington had the courage to make this point.

The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States Between the Rich and the Rest
An Interview with Edward Wolff, professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy
Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff: Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.

MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff: Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn't, then he is better off.

Wealth — strictly financial savings — provides security to individuals in the event of sickness, job loss or marital separation. Assets provide a kind of safety blanket that people can rely on in case their income gets interrupted.

Wealth is also more directly related to political power. People who have large amounts of wealth can make political contributions. In some cases, they can use that money to run for office themselves, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

MM: What are the best sources for information on wealth?
Wolff: The best way of measuring wealth is to use household surveys, …. — probably the best source is the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances. ….

MM: How do economists measure levels of equality and inequality?
Wolff: The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent. In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth.

There is also another measure called the Gini coefficient. It measures the concentration of wealth at different percentile levels, and does an overall computation. It is an index that goes from zero to one, one being the most unequal. Wealth inequality in the United States has a Gini coefficient of .82, ….close to the maximum level of inequality you can have.

MM: What have been the trends of wealth inequality over the last 25 years?
W: We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976.

Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s.

Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn't gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth inequality.

MM: What portion of the wealth is owned by the upper groups?
Wolff: The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.
The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. …..This is a very concentrated distribution.

MM: Where does that leave the bottom tiers?
Wolff: The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings.

A household in the middle — the median household — has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if you consider that the top 1 percent of households' average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution.

MM: What kind of distribution of wealth is there for the different asset components?
Wolff: Things are even more concentrated if you exclude owner-occupied housing. … The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth. …..

The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth.

MM: What happens when you disaggregate the data by race?
Wolff: There you find something very striking. Most people are aware that African-American families don't earn as much as white families. The average African-American family has about 60 percent of the income as the average white family. But the disparity of wealth is a lot greater. The average African-American family has only 18 percent of the wealth of the average white family.

MM: Are you able to do a comparable analysis by gender?
Wolff: ….. What we do know is that single women, or single women with children, have much lower levels of wealth than married couples.

MM: How does the U.S. wealth profile compare to other countries?
Wolff: We are much more unequal than any other advanced industrial country.

Perhaps our closest rival in terms of inequality is Great Britain. But where the top percent in this country own 38 percent of all wealth, in Great Britain it is more like 22 or 23 percent.

What is remarkable is that this was not always the case. Up until the early 1970s, the U.S. actually had lower wealth inequality than Great Britain, and even than a country like Sweden. But things have really turned around over the last 25 or 30 years. In fact, a lot of countries have experienced lessening wealth inequality over time. The U.S. is atypical in that inequality has risen so sharply over the last 25 or 30 years.

MM: To what extent is the wealth inequality trend simply reflective of the rising level of income inequality?
Wolff: Part of it reflects underlying increases in income inequality, but the other significant factor is what has happened to the ratio between stock prices and housing prices. The major asset of the middle class is their home. The major assets of the rich are stocks and small business equity. If stock prices increase more quickly than housing prices, then the share of wealth owned by the richest households goes up. This turns out to be almost as important as underlying changes in income inequality. For the last 25 or 30 years, despite the bear market we've had over the last two years, stock prices have gone up quite a bit faster than housing prices.

MM: A couple years ago there was a great deal of talk of the democratization of the stock market. Is that reflected in these figures, or was it an illusion?
Wolff: I would say it was more of an illusion. What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.

By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families. …. But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. …….. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.

As a result, the stock market boom of the 1990s disproportionately benefited rich families. There were some gains by middle class families, but their average stock holdings were too small to make much difference in their overall wealth.

MM: Apart from the absolute level of wealth of people at the bottom of the spectrum, why should inequality itself be a matter of concern?
Wolff: I think there are two rationales. The first is basically a moral or ethical position. A lot of people think it is morally bad for there to be wide gaps, wide disparities in well being in a society.

If that is not convincing to a person, the second reason is that inequality is actually harmful to the well-being of a society. There is now a lot of evidence, based on cross-national comparisons of inequality and economic growth, that more unequal societies actually have lower rates of economic growth. The divisiveness that comes out of large disparities in income and wealth, is actually reflected in poorer economic performance of a country.

Typically when countries are more equal, educational achievement and benefits are more equally distributed in the country. In a country like the United States, there are still huge disparities in resources going to education, so quality of schooling and schooling performance are unequal. If you have a society with large concentrations of poor families, average school achievement is usually a lot lower than where you have a much more homogenous middle class population, as you find in most Western European countries. So schooling suffers in this country, and, as a result, you get a labor force that is less well educated on average than in a country like the Netherlands, Germany or even France. So the high level of inequality results in less human capital being developed in this country, which ultimately affects economic performance.

MM: To what extent is inequality addressed through tax policy?
Wolff: One reason we have such high levels of inequality, compared to other advanced industrial countries, is because of our tax and, I would add, our social expenditure system. We have much lower taxes than almost every Western European country. And we have a less progressive tax system than almost every Western European country. As a result, the rich in this country manage to retain a much higher share of their income than they do in other countries, and this enables them to accumulate a much higher amount of wealth than the rich in other countries.

Certainly our tax system has helped to stimulate the rise of inequality in this country.

We have a much lower level of income support for poor families than do Western European countries or Canada. Social policy in Europe, Canada and Japan does a lot more to reduce economic disparities created by the marketplace than we do in this country. We have much higher poverty rates than do other advanced industrialized countries.

MM: Do you favor a wealth tax?
Wolff: I've proposed a separate tax on wealth, which actually exists in a dozen European countries. This has helped to lessen inequality in European countries. It is also, I think, a fairer tax. If you think about taxes that reflect a family's ability to pay, a family's ability to pay is a reflection of their income, but also of their wealth holdings. A broader kind of tax of this nature, would not only produce more tax revenue, which we desperately need, but it would be a fairer tax, and also help to reduce the level of inequality in this country.

MM: In broad outlines, how would you structure such a tax?
Wolff: I would model it after the Swiss system, which I think is a pretty fair system. It would be a progressive tax. In the United States, the first $250,000 of wealth would be exempt from the tax. That would exclude 80 percent of all families. The tax would increase at increments, starting out at .2 percent from about $250,000 to $500,000. The marginal rate would go up to .4 percent from $500,000 to $1 million, and then to .6 percent from a $1 million to $5 million, and then to .8 thereafter. …..

It would not be an onerous tax, but it could raise about $60 billion annually. Eighty percent of families would pay nothing, and 95 percent of families would pay less than $1,000. It would really only affect very rich families.

MM: Do you recommend non-tax approaches to deal with inequality as well?
Wolff: I think we have to provide a much broader safety net in this country.

There are lots of things that we should do to strengthen our income support system. We can expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now a fairly substantial aid to poor families, but which can be improved.

The minimum wage has fallen by about 35 percent in real terms since its peak in 1968. We should think about restoring the minimum wage to where it used to be. That would help a lot of low-income families.

The unemployment insurance system is in a real mess; only about one third of unemployed persons actually get unemployment benefits, either because they don't qualify or because they exhaust their benefits after six months. Typically the replacement rate is about 35 or 40 percent. In the Netherlands, the replacement rate is 80 percent. Our unemployment insurance system is much less generous than in other industrialized …

Of course, the welfare system is in a total state of disrepair …… real welfare payments had declined by about 50 percent between 1975 and 1996. So we had already experienced an enormous erosion in welfare benefits, even before we adopted this new system.

Reward for the Hereditary Elite . . .By Sebastian Mallaby June 5, 2006;
It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. There is no possible excuse for doing what Congress is poised to do this week: Abolish the estate tax.
The federal government faces a future of expanding deficits. Thanks to the baby bust and medical inflation, spending is projected to rise by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product by 2030, a growth equivalent to the doubling of today's Medicare program. What is the dumbest possible response to this? Take a source of revenue and abolish it outright.
The nation faces rising inequality. Since 1980 the gap between the earnings of the top fifth and the bottom fifth has jumped by almost 50 percent. The United States is by some measures the most unequal society in the rich world and the most unequal that it's been since the 1920s. What is the dumbest possible response to this? Identify the most progressive federal tax and repeal it.
The nation faces the prospect that inequality will damage meritocracy. When the distance between top and bottom widens, it becomes harder to traverse the gap; people of low birth are stuck at the bottom, and human talent is wasted. What is the dumbest possible response to this? Take the tax that limits what the super-rich pass on to their children and get rid of it. Send a message to hereditary elites: Go ahead, entrench yourselves!
For most of the past century, the case for the estate tax was regarded as self-evident. People understood that government has to be paid for, and that it makes sense to raise part of the money from a tax on "fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits," as Theodore Roosevelt put it. The United States is supposed to be a country that values individuals for their inherent worth, not for their inherited worth. The estate tax, like a cigarette tax or a carbon tax, is a tool for reducing a socially damaging phenomenon -- the emergence of a hereditary upper class -- as well as a way of raising money.
But now the House has voted to repeal the estate tax, and the Senate may do the same this week. Republicans are picking up support from renegade Democrats, such as Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Bill Nelson of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Max Baucus of Montana. Several more may go over to the dark side if a "compromise" bill, which would achieve nearly everything that abolitionists dream of, is introduced in the Senate. President Bush, who has already muscled a temporary repeal of the estate tax into law, would be delighted to sign a bill making abolition permanent.
If the abolitionists succeed, some other tax will eventually be raised to make up for the lost revenue. So which tax does Congress favor? The income tax, which discourages work? A consumption tax, which hits the poor hardest? The payroll tax, which is both anti-work and anti-poor? Really, which other tax out there is better?
The abolitionists don't respond to this question because there is no convincing answer. Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has written that "we would be hard-pressed to find evidence that, compared with the alternatives, a reasonable estate tax significantly discourages work or innovation or savings." In other words, killing the estate tax and raising some other tax instead would damage the economy. And that's before you take into account the positive distortions introduced by the estate tax, such as more social mobility and higher charitable giving. Charitable bequests will fall by at least a fifth if the estate tax is repealed permanently.
People often remark on the perversity of popular support for estate-tax repeal. A majority wants to abolish the tax, even though only the richest 2 percent of households have ever had to pay it. Yet this shoot-your-own-foot weirdness is easily explained: Most people just don't know that, under the law's current provisions, a couple can bequeath $4 million without paying a penny to the government.
But I'm fascinated by the spectacle of elite support for this policy. How can the president and the abolitionists in Congress, who understand the tax and its details, possibly want to kill it? They all say they accept the principle that the tax system should be fair -- Bush officials are constantly claiming that their tax cuts are progressive. They all accept the principle that free trade and competition get the best out of American firms, so what about subjecting rich heirs to competition from ordinary Americans?
Repealing the estate tax is like erecting protectionist barriers around the hereditary elite. It is anti-meritocratic and unfair -- and antithetical to this nation's best traditions.
smallaby@washpost.com
- rise in the estate tax exemption level from $1.5 million per person to $2 million ($4 million per couple) means that less than one third of one percent of all U.S. estates—or 0.27%—will be affected by the federal estate tax in 2006. All other estates, or 99.73% …

midterm essays & answers

2006-10-29T17:01:00.000-08:00

Short answers. Pick 6 for 3 points each. few sentences that answer the questions.
What is positive freedom? Who is it for? Examples?
“Capabilities” – providing ability & OPPORTUNITY to do things for whole population – universal education, health care, public transportation, parks, microcredit etc Progressives who believe “all men =” & believe poverty is mostly result of environment, & rich are not superior, believe in positive changes to environment for all
What is negative freedom? Who loves it and what are the usual results?
Right to be let alone. Result – laissez Faire economics – big gap rich & poor, politics corrupt by $$$ as in 1880’s & 1920’s & 1980’s & 2000’s
What did Adam Smith say about size of markets & division of labor & economic productivity? The Larger the market, the greater the division of labor and thus the more efficiency & economic growth
What are 2 kinds of side-effects of markets / trade called & give a few examples?
positive & negative externalities. Negative : pollution (energy taxes can help cure) & Positive: universal education (do for voting – helps economy), universal health care (do for humanitarian reasons, turns out to be cheaper, more efficient so saves auto jobs).
How did the way Winston Churchill divided up the mid-east, including Iraq, differ from the way Woodrow Wilson advocated? Oil imperialism – draw boundaries to include all the known oil vs Wilson’s self-determination – decided by experts on populations, languages, cultures & political history . Make a country that can be democratically ruled. Lincoln “House divided against itself cannot stand”
What happened in Tulsa Oklahoma in 1921 & why? “Black Wall Street” was burnt down in a huge race riot by Klanners who couldn’t stand that Blacks were thriving economically. This disproved the white trash’s most cherished valuable beliefs
How did the way alcoholism & poverty were viewed change from Social Darwinists to Progressives? SD’s thought poor and alcoholics inherently inferior, sinful, lazy, stupid, etc Progressives believe environments & opportunities were major factors – hard to get rich if you start working in a mine at 12 – easier if you inherit a few million and go to Yale. Bush43 “poor are lazy”
Medium answers. Give a bit more detail and more sentences . Pick 5 for 5 points each.
Compare Booker T Washington & WEB DuBois on Reconstruction, political rights & education. B T Washington said Blacks weren’t ready to rule in radical reconstruction (already disenfranchised by violence) so the right to vote could be compromised (why die?)– self-improvement & vocational education was the emphasis so Blacks could advance economically – become middle class in segregated communities.
DuBois wrote path-breaking history of reconstruction and said Blacks did better than white trash governments. Blacks must fight for all their rights including political and have an education opportunities appropriate for the “talented tenth” of leaders, political and cultural.
What were elements of Marcus Garvey’s program & how was it influenced by where he was from? Garvey was from Jamaica which had a history of successful slave revolts and black rule so any sense of inferiority was ridiculous. JAMAICA ruled mostly by “light” blacks in a “caste” system, He emphasized (1) Black pride in their African past (especially Ethiopia – only independent black-African nation and Egypt (2) “Africa for the Africans” so American blacks would have foreign advocates like the Irish and (3) no “caste” system distinguishing between light and dark African-Americans and (4) international black unity from Africa to Caribbean to US including (5) maybe Liberia as headquarters?
What did the Balfour Declaration say, why was it issued when it was, and what contradiction did it contain? (1) English government looks with favor on Jewish homeland in Palestine with (2) no prejudice to rights of current inhabitants. But (3) 2 peoples can’t own same land. (4) It was issued in 1917 for Jewish favor – since many believed Jews controlled the Bolshevik Revolution. A few Jews also had lotsa $$

Why is Imperialism much harder to pull off now than in the 1800’s? (1) media (can’t slaughter in private anymore)
(2) expectations of self-determination, people believe what US founders said about ruling your own country . (3) arms trade, everyone can get cool weapons now, no monopoly for Europeans (4) urbanization harder to suppress those in buildings than scattered in country

What different kinds of violence did African Americans experience in the South after the Civil War? What political & economic purposes were served? (1) Klan violence especially for (2) disenfranchising Blacks and (3) lynching for (4) economic or personal “uppity” behavior day to day, including wearing a military uniform or not stepping aside.

How did the Soviet / Comintern “Party Line” change in the 1930’s & why?
It was originally (1) “revolutionary” trying to debunk all other leftists including Socialists & NAACP. After Hitler came to power the line was (2) “popular Front” unity of all progressives (including New Deal, CIO, NAACP) in an anti-Fascist coalition because (3) debunking all other leftists had led to Hitler’s victory and his wiping out of all progressives including commies. After Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939 it was (4) “who-ever-heard-of-anti-fascism” Hitler is OK & any westerner who says otherwise is a war-monger.

How did the ideal woman change from the middle-class model of the 1880’s (name?) to the Progressive Bloomer girl to the “New Woman” of the 1920’s? The middle class model of the 1880’s was the (1) “cult-of-true-womenhood” which emphasized (2) purity, piety, chastity & submissiveness . The (3) “Bloomer girl” of the progressive (and settlement house) era was often Lithe & athletic & more independent. More women had work and were interested in meaningful work. The (4) “New Women” of the “Roaring”1920’s partied-hearty and might be smoking and having a drink.

Long Essays. Pick 3 for 10 points each. Why did Imperialism & scientific racism happen to Southern Africa & South America instead of the other way around (to Europeans)?
Eurasia had (1) easily domesticable seeds (2) easily domesticable animals (3) similar latitudes & thus similar climates so seeds / plants are easily trade-able or transferable, These 3 make for (4) surplus food which allows for (5) division of labor & specialization & inventions from writing to metals to ceramics etc etc all the way to ocean going ships.
Eurasia’s advanced “extra food” civilizations could trade with each other (5) within large areas and share advances(6)- Southern Africa had no good rivers (7), Southern Africa & New World no draft animals & Bottlenecks (8) like Panana and Sahara for trade in general & North-South orientation which lead to dissimilar climates which doesn’t let domesticable plants be shared easily. Tropical diseases don’t allow domesticable animals to be shared in Southern Africa. (9)The concentrated populations & domesticable animals of Eurasia also create a breeding ground for deadly diseases which the New World peoples, with no domesticable animals and less concentrated populations do not develop immunities to. This meant many millions died when the Eurasians came, which made conquest much easier. (10) All these accidents meant Eurasians had the inventions & diseases to conquer the others, and having won, and having lots of cool inventions made Eurasians believe their races / countries were superior.

What were the underlying and more immediate causes of WWI?
Imperialism was the underlying cause. Because of the accidents of geography Europeans COULD conquer others. Many (Lodge, Churchill) believed thatconquering would make them richer. Most believed their material superiority was due to racial superiority so they deserved to control their inferiors, who might be dying off anyway. Some Eurasians thought their religions or their morals were superior. Competition for colonies led to arms races and suspicion. Suspicion led to alliances with promises to fight if the other was attacked. When Archduke Ferdinand was killed by Serbians their Russian allies were drawn into the fight when Austria demanded concessions from Serbia. Germany was an ally of the Austrians , France and England allies of the Russians. Slow to mobilize Russia had to start getting ready just in case …. And Germany had to get ready to hold off Russia and attack France quickly before Russia could get really organized. The escalation of threats & mobilization schedules led to a war noone wanted or thought was coming.

What happened at the end of WWI and in the Versailles Peace Treaty that helped lead to WWII?
The Allies never marched through Berlin as General Pershing suggested, so Hitler believed & convinced others that Jews (in the Weimar government) stabbed Germany in the back when Germany really wasn’t defeated. The total collapse of German army after the war and the absence of Russia also meant that Wilson had no effective negotiation allies to make the settlement more like the generous 14 points he intended. Germans were pissed at French & English nastiness compared to promises of 14 points.
German and European economy hurt by Reparations which could only be paid with a delicate series of loans to Germany which went to France & England which paid back American loans ... but noone helped rebuild delicate economies.
The defeat of the League in America insured that no-one could take effective action to stop Hitler (or Italy or Japan) so aggression paid for a long time and became a habit.
As Keynes noted in “Econ Consequences of Peace” breaking up German territory & industries (especially steel & coal) and imposing harsh reparations meant economic problems which make it much easier for Hitler to stir up anger & hate.
The stolen teritory also gave Hitler good excuses for aggression.

America used to have depressions regularly, but as economic thinking advanced we figured out how to prevent them. Starting with the 1893 depression give an outline of emerging theories from Gold to Keynes and mention how they fixed previous depressions. Mention Fiscal & Monetary policy.

The Gold Standard meant currency was limited by gold discoveries. By 1890’s there wasn’t enough currency to maintain much-increased economic activity. Less than ½ amount of $$$ per-capita, leading to huge deflation. Debtors who had to pay debts in money worth twice as much, and the poor were hurt most, as the dollars of the rich become twice as valuable. The depression of 1893 was caused in part by this lack of currency which limited consumption . A huge income skew between rich & poor reinforced this under-consumption. The income skew came in part because taxes moved from progressive income (on rich) to tariffs where the poor (consumers) paid more.
The Federal Reserve was designed to prevent this kind of depression by making the money supply match the level of economic activity. The Fed did this by monetary policy which includes printing money & setting interest rates. Printing $ and lowering interest rates would combat deflation. Raising interest rates & printing less would combat inflation (inflation happened in Germany in the 1930’s when it took a wheelbarrow of $$$ to buy stuff).
Keynes said the economy might settle at an activity level less than full employment and then you needed to do public works or give welfare $$ or otherwise “prime the pump” economically, not just match the low activity level . FDR didn’t read Keynes in 1938, when cutting relief & not running a deficit caused a recession which made the deficit even bigger.

Military Industrial Complex

2006-10-25T04:20:00.000-07:00

we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military-Industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. ………..
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

short essays 10 / 23

2006-10-23T04:30:00.000-07:00

Write 2 short essays (not much more than 100 words each) telling what economic and political principles (which we have studied in this course) are reflected in this proposal & the description of our economy now. Mention other historical periods. Write sentences. Write clearly.
….. suggested taxing carbon dioxide emissions instead of employees' pay in a bid to stem global warming. "Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to reduce that pollution," ……..The pollution tax would replace all payroll taxes, including those for Social Security and unemployment compensation, …….. said the overall level of taxation, would remain the same. ……"Instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees it would discourage business from producing more pollution," …. also proposed that the United States re-join any successor to the UN Kyoto Protocol for curbing global warming beyond 2012. Scientists believe global warming is caused by the trapping of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, in Earth's atmosphere. The consequences of this climate change include rising seas, stronger storms and intense heat waves

Corporate profits have risen 62.2% since beginning of recovery, compared to average growth of 13.9% at the same point in the last eight recoveries that have lasted as long as the current one …. fastest rate of profit growth in a recovery since World War II. Total labor compensation …. has fallen as a share of GDP from 66.5% in late 2000 to 62.7% today. ……growth in total wage and salary income, the primary source of take-home pay for workers, has actually been negative for private-sector workers: -0.6%, versus the 7.2% gain …average increase …. ominous signs, suggesting a new march toward greater inequality in the American economy. Worse, the growth in profits combined with a drop in wage and salary incomes suggest that the recovery has a narrow base, with most American consumers only able to increase their purchasing power through debt ……. 14th straight quarter,… share of GDP that consists of wage and salary income fell …. unprecedented during the post-World War II era …. Over a million people falling into poverty annually for the last 4 years ….

Gore "tax pollution not payrolls"

2006-10-15T03:22:00.000-07:00

Al Gore gave a major speech on global warming at NYU law. Notably, he called for an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions:

Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.

An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead.

Gore also called for the complete elimination of the payroll tax. It would be replaced by a tax on CO2:

For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes — principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.

Gore concludes:

This is an opportunity for bipartisanship and transcendence, an opportunity to find our better selves and in rising to meet this challenge, create a better brighter future — a future worthy of the generations who come after us and who have a right to be able to depend on us.

Science Ignored again

2006-10-15T02:48:00.000-07:00

October 14, 2006
Editorial
Science Ignored, Again

The Bush administration loves to talk about the virtues of “sound science,” by which it usually means science that buttresses its own political agenda. But when some truly independent science comes along to threaten that agenda, the administration often ignores or minimizes it. The latest example involves the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to reject the recommendations of experts inside and outside the government who had urged a significant tightening of federal standards regulating the amount of soot in the air.

At issue were so-called fine particles, tiny specks of soot that are less than one-thirtieth the diameter of a human hair. They penetrate deep into the lungs and circulatory system and have been implicated in tens of thousands of deaths annually from both respiratory and coronary disease. The E.P.A., obliged under the Clean Air Act to set new exposure levels every five years, tightened the daily standard. But it left unchanged the annual standard, which affects chronic exposure and which the medical community regards as more important.

In so doing, the agency rejected the recommendation of its own staff scientists and even that of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council, a 22-member group of outside experts that had recommended a significant tightening of the standards. Stephen Johnson, the agency administrator, claimed there was “insufficient evidence” linking health problems to long-term exposure. He added that “wherever the science gave us a clear picture, we took clear action,” noting also that “there was not complete agreement on the standard.”

One wonders how much evidence Mr. Johnson requires, and how “complete” an “agreement” must be before he takes action. A 20-2 vote in favor of stronger standards seems fairly convincing to us; likewise the unanimous plea for stronger standards from mainstream groups like the American Medical Association.

The environmental and medical communities suspect that the administration’s main motive was to save the power companies and other industrial sources of pollution about $1.9 billion in new investment that the more protective annual standard would have required. But here, too, the administration appears to have ignored expert advice. Last Friday, the agency released an economic analysis showing that in exchange for $1.9 billion in new costs, the stronger annual standards could save as many as 24,000 thousand lives and as much as $50 billion annually in health care and other costs to society. Studies like these always offer a range of possible outcomes, but even at the lower end — 2,200 lives and $4.3 billion in money saved — the cost-benefit ratios are very favorable.

In the next year or so, the administration must decide whether to tighten the standards for another pollutant, ground-level ozone, which causes smog and is also associated with respiratory diseases. The scientific advisory committee has tentatively recommended that the ozone standard be tightened, citing new evidence of smog’s adverse effects. This time Mr. Johnson should pay more attention to the scientists and less to the political strategists in the White House.

quizzes

2006-10-10T08:51:00.000-07:00

(8) What did Adam Smith say about the benefits of trade & size of markets & division of labor? Larger the market, greater division of labor, more efficiency & economic growth
(10) What is positive freedom? Capabilities – providing ability & OPPORTUNITY to do things for whole population – universal education, health care, public transportation, parks etc – not just political & economic domination by rich
(11) What is negative freedom(2pts)? Right to be let alone. Result – laissez Faire economics – big gap rich & poor, politics corrupt by $$$. 1880’s & 1920’s & 1980’s
(12)What are the side-effects of markets / trade called? (2pts) positive & negative externalities. Give examples of the two kinds.(2pts) negative pollution (energy taxes?) & universal education, universal health care (cheaper, more efficient).
1. The claim is often made that Darwinian evolution implies that cut-throat competition “red in tooth and claw” is the rule of nature. Refute. (2)
Social Animals like humans aren’t pure competition - cooperate to some extent – Ants, Bees workers total sacrifice for benefit of colony – Elephants show huge compassion..
Human evolution early hominids – hunting bands paired couples mostly – women don’t display estrus would cause distraction & competition between males. Hurt efficient hunt.
2. Mention advantages the US had over Europe in economic development 1870-1920.
2/3 world Coal Great Water transport - Great lakes, Hudson, Mississippi, Hudson River & Erie canal Gold & Silver in West
Less Defense costs – oceans protect us. Indians are disease riddled & non-Eurasian
Big Market - RR System with Same Gauge facilitates trade compared to Europe’s internal tariffs & varied RR gauges from invasion paranoia
Education System (Democracy) leads to free secondary educ and most Libraries
Workers scarce, few craftsmen – encourage American System & labor saving devices
Legal system lets anything happen in name of economic growth - land use no limits
Social Darwinist ideology& racial / ethnic / religious divisions lets workers be used disposably. Human rights are “Humbug” - great SHORT TERM maximized economic growth and damn the environment
3. What is Social Darwinism? Social position is determined by fair “Darwinian” competition. Rich worked their way up from poverty (or could have due to superiority)
Poor are in the gutter because they have moral defects or racial inferiority or both
Attempts to help poor are misguided – upset the “natural” order – just make them lazier and more pathetic Kill that nasty minimum wage. “Tragedy of American Compassion”
4. Mention 3 taxes a Social Darwinist would dislike? Wealth ( as in Islam or Jesus)
Inheritance (estate / “DEATH TAX”) Paris Hilton & Steve Forbes deserve 0% rate!!!
Graduated Income. UGH! Social Darwinist mantra “LOW MARGINAL TAX RATES”
Capital Gains : wealth increases in value & produce $$ for you. Interest Income (Usury) Current SD’s hate environmental laws & hate Energy taxes (pollution externalities) “government interference” Which tax or what kind of taxes would a Social Darwinist prefer? Consumption, includes Tariff or Sales (poor consume most of their income, rich invest) Payroll tax –LOVE this - stops at $85,000 – exempt most of rich income Flat Tax (benefits top 6% - bottom 94% pay more)
Practically speaking do not want to have too high taxes on investments or incomeLIdi Amin, “eat the rich”) leads to evasion, shifting kinds of income to lower rate type Republicans predicted Clinton’s tax increases on Rich would kill economy & destroy incentives – created record Job Growth & investment bubble & huge economic growth
6 What “crime” caused the lynching which started Ida Wells on her anti-lynching crusade? Economic success – culling of Alpha black males -
7. What was “Fusion”? (3) Populists attempt to create a racial unity party – poor whites and poor blacks both getting screwed by Bourbons (rich whites)
Who is generally most racist? The group just above the “mud-sill” class
8. What happened to the money supply between 1865 and the 1880’s? (2) Drastic contraction – ½ per capita (1/6 populists claim)
9. Who was hurt by this change in money supply? (1) Debtors who have to pay back loans in more valuable $$ Mortgaged farmers - Poor especially in the south where credit was scarcest . Why? The more scarce something is the more valuable) Rich get richer.
11. Who was Jay Gould & what did he do? (5) Shyster stock manipulation – buy RR’s & blackmail competitors
12. What was Andrew Carnegie’s organizational innovation and what does it mean? (3)
Vertical integration – from ore in ground to finished product – noone else gets any profit
13. What industrial process did Carnegie exploit? (1) Bessemer Process
14. What made Carnegie beloved? (2) Charity – Libraries – gave early and often – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace “dying with lots of money is shameful” put profits back into society
15. How did John D Rockefeller gain a dishonest advantage on his competitors? (3) Secret rebates from RR’s – paid for competitors transport so they can’t compete
16 What did the Dawes Act do? (3) Break up Indian lands – 160 acres per family – foster individualism – Whites grab the extra (including Oklahoma)
Quiz 9 - 15 Mention 3 customs or characteristics of Hawaiian Society that led missionaries to deplore their depravity. naked, give away kids to establish social bonds, unashamed of sex, love nature full of gods, not conquer
14 What were 2 of the concessions Booker T Washington made to White Southerners?
Reconstruction was horrible, blacks not ready; never mind the vote or social equality What were conflicting educational approaches of Booker T Washington and the Niagara Movement? Vocational practical vs need a talented 10th which earns everything to lead
15. What were 2 changes in education in the South after 1900. More $$$, more race discrimination in funding
16. Why would bi-metalism be tricky & what would Gresham’s law predict would happen because of the Comstock discoveries? Ratios not stable, bad $ drives out good
17. How did Immigration to the US change - before 1880 compared to after 1880? Northwest Europe to Southeast Europe
18. The _nuclear_ family was seen as the backbone of society by middle-class families?
19. The Cult of True womanhood said that middle-class women should be
__chaste_, _pure , _submissive_ , and _pious_.
21. How did Frances Willard of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union change the way people saw alcohol abuse? (2) Disease not sin – environment, not inherently inferior
22. What factors in the American Economy encouraged the desire & need for colonies and Ports? Explain. (4) not enough consumption for increased production (income skew) look to China etc for markets. Grab before others grab
23. Which theorist wrote a book encouraging the grabbing ports and what was the name of his book? (2) Albert Thayer McMahan Influence of seapower on history
Extra credit : what was the only good part of Captain Cook’s legacy? (1) roast
19. What was Eugenics? (2) scientific breeding based on scientific racism – superior breed more What was a method used? (1) forced sterilization
21. What foreign leader borrowed American ideas about Eugenics?(1) Hitler
22. What radical changes did Henry Ford make in 1914 affecting his workers. $5 & 8 hrs
23. Ford had a couple of reasons for his move. What was a reason which relates to the causes of the Depression of 1893. (2) insufficient consumption – enable workers buy cars
24. Why were the productivity increases from Ford’s new assembly lines disappointing? ) absenteeism, high turnover, sloppy work
25. What is “Noblesse Oblige”? (2) Obligations of rich to poor
What practical experience affected Teddy Roosevelt’s view of the poor? (1) Police Commissioner NYC
What was “Brandeis Brief”? (2) scientific sociological jurispridence on social questions
29. The formation of __women’s colleges___ late 1800’s had an influence on many of leaders of the Progressive movement who had trouble getting jobs in business or law.
What did Karl Marx say about religion? Opiate of the people
What did Karl Marx say about private property? Theft
What did Karl Marx say about income of the working class? Going down till revolution
Which book by Vladimir Lenin influenced Ho Chi Minh? Imperialism highest form Capitalism. What did Lenin predict about the future in the areas covered by that book? Colonial revolts
What organization founded by Soviet Union in 1919 caused fear in the West? Comintern
What was the organization supposed to do? Propaganda, spy, spread revolution
What did Wilson’s 14 Points say about treaties & covenants between nations (which is also a requirement for good democracy and science)? Openly arrived at - transparency
What was the primary underlying reason for World War I? Imperialism
What does this word mean? Conquer & control other countries
What effect did World War I have on American farmers’ income? Double, except in South- Boll weevil & cotton shipping interference
What effect did World War I have on US farm mechanization & why? Speed up – hi priced horses sell quick – advances in engines
What was central disagreement about the League of Nations between Wilson & Lodge? Article 10 Why didn’t Lodge like this requirement? Hinder American Imperialism
What important future leader did Lodge’s victory help? Hitler
How did the way Winston Churchill drew borders of Iraq differ from how Woodrow Wilson wanted to draw the boundaries? Oil imperialism vs self-determination
What did Woodrow Wilson bring to treaty talks that illustrated “Progressive” tendencies? experts on populations, languages, cultures, political history
WWI •Imperialism & imperial attitude :
Must conquer to thrive vs free trade & self determination & all men =•
Must compete with other conquerors …. arms races & alliances
• mobilization schedules …. archduke Ferdinand shot
•Why imperialism doesn’t work : media (can’t slaughter in private anymore)
• expectations of self-determination. arms trade, urbanization
Causes of WWII •End of war, no march thru Berlin – “stabbed in back”
•Treaty :14 points promised, blame, reparations, land grab instead
•No repudiation of racism for Japanese
•Keynes “economic consequences of peace” split German coal & steel area cripple economy. Reparations delicate borrowing loop
No League – pissed off Gemans & Italians & Japanese experiment with grabbing

•Balfour? English government looks with favor on Jewish homeland in Palestine with no prejudice to rights of current inhabitants. But 2 peoples can’t own same land
•1917 for Jewish favor – control Bolsheviks, have $$
•Also Parallels Jewish English history
•Old Testament tradition England Jews rebuild temple & Christ returns ,
•what contradiction? Palestinian Muslims & Christians?
•Surrounding Arabs sympathize
•US immigration cutoff 1924 – more Jews were leaving Palestine for uS than going to Palestine

•Gold standard – hard currency – depends on discoveries.
• may not match econ activity origin of banks – gold & receipts
• Andrew Mellon : sound currency! let them starve! Run a surplus
•Federal Reserve. make money supply match economic activity level
•Keynes : economy may settle at level below full employment - momentum
•Monetary policy – amount of $$. More needed if deflation, less if inflation.
• interest rate up if inflation (too much activity), down if high unemployment
•Tax policy insufficient demand : more progressive taxation
• insufficient supply / investment – lower tax on investors / rich
•Fiscal policy – Govt spending welfare & public works
• Below full activity – spend on public works, run a deficit & increase welfare payments
• Hyperactivity (bubble) raise taxes on investors,
• raise margin requirements
• raise interest rates
NAACP Challenges Segregation in Courts •
•Till late 1930’s afraid of direct challenge. If Plessy reaffirmed calamity.
•Charles Houston “lawyer is either social engineer of parasite on society” Attack Jim Crow at most vulnerable point, school segregation. Clear, gross, easily documented.
•1938 Missouri Law School decision – new professional schools at Black state colleges
•1940 Thurgood Marshall takes over NAACP Legal head
•1944 White Primary race discrimination

World after 9-11 - New Yorker

2006-09-10T19:47:00.000-07:00

The World After 9/11
Amy Davidson talks to Seymour M. Hersh, Jon Lee Anderson, and George Packer about Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror, and whether America is stronger now.
Issue of 2006-09-11
Posted 2006-09-04

Amy Davidson talks to Seymour M. Hersh, Jon Lee Anderson, and George Packer about Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror, and whether America is stronger now.

AMY DAVIDSON: Sy, in your first article after 9/11—just a few weeks after—you quoted a senior C.I.A. official who, you wrote, “confirmed that the intelligence community had not yet developed a significant amount of solid information about the terrorists’ organization, financing, and planning.” He said, “One day, we’ll know, but at the moment we don’t know.” Has that day arrived?

SEYMOUR M. HERSH: No, not in my view. He also said at the time that there was a debate about whether the attacks were a long-planned, deep-cell operation, and we were going to be looking at cell operations like this throughout the country—major embedded groups of Al Qaeda, what you will. The other possibility was that the nineteen hijackers were the equivalent of a pickup basketball team that made it to the Final Four. His guess was the latter. I think that’s true. I think the nineteen guys, however skilled, were more lucky than anything else, because of our lack of preparation. But we really know very little about how that operation worked, even now.

DAVIDSON: Why is that?

HERSH: Because the nineteen guys are dead. Despite all the arrests we’ve made—of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others—I’m very skeptical of the information we’ve got from interrogations, basically because, once people get into the interrogation process, even today, the torture is such that they invent stories to make us happy. So we’ve got an awful lot of bad information, along with some good. But certainly a lot of bad stuff. So we don’t have a good picture of what happened.

DAVIDSON: Let me ask all three of you: how good was Al Qaeda five years ago? Were the hijackers a pickup basketball team? And how good is Al Qaeda now—has it got better since 9/11, or is it much weaker?

GEORGE PACKER: I think that it’s been franchised since 9/11, and now we’ve got small groups in many parts of the world claiming varying degrees of association with Al Qaeda but, essentially, acting operationally on their own—pursuing their own regional and local goals but aligning themselves with the more global ambitions of Al Qaeda. If you consider Al Qaeda just in terms of its main base of operations, which were formerly in Afghanistan, that Al Qaeda, as far as I know, is not achieving very much in the way of operations. But what it’s become is an enormous public-relations boon to any group that wants to wear its colors and go off into its own Final Four tournament, and act essentially on its own. What our colleague Lawrence Wright’s book “The Looming Tower” suggests is that Al Qaeda is mainly the unbelievably ambitious and persistent vision of one man, and he has outlasted all kinds of other people in his willingness to stick with it, certainly through the nineties.

DAVIDSON: Osama bin Laden.

PACKER: Yes.

JON LEE ANDERSON: I agree with what George says and what Sy says. I think that Al Qaeda achieved in the attacks of 9/11 a blow so dramatic that it seemed to the Islamists to strip away the defenses and the perceived invincibility of the world’s greatest superpower, and it became possible, in a psychological and even tactical way, for others to try to emulate it. So whether or not Al Qaeda is operationally as potent as it was around 9/11 doesn’t matter. The mere fact that the United States absorbed that blow, unaware, sent a huge message around the world, and not only to non-state actors, like jihadis who follow Osama bin Laden or Zarqawi or others, but also to regimes that were held in check, prior to 9/11, by the sense of our overwhelming military capabilities. They no longer feel so threatened. And I think the Iraq war has done a lot to enhance that view—in other words, our inability to make headway against insurgents in a place like Iraq has stripped away the aura of American invincibility and might.

DAVIDSON: Let’s talk about Iraq, and let’s start with the question of whether we should be talking about Iraq when we’re looking back at the legacy of 9/11. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

PACKER: Iraq has turned out to be an enormous wrong turn in the five years since 9/11. The war was justified by the Administration, at some moments directly, by connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which were grossly overstated if not absolutely false, and at times indirectly, by a suggestion that if we eliminated this gross dictatorship in the middle of the Arab world we would begin to drain the swamps that were breeding terrorists. That was a more abstract, theoretical strategy that became the justification when the weapons of mass destruction didn’t show up. So now, even as we speak, the President, the Vice-President, and the Secretary of Defense are all trying to rally the country back to the war in Iraq by associating it with Islamic extremism. At this point, I think that argument has largely run out of juice, because there have been too many deceptions and too many rosy scenarios that failed to materialize in Iraq, and because the connection is simply too tenuous or too cosmic for Americans to accept it. The Administration cried wolf, and I don’t think this time around the electorate is going to buy that success in the war on terror and success in Iraq are one and the same thing.

DAVIDSON: Jon Lee, can you talk about that? You’ve spent a lot of time in Iraq.

ANDERSON: I agree with George’s appraisal of how the war came about, and the deceit that was involved, and the notion that, of course, Iraq and Saddam had nothing, or very little, to do with Al Qaeda—certainly there’s no evidence that Saddam had anything at all to do with 9/11. But build it and they will come. Iraq has become a central theatre in the war on terror because the Administration continues to say it is. And, therefore, having staked America’s reputation, prestige, military prowess, and all of that on the war in Iraq, the Administration—certainly this Administration, and, I suspect, future Administrations—will find it extremely difficult to extricate itself gracefully from Iraq without some electorally acceptable semblance of victory or, at least, a job accomplished. And therein lies the great disaster that is Iraq, because it didn’t have to be a disaster, but it has become so. You now have General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, saying that American forces hope to be able to withdraw to superbases within a year to eighteen months. Read the subtext here: the country is, by any measure, in a state of civil war, and the conclusion is that the Administration intends to let the civil war fight itself out, probably by ultimately choosing a side and then withdrawing to these bases. By then, there will be a new spin operation, which is already in motion, to explain away the fact that America’s arrival in Iraq opened this Pandora’s box. The onus will be left on the Iraqis. It’s a very messy scenario, but I do think that even if it wasn’t initially part of the larger war on terror it is so now, and will remain so for some time in the future.

DAVIDSON: Sy, what do you think about that?

HERSH: In the fall of 2001, I was learning a lot about a great debate inside the Administration about what to do in Afghanistan. There were a lot of people who argued very bitterly against the air war—I’m talking about people on the inside, tough guys—arguing against what we all assumed to be the one just aspect of this whole post-9/11 process, which was the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan and the Special Forces operation. That was the beginning of the whole torture issue with Guantánamo, and the buying of prisoners. All of that stuff was debated before late October, when the President authorized the bombing. There was a huge debate about even whom to support in Afghanistan—whether or not we should do more real counterinsurgency, and take up the Taliban and consider them more seriously as people you could actually talk to, and the decision was that we ought to go with the warlords. Like a lot of people, I accepted the premise of the Afghan war; I accepted the premise that it wasn’t that irrational, that we had to do something. I didn’t accept it the second time, in Iraq. If the Administration wants a role model for how to respond to grave abuses in terms of international terrorism, look at the Indian government and Mumbai, the train bombing there. The government treated it like a criminal activity. By going to war, instead of criminalizing what Osama bin Laden and his minions did—there’s no question that, in terms of military operations, this is the worst government in the history of America.

DAVIDSON: George, this is something you’ve written about. Do you think that we’ve learned something since 9/11 about the limits of what military action can accomplish?

PACKER: Some of us have, including some people in the government and in the military, but they’re not in the key positions. Sy’s most recent article, on the Lebanon war, suggests that the people who are in the key positions continue to learn the wrong lessons, which is that air power can destroy deeply entrenched groups that are as much political as they are military. Which is very worrying, because it shows that what one hears—that no unwelcome information reaches the President, that it is generally stopped at his door by people from the Vice-President’s office or by his immediate staff—is true. It’s something I hear over and over again. So I don’t think anyone in a position to make decisions has learned. I think what those people have done is protected themselves from learning by counterpunching every time anyone lands a blow and turning what should be very difficult strategic policy questions into, essentially, part of a permanent campaign at home to win a political argument. I think they’ve taken that more seriously, they’ve given it more energy, and they consider it more important, in a way, than they do the actual conflict outside of our borders. But I also want to say, there’s a huge ideological battle that is not of our making, but which is now the world we live in. That’s where I think the real key questions are. I think Sy’s absolutely right that war is far too blunt an instrument, that crime and intelligence work are where we—and the Brits, and other countries—have had our few successes. But, beyond that, there is this ideological problem, which anyone who travels in that part of the world gets a heavy dose of. And we don’t know what to do about it. And that is a failure of leadership.

ANDERSON: I’d like to leap in here and add something that has become dear to my heart in the course of observing on the ground the conflicts engendered since 9/11: first Afghanistan, then Iraq, and, most recently, Lebanon. I’ll begin with an anecdote. Immediately following the ceasefire, after four weeks of bombing, Hezbollah announced that it would pay for the reconstruction of homes for the tens of thousands of people whose homes had been destroyed in the Israeli bombardment—for the homes, a year’s worth of rent, and new furniture—and would itself rebuild, with funds from Iran, no doubt. Hezbollah effectively captured people’s loyalties and took away that role of the state from the Lebanese government, and, for that matter, from the larger actors in the conflict—including America. This was just the latest example; it goes back to Iraq and it goes back to Afghanistan. Following the American police action in Afghanistan, to chase the Taliban into the hills, almost nothing was done to rebuild the country. It took—I forget, exactly—a year and a half or two years before the first efforts were made to pave the Kabul-Kandahar road, which was passable for about a year but no longer is today, because the Taliban have returned and are likely to attack if you are a Westerner. Very little was done in the political arena. This problem of Islamic extremism, which George was referring to and which is very real, is a problem of perception. America is seen to act with all of its might and resources when it comes to military adventurism or military involvement. In Iraq, the amount of money expended there on nothing very visible, for the sake of pursuing the war, is astronomical. But what have we done to rebuild? I believe this sort of military action has to go hand in hand with a radical political decision to actually reform these countries. For Afghanistan, that could have meant a kind of mini-Marshall plan, which could have shown both the Afghans and the Muslim world that we had no vested interest in controlling that country but bore some responsibility for what had happened there. It would have been a very cost-effective investment. Once again, we do not truly compete for hearts and minds, because we’re not willing to pony up to invest, to show that America isn’t only about war, or being crusading Christians, or whatever it is.

DAVIDSON: One thing that we have built since 9/11 is a detention center at Guantánamo, which is as much a legacy of 9/11 as Iraq, and is the sort of blunt instrument that you mentioned, George. What has America gained from Guantánamo, and what has it lost?

HERSH: The evidence is, we’ve gained much less than people think we have, or at least than the Administration tells us, in terms of actionable intelligence. George made a point about how we have to change and deal seriously with people who want to fly airplanes into our buildings, and we really have to improve our ability to learn who they are and how to track them. I do think there’s been maybe the beginning of some idea that simple force doesn’t work. We’ll see. There is some new thinking going on. Even in Iraq, some of the military units seem to be operating more sensibly in terms of dealing with the population, but it’s far too late. The whole world was on our side after 9/11—most of the Muslim world, too, was shocked by the crazy activity—and, essentially, we’ve lost the moral authority, the moral edge we had. It’s the same thing Jon Lee was saying about the inability to really do reconstruction, in as serious a way as we do deconstruction. I grew up thinking that in America we always wore the white hat. It’s no longer so. Although I will still say that the average Muslim, if he got into business and made a pretty good living and got to the middle class, his ambition would be to send his kid to Yale. That still exists. But we’re not capitalizing on it.

DAVIDSON: George, you wrote a little about that this week—the question of moderate Islam.

PACKER: One thing we lose sight of, because we’re focussed, rightly, on the use of American power, is the battle within Muslim countries, which is acute and getting hotter all the time. It’s been going on for half a century now. What we’re experiencing is the sharp end of a battle that has been rising within Muslim countries since independence, and that’s a battle over modernity and what kind of society Muslims want to live in. For the article in this week’s issue, I went looking for some sign of intellectual moderation in places like Sudan and Morocco. I can’t say I was enormously encouraged, but there are things that are going on that we miss with the headlines coming from the Middle East. A Sudanese scholar told me, “I expect nothing good from the Arab world”—by which I think he meant the Middle East—“for a long time.” The place where there’s hope is the periphery, the Muslim periphery, from Senegal to Indonesia, countries that aren’t often in the headlines but where this internal battle to define their own societies is less explosive—and is less caught up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Iraq war, American military power, and so on. It is being waged in the way it can be when people aren’t being held at gunpoint, which is through ideas, through political parties, and even through democratic politics in some of these countries. So it isn’t entirely about war and destruction; it’s also about ideas and about the direction these societies are going in. What I heard over and over, though, is that the pictures on Al Jazeera coming from the Middle East make it very difficult for reformers in these peripheral Muslim countries to gain an audience, because they’re increasingly seen as being apologists for the West. The more this is defined as Islam versus the West, the worse it is for us and, I would argue, for Muslims themselves. The more it can become a battle of ideas within Muslim countries over modernity rather than the West, then the more hope there is, because I think most people don’t want to live in a totalitarian society in which seventh-century customs are imposed on them by force. I think most people want to live normal, modern lives.

DAVIDSON: I want to go back five years, to the moment right after 9/11 when we talked a lot about justice, about bringing the perpetrators to justice, and to the question of whether there has been justice for 9/11. Sy, you mentioned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is described as the mastermind behind 9/11. He’s actually in U.S. custody. Why hasn’t he been brought to trial?

HERSH: Because the Administration has chosen not to do so. I think that one of the reasons is that at trial he would talk about how he was treated. If somebody would come into a courtroom describing the kind of treatment he’s reportedly had at the hands of the United States, a conviction might be very hard to get. We simply decided very early on that it was acceptable for us to be goons, and we’ve been goons. It still goes on. It is beyond stupidity.

DAVIDSON: We’ve talked about Afghanistan as the first place where we went to “get the bad guys.” Jon Lee, you were in Afghanistan when the bombing began, in October, 2001; you also went back there last year. Did you get a sense, when you were there, that somehow justice had been done, for the victims of 9/11—or, for that matter, for the Afghans?

ANDERSON: There’s no question that the American action—the coalition action—in Afghanistan achieved one thing: removing Al Qaeda from the almost aboveground role it had, pretty much steering the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This isn’t political rhetoric—it had a preëminent role in the country, it funded the Taliban regime, and it provided an open base of operations for terrorists seeking to do harm to any number of regimes, including the United States. That was achieved, but it was not a total victory. The Taliban fled into the hills; Osama bin Laden escaped. And then, really, I think, the West—the United States and its coalition partners—sat on their hands. The Afghans were putty, so to speak. They had no expectations—other than every expectation of the West. We were the dreamland. We were that shimmering United States of the Kennedy era, still, in their imaginations. We were capable of doing anything for them. They were in our thrall. We could have done so much in Afghanistan to send an important message around the world; we could have done the right thing in that country. But we didn’t. We had our Special Forces guys doing what they needed to do, which was mop up and try to pursue the remnants of Al Qaeda and some of the Taliban. But what did the Afghans see on the ground? There was no effort to engage them truly in the battle of ideas, other than the amiable Western-handpicked figure of Hamid Karzai, who was soon seen as a puppet President; there was no visible or muscular empowerment of his government or, for that matter, of the international aid agencies in transforming a country that had been destroyed through three decades of war.

DAVIDSON: Sy, you’ve written a lot about the intelligence failures that led to 9/11. Again, right after 9/11 there was a lot of talk about how the way that the intelligence community dealt with and found information had to change. Has it changed? If so, is it for the better or for the worse?

HERSH: I actually think things are much worse, in that a lot of very capable people have got disgusted and discouraged and have left, and I think that the new system set up by the 9/11 Commission is going to be a disaster, too. So I’m skeptical. As I said earlier, in the field there are some people trying to be more progressive and use networking and more sophisticated means of going after the real hard-core jihadis’ terrorist cells, and we’ve done well that way, but it was such a blunderbuss approach in the beginning. Look, the bottom line is, you have a White House that, as George said early in this conversation, doesn’t want any information that it doesn’t want. There’s nothing new about it, and nothing has changed. We’re still in, I think, very dire shape.

DAVIDSON: The White House would say we have to give up some expectations about, say, the privacy of telephone calls, to make sure that 9/11 doesn’t happen again.

HERSH: There are ways to deal with that within the confines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and this Administration chose not to do that, for whatever reason—for security, or because it didn’t want people to know what was going on. They’ve demonstrated a contempt for the Constitution. We really have a constitutional crisis. We’ve got a crisis in terms of what’s going on in Iraq: as Jon Lee said, a civil war is going on there; we just don’t want to use those words.

DAVIDSON: Is America stronger now than it was five years ago?

HERSH: Oh, my God—nobody would argue that. Nobody would say that. You’ve just heard thirty minutes of conversation about how we are perceived. We haven’t done the right thing in terms of reconstruction; we haven’t done the right thing in Iraq. There’s no conceivable way we’re in better shape. Why there hasn’t been an attack in the United States—I don’t have an answer for that, but I don’t believe that’s going to be a political vehicle for George W. Bush. We’re not stronger, in any sense, because we’re not nearly as respected, and the invincibility shield is gone.

DAVIDSON: Jon Lee, going back to September 10, 2001—you were about to leave for Sri Lanka. That trip got put off, and you never ended up going. Do you think that there are parts of the world that America has neglected since 9/11?

ANDERSON: Absolutely. Just as it had, in fact, before 9/11. What I was doing then for The New Yorker was going around to parts of the world that I felt had been neglected since the Cold War, and that particularly interested me. In fact, Afghanistan was one of my target countries, but I didn’t get to it until after 9/11. Sri Lanka was a more obscure one—because there wasn’t a direct American angle there. As an American who’s lived much of my life abroad, I have often felt the disjointedness between our perceptions at home and people’s perceptions of us abroad. As an American, the perpetual stranger in the strange land, I’ve often taken it on the nose as the representative of my country. I was very keenly, acutely, and poignantly aware, in the late nineties and very early two-thousands, of a sense of abandonment of past responsibility, of a huge and, in some cases, quite destructive legacy that we had left during our many years of efforts to combat the Soviet expansion in Third World countries. We had left a huge hole; we had ceased to be the good Americans there. People were still waiting for us. The Clinton years have to be looked back on as almost golden years, despite the many mistakes in foreign policy Clinton made. The United States had somehow achieved, once again, this sense of promise in the world. Maybe it was the afterglow of the collapse of the Soviet Union. But it all changed, as Sy and George were pointing out, as a result of the language chosen and the political decisions taken, about how America would respond to the new threat against it. We’ve had many opportunities since then to right the course, to alter those perceptions which have deepened and deepened—perceptions of bitterness and enmity toward America for not shouldering its true responsibilities.

DAVIDSON: But, even if we’re not loved, are we stronger?

ANDERSON: No. No. Because we have lost the respect of our enemies. Why was it that in Iraq there was an interregnum between the time Baghdad fell and the time the so-called insurgents began attacking us? Because they finally saw us on the ground. First, it was an air war, and a sort of blitzkrieg infantry campaign to the capital. Then our troops began fanning out and becoming custodians of law and order. It was then that the defeated enemy—or, rather, an enemy that had vanished or melted away but had not felt itself defeated—waiting and watching in the shadows, decided to strike, decided that we were killable. Why were we killable? Because they were able to observe us at close hand and see that we operated without the logic of a superpower that knew what it wanted to do. We did not have mastery of the terrain, the language, the culture; there was an open debate about what we wanted. We were attackable. And so our enemies lost their respect for all of our billions of dollars’ worth of hardware. And we now have one of the most vicious insurgencies in the world there. A year ago, we were also under the illusion, the rosy illusion, that Afghanistan had largely been resolved, that the Taliban were in the hills, Karzai’s government was getting stronger, we were building a great new American Embassy—but no other building in Kabul—and now the Taliban have come back. They no longer fear us, either. We are not stronger, because our enemies do not believe we are strong, and until the United States understands this and figures out how to reconfigure its position in the world and make people respect it for itself as well as for its military might, properly applied, we are fighting an uphill battle.

wealth inequality

2006-09-07T20:50:00.000-07:00

The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States
Between the Rich and the Rest

An Interview with Edward Wolff

Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.

Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff: Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.

MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff: Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn't, then he is better off.

Wealth — strictly financial savings — provides security to individuals in the event of sickness, job loss or marital separation. Assets provide a kind of safety blanket that people can rely on in case their income gets interrupted.

Wealth is also more directly related to political power. People who have large amounts of wealth can make political contributions. In some cases, they can use that money to run for office themselves, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

MM: What are the best sources for information on wealth?
Wolff: The best way of measuring wealth is to use household surveys, where interviewers ask households, from a very detailed form, about the assets they own, and the kinds of debts and other liabilities they have run up. Household surveys provide the main source of information on wealth distribution.

Of these household surveys — there are now about five or six surveys that ask wealth questions in the United States — probably the best source is the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances.

They have a special supplement sample that they rely on to provide information about high income households. Wealth turns out to be highly skewed, so that a very small proportion of families owns a very large share of total wealth. Most surveys miss these families. But the Survey of Consumer Finances uses information provided by the Internal Revenue Service to construct a special supplemental sample on high income households, so they can zero in on the high wealth holders.

MM: How do economists measure levels of equality and inequality?
Wolff: The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent. In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth.

This is the most easily understood measure.

There is also another measure called the Gini coefficient. It measures the concentration of wealth at different percentile levels, and does an overall computation. It is an index that goes from zero to one, one being the most unequal. Wealth inequality in the United States has a Gini coefficient of .82, which is pretty close to the maximum level of inequality you can have.

MM: What have been the trends of wealth inequality over the last 25 years?
Wolff: We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976.

Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s.

Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn't gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth inequality.

MM: What portion of the wealth is owned by the upper groups?
Wolff: The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.

This is a very concentrated distribution.

MM: Where does that leave the bottom tiers?
Wolff: The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings.

A household in the middle — the median household — has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if you consider that the top 1 percent of households' average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution.

MM: What kind of distribution of wealth is there for the different asset components?
Wolff: Things are even more concentrated if you exclude owner-occupied housing. It is nice to own a house and it provides all kinds of benefits, but it is not very liquid. You can't really dispose of it, because you need some place to live.

The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth.

The middle class's major assets are their home, liquid assets like checking and savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, and pension accounts. For the average family, these assets make up 84 percent of their total wealth.

The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth.

MM: What happens when you disaggregate the data by race?
Wolff: There you find something very striking. Most people are aware that African-American families don't earn as much as white families. The average African-American family has about 60 percent of the income as the average white family. But the disparity of wealth is a lot greater. The average African-American family has only 18 percent of the wealth of the average white family.

MM: Are you able to do a comparable analysis by gender?
Wolff: It is hard to separate out husbands and wives. Most assets are jointly held, so it is not really possible to separate which assets are owned by husband and which by wife. Even when things are specifically owned by one spouse or another, the other spouse usually has some residual lien on the assets, as we know from various divorce proceedings. If a pension account is owned by the husband and the family splits up, the wife typically gets some ownership of the pension assets. The same thing is true for an unincorporated business owned by the husband. It really is not that easy to separate out gender ownership in the family.

What we do know is that single women, or single women with children, have much lower levels of wealth than married couples.

MM: How does the U.S. wealth profile compare to other countries?
Wolff: We are much more unequal than any other advanced industrial country.

Perhaps our closest rival in terms of inequality is Great Britain. But where the top percent in this country own 38 percent of all wealth, in Great Britain it is more like 22 or 23 percent.

What is remarkable is that this was not always the case. Up until the early 1970s, the U.S. actually had lower wealth inequality than Great Britain, and even than a country like Sweden. But things have really turned around over the last 25 or 30 years. In fact, a lot of countries have experienced lessening wealth inequality over time. The U.S. is atypical in that inequality has risen so sharply over the last 25 or 30 years.

MM: To what extent is the wealth inequality trend simply reflective of the rising level of income inequality?
Wolff: Part of it reflects underlying increases in income inequality, but the other significant factor is what has happened to the ratio between stock prices and housing prices. The major asset of the middle class is their home. The major assets of the rich are stocks and small business equity. If stock prices increase more quickly than housing prices, then the share of wealth owned by the richest households goes up. This turns out to be almost as important as underlying changes in income inequality. For the last 25 or 30 years, despite the bear market we've had over the last two years, stock prices have gone up quite a bit faster than housing prices.

MM: A couple years ago there was a great deal of talk of the democratization of the stock market. Is that reflected in these figures, or was it an illusion?
Wolff: I would say it was more of an illusion. What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.

By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.

But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.

So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn't been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.

As a result, the stock market boom of the 1990s disproportionately benefited rich families. There were some gains by middle class families, but their average stock holdings were too small to make much difference in their overall wealth.

MM: Apart from the absolute level of wealth of people at the bottom of the spectrum, why should inequality itself be a matter of concern?
Wolff: I think there are two rationales. The first is basically a moral or ethical position. A lot of people think it is morally bad for there to be wide gaps, wide disparities in well being in a society.

If that is not convincing to a person, the second reason is that inequality is actually harmful to the well-being of a society. There is now a lot of evidence, based on cross-national comparisons of inequality and economic growth, that more unequal societies actually have lower rates of economic growth. The divisiveness that comes out of large disparities in income and wealth, is actually reflected in poorer economic performance of a country.

Typically when countries are more equal, educational achievement and benefits are more equally distributed in the country. In a country like the United States, there are still huge disparities in resources going to education, so quality of schooling and schooling performance are unequal. If you have a society with large concentrations of poor families, average school achievement is usually a lot lower than where you have a much more homogenous middle class population, as you find in most Western European countries. So schooling suffers in this country, and, as a result, you get a labor force that is less well educated on average than in a country like the Netherlands, Germany or even France. So the high level of inequality results in less human capital being developed in this country, which ultimately affects economic performance.

MM: To what extent is inequality addressed through tax policy?
Wolff: One reason we have such high levels of inequality, compared to other advanced industrial countries, is because of our tax and, I would add, our social expenditure system. We have much lower taxes than almost every Western European country. And we have a less progressive tax system than almost every Western European country. As a result, the rich in this country manage to retain a much higher share of their income than they do in other countries, and this enables them to accumulate a much higher amount of wealth than the rich in other countries.

Certainly our tax system has helped to stimulate the rise of inequality in this country.

We have a much lower level of income support for poor families than do Western European countries or Canada. Social policy in Europe, Canada and Japan does a lot more to reduce economic disparities created by the marketplace than we do in this country. We have much higher poverty rates than do other advanced industrialized countries.

MM: Do you favor a wealth tax?
Wolff: I've proposed a separate tax on wealth, which actually exists in a dozen European countries. This has helped to lessen inequality in European countries. It is also, I think, a fairer tax. If you think about taxes that reflect a family's ability to pay, a family's ability to pay is a reflection of their income, but also of their wealth holdings. A broader kind of tax of this nature, would not only produce more tax revenue, which we desperately need, but it would be a fairer tax, and also help to reduce the level of inequality in this country.

MM: In broad outlines, how would you structure such a tax?
Wolff: I would model it after the Swiss system, which I think is a pretty fair system. It would be a progressive tax. In the United States, the first $250,000 of wealth would be exempt from the tax. That would exclude 80 percent of all families. The tax would increase at increments, starting out at .2 percent from about $250,000 to $500,000. The marginal rate would go up to .4 percent from $500,000 to $1 million, and then to .6 percent from a $1 million to $5 million, and then to .8 thereafter.

It would not be a very severe tax. In fact, the loading charges on most mutual funds are typically of the order of 1 or 2 percent. It would not be an onerous tax, but it could raise about $60 billion annually. Eighty percent of families would pay nothing, and 95 percent of families would pay less than $1,000. It would really only affect very rich families.

MM: Do you recommend non-tax approaches to deal with inequality as well?
Wolff: I think we have to provide a much broader safety net in this country.

There are lots of things that we should do to strengthen our income support system. We can expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now a fairly substantial aid to poor families, but which can be improved.

The minimum wage has fallen by about 35 percent in real terms since its peak in 1968. We should think about restoring the minimum wage to where it used to be. That would help a lot of low-income families.

The unemployment insurance system is in a real mess; only about one third of unemployed persons actually get unemployment benefits, either because they don't qualify or because they exhaust their benefits after six months. Typically the replacement rate is about 35 or 40 percent. In the Netherlands, the replacement rate is 80 percent. Our unemployment insurance system is much less generous than in other industrialized countries and can certainly be shored up.

Of course, the welfare system is in a total state of disrepair, since it provides very restrictive coverage. Even before the switchover from AFDC to TANF with the 1996 welfare reform bill, real welfare payments had declined by about 50 percent between 1975 and 1996. So we had already experienced an enormous erosion in welfare benefits, even before we adopted this new system.

Bush appoints 100 lobbyists as regulators

2006-09-07T20:47:00.000-07:00

May 23, 2004 by the Denver Post
When Advocates Become Regulators
President Bush has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.
by Anne C. Mulkern

WASHINGTON -- In a New York City ballroom days before Christmas, a powerful Bush administration lawyer made an unprecedented offer to drug companies, one likely to protect their profits and potentially hurt consumers.

Daniel E. Troy, lead counsel for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, extended the government's help in torpedoing certain lawsuits. Among Troy's targets: claims that medications caused devastating and unexpected side effects.

Pitch us lawsuits that we might get involved in, Troy told several hundred pharmaceutical attorneys, some of them old friends and acquaintances from his previous role representing major U.S. pharmaceutical firms.

The offer by the FDA's top attorney, made Dec. 15 at the Plaza Hotel, took the agency responsible for food and drug safety into new territory.

"The FDA is now in the business of helping lawsuit defendants, specifically the pharmaceutical companies," said James O'Reilly, University of Cincinnati law professor and author of a book on the history of the FDA. "It's a dramatic change in what the FDA has done in the past."

Troy's switch from industry advocate to industry regulator overseeing his former clients is a hallmark of President Bush's administration.

Troy is one of more than 100 high-level officials under Bush who helped govern industries they once represented as lobbyists, lawyers or company advocates, a Denver Post analysis shows.

In at least 20 cases, those former industry advocates have helped their agencies write, shape or push for policy shifts that benefit their former industries. They knew which changes to make because they had pushed for them as industry advocates.

The president's political appointees are making or overseeing profound changes affecting drug laws, food policies, land use, clean-air regulations and other key issues.

Government watchdogs call it a disturbing trend, not adequately restrained by existing ethics laws.

Among the advocates-turned-regulators are a former meat-industry lobbyist who helps decide how meat is labeled; a former drug-company lobbyist who influences prescription-drug policies; a former energy lobbyist who, while still accepting payments for bringing clients into his old lobbying firm, helps determine how much of the West those former clients can use for oil and gas drilling.

"When you go to work in lobbying, it is clearly understood and accepted that your job is to advocate for the interests of those who hired you," said Terry L. Cooper, a University of Southern California ethics and government professor. "When you go to work in government, you are supposed to be responsible for upholding and maintaining whatever you can identify as the public interest."

The Bush administration says the regulators were chosen for their abilities.

"The president appoints highly qualified individuals who make their decisions based on the best interests of the American people," said White House spokesman Jim Morrell. "Any individual serving in the administration must abide by strict legal and ethical guidelines, including full disclosure of past lobbying activities."

Six of the former industry advocates have faced ethics investigations or resigned amid conflict-of-interest charges. Those and at least 14 others have been lambasted by public-interest groups.

Government ethics standards are part of the problem because they don't fully address the kind of issues that now permeate Washington, Cooper and some inside government say. The rules focus mainly on direct financial conflicts. Other, more nuanced conflicts aren't addressed

"There are so many ways around, over and under these (ethics) bans ... they almost never work," said Paul Light, who for decades has studied the appointment process for the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington. "There're more screen doors than steel doors."

A March 16 report from the Interior Department's inspector general, for example, concluded that department's "byzantine" conflict-of-interest rules were "wholly incapable" of addressing ethical questions involving a former energy lobbyist, J. Steven Griles, as the department's No. 2 official.

The report called the department's ethics system "a train wreck waiting to happen."

Bringing bias to a federal job isn't new. Presidents of all political persuasions have appointed people who shared their party's values.

As president, Bill Clinton peppered the federal bureaucracy with Democratic state officials, lawyers and advocates from various environmental or public-interest groups.

Only a handful of registered lobbyists worked for Clinton, however.

Bush's embrace of lobbyists marks a key difference because it allows "those who are affected by the regulations to determine what the ground rules should be," said David Cohen, co-director of the Advocacy Institute, which helps teach nonprofits how to lobby in Washington.

While previous Republican presidents hired lobbyists, "the Bush administration has made it rise in geometric proportions," Cohen said, meaning Bush is "capturing the instruments of government and using them for the ends" that favor Bush's political supporters.

"In the Bush administration," said U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., "the foxes are guarding the foxes, and the middle-class hens are getting plucked."

Republicans and their lobbying allies reject the idea that industry is embedded in the administration.

"Foxes? No," Vice President Dick Cheney told The Denver Post. "I think we have a good track record."

The clout of industry is balanced by the power of labor unions, trial lawyers and public-interest groups, said Jerry Jasinowski, chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers.

"The notion that somehow business gets everything and we've gotten a free ride is absurd," he said.

Still, the lobbyists-turned-policymakers control or influence health care, food safety, land use, the environment and other issues touched by government.

HEALTH CARE

Ann-Marie Lynch

The drug-industry lobbyist who fought price controls joined the Health and Human Services Department and has helped drug companies avoid the limits.

Top aides in the Department of Health and Human Services provide analysis and advice to the president on key consumer issues, including prescription-drug policies. In doing so, they consider the needs of pharmaceutical companies seeking revenue for future research, and consumers struggling to afford increasingly costly medications.

In June 2001 Bush installed Ann- Marie Lynch, a lobbyist for the drug- company trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, to help set those policies.

As a lobbyist, Lynch fought congressional attempts to cap prices for drugs. Price controls, she argued, would hamper medical innovation.

Thirteen months after Lynch became deputy assistant secretary in the office of policy, her division issued a report that praised brand- name drugs. It warned that "government-controlled restrictions on the coverage of new drugs could put the future of medical innovation at risk and may retard advances in treatment."

Consumer advocates say that's nonsense. Other countries innovate despite price controls, said Gail Shearer, director of health policy analysis for Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.

"They haven't taken as seriously their job of making medicines affordable to all Americans," Shearer said. "When you talk about the need for (drug) innovation, you have to put it in the context of, will people get the wonder drugs?"

Critics say the report influenced congressional debate over a Medicare drug policy that, among other things, banned government from using Medicare's buying power to cut drug prices. The legislation will mean an extra $139 billion in profit over eight years to drug companies, Boston University researchers said.

Republicans in Congress used arguments that came "directly out of Ann-Marie Lynch's mouth" and from the trade group she previously worked for, said Rep. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, lead Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee's health subcommittee.

Lynch declined to talk to a reporter. HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said the report was not intended to sway Congress. Provisions banning Medicare from negotiating drug prices date to 2000, he said.

Lynch also blocked the release of about a dozen completed research reports that challenge drug-company claims, three former employees said. Pierce said Lynch decides research topics and which reports are released.

One 2001 report, for example, criticizes Medicare plus Choice (now known as Medicare Advantage). Its findings suggested that running the Medicare prescription-drug benefit through private health companies - the method the administration ultimately chose - would be more expensive and would not serve rural areas well.

"Very few of (the private companies) manage to bring in the benefit cost effectively," said Mark Merlis, the private health policy consultant who wrote the report.

Thomas A. Scully

The former hospital lobbyist presided over an agency that helped a chain he once represented win a favorable settlement in a Medicare fraud case.

Thomas A. Scully represented the nation's for-profit hospitals as a lobbyist before being hired by the Bush administration in June 2001 to head the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Eight months after Scully arrived at the Medicare and Medicaid agency, it moved to settle final claims involving HCA Inc., a hospital chain that was the biggest member of Scully's former employer, the Federation of American Hospitals. HCA Inc. faced allegations it fraudulently overbilled the government for Medicare cases.

Under the terms agreed to in June 2002 by Scully's agency, HCA would have settled for $250 million. Medicare fraud cases typically are ironed out with Justice Department participation, but Scully agreed to those terms on his own, said John R. Phillips, an attorney who represented whistle-blowers in the case.

"The $250 million was a total sellout by Scully, who totally negotiated it behind Justice's back," Phillips said.

It also was handled in a way that protected the company from a full review of its cost reports and the triple- damage civil fines that can be imposed in fraud cases, he said.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Justice in October 2002 if that deal was "too lenient."

Justice delayed the settlement until June 2003.

HCA, the nation's biggest for-profit hospital company, eventually paid that $250 million, plus $631 million in civil penalties and damages and $17.5 million to states.

Scully's ethics agreement did not require him to officially avoid cases involving HCA. But Scully said he steered clear.

"I recused myself from everything involving HCA-specific issues or policy and was not involved in any way, shape or form," Scully said. "Every time anything came up (regarding) HCA, I left it to my deputies."

But Grassley in a June 25, 2002, letter to a Justice Department lawyer said comments by Scully "have given me great concern that there is an active, ongoing effort underway to change or modify enforcement (on Medicare fraud) policy that in my view could significantly undermine the (law)."

Scully has since left the administration for consulting jobs with a lobbying firm and an investment company that represent Medicare providers.

Daniel E. Troy

The lawyer who represented major drug companies still fights for causes that benefit them as chief counsel at the Food and Drug Administration.

Daniel E. Troy was well-known at the FDA before he arrived in summer 2001 to work as chief counsel, the top legal position in the department.

As a lawyer in private practice, Troy repeatedly sued the FDA, arguing that it had only limited ability to regulate drug companies. He filed those suits through the Washington Legal Foundation, a group funded by businesses, including drug companies. Donors include charitable foundations run by Pfizer Inc., Procter & Gamble Co. and Eli Lilly & Co.

Troy also represented Pfizer through his firm, Wiley, Rein & Fielding. Troy said in an e-mail to a reporter that his Pfizer work was mainly communications and insurance law, and averaged only 80 hours a year.

At the FDA, Troy still is fighting for causes that benefit drug companies.

It's unclear whether any of pharmaceutical firms responded to his December request for lawsuits the FDA might get involved in.

By the time Troy made that offer, he had already intervened in three drug-company cases as FDA chief counsel. One involved Pfizer.

In court briefs, the FDA argued that it determines which warnings a drug company must give consumers. Lawsuits filed in state courts arguing that drug-company warnings are inadequate therefore were invalid, the FDA says. One of the cases Troy challenged involves thousands of consumers who say they were harmed by painful withdrawal from an antidepressant.

Lawsuits accusing drug companies of telling consumers too little about side effects constitute the largest category of cases against drug companies, law professor O'Reilly said.

If Troy's legal position prevails, O'Reilly said, it would be catastrophic for consumers hurt by drugs. He said it would bar cases like the one filed against the makers of fen-phen, the combination of diet medications tied to heart problems. The makers of those drugs are settling with consumers for $14 billion. That case predates Troy's policy.

Troy, who declined to be interviewed, said in a written statement that the FDA is intervening in the lawsuits to protect "the safety, effectiveness and availability of important medical products."

He said that would be "adversely affected if judges and juries acting under state law had the power to substitute their judgment for the expert determinations made by FDA scientists."

Clinton's Justice Department, he added, took the same legal position, arguing that federal law pre-empts state law.

But prior to Troy, professor O'Reilly and one FDA official said, the government got involved only when a judge asked. Troy, in contrast, is seeking cases in which to intervene.

And the FDA now is staking a new legal claim, experts say: that its authority to determine drug labeling always trumps any claims made in state court.

The FDA is "taking sides in private litigation," said Thomas McGarity, a University of Texas Law School professor and president of the Center for Progressive Regulation, which supports government regulation on health and safety issues.

The FDA asks drug-company attorneys to alert the agency to cases because otherwise "our rules might be undermined by contrary state findings" the agency is unaware of, said Peter Pitts, an FDA spokesman.

He added: "For people to infer that (FDA) decisions are made with anything but the public health as our focus is untrue, unfair and very ill-considered."

FDA officials also say they want to discourage frivolous lawsuits, which drive up costs.

A former FDA chief counsel in the Nixon administration, Peter Barton Hutt, said he supported the FDA's legal position but added, "I probably wouldn't be out there encouraging" lawsuits.

Troy oversees other FDA changes that provoked accusations that he is siding with drug companies.

In October 2001, the Health and Human Services Department gave Troy's office final approval over warnings telling companies they could be in violation of FDA rules. Those had previously been sent out by the FDA's drug-marketing division and district offices.

After that change, the number of warnings of questionable claims by pharmaceutical companies quickly dropped from an average of seven a month to two.

FDA spokesman Pitts said fewer letters were sent because the process was centralized.

"If you torture statistics long enough," Pitts said, "they confess to anything."

Others see this as dangerous to the public.

"This ... may be a welcome development for the drug industry, but it poses serious dangers to public health," Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, said in an Oct. 1, 2002, letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson.

Waxman said the bad policy decision was "exacerbated by the appointment of Daniel Troy."

The investigative arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, in October 2002 also found that, under the new system, warning notices "have taken so long that misleading advertisements may have completed their broadcast life cycle before FDA issued the letters."

Waxman described the delays as "a development that benefits the powerful pharmaceutical industry at the expense of consumers."

FOOD SAFETY

Charles Lambert

As a USDA official, the former lobbyist for the meat industry who opposed labeling told a hearing that mad cow disease was not a threat.

Mad cow disease had yet to surface in the United States last June when a U.S. Department of Agriculture official - a meat-industry lobbyist only eight months earlier - bet his job on the promise that the ailment couldn't sneak into the country through imports.

Congress had just passed a law requiring meat labels to state which country a cow lived in before slaughter. Food safety groups say those labels could, among other things, help consumers avoid buying beef from countries with mad cow disease.

The USDA opposed such labeling. The person making the agency's case, Deputy Undersecretary Charles Lambert, knew the arguments against such labels. He'd made them as a lobbyist for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Lambert spent 15 years at the Cattlemen's Association working in Denver before coming to Washington, D.C., where he worked as lobbyist and chief economist. He left in December 2002 to join the USDA as undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs.

When asked about mad cow and the labels, Lambert said mad cow disease wasn't a threat.

"Is there a possibility that it could get through?" Rep. Joe Baca, a California Democrat, asked Lambert at a hearing last June.

Lambert answered, "No, sir."

"None at all?" Baca asked.

"No," Lambert replied.

"You would bet your life on it - your job on it, right?"

Lambert answered, "Yes, sir."

The disease was discovered in the U.S. six months later - apparently brought here by a cow from Canada.

Lambert now says, "I overstated my case."

More than a dozen other high-ranking USDA officials appointed under Bush also have ties to the meat industry.

"Whether it's intentional or not, USDA gives the impression of being a wholly owned subsidiary of America's cattlemen," said Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy Institute. She served as a USDA assistant secretary in the Carter White House. "Their interests rather than the public interests predominate in USDA policy."

When he came to the USDA, Lambert signed an agreement stating that in his first year he would "not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which (Cattlemen's) is a party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate."

During that period he met at least 12 times with current or former members of Cattlemen's and its affiliates, an office calendar obtained by The Denver Post shows.

Lambert said that at any meeting where policy was discussed, he acted only as a facilitator and that another USDA person was present. The calendar shows meetings where other USDA people were present, although it is not always clear what was discussed.

The rest of those meetings were at social settings, he said.

"You're not required to sever all personal and past relationships ... when you come to federal employment," Lambert said in an interview.

ENVIRONMENT

Jeffrey Holmstead

The EPA official, a lawyer, formerly worked for a firm that represents utility companies, which are among the biggest air polluters.

When the Environmental Protection Agency issued proposed changes to air pollution rules Jan. 30, the wording troubled Martha Keating, a scientist with environmental advocacy group Clear the Air.

"It struck me that I had seen this before," Keating said.

At least 12 paragraphs were identical to or closely resembled a Sept. 4, 2003, proposal given to the Bush administration by Latham & Watkins, a law firm that represents utility companies.

The EPA official overseeing the proposed changes is Jeffrey Holmstead, who until he joined the EPA in October 2001 had worked as a lawyer at Latham & Watkins. His clients included a chemical company and a trade group for utility companies. Power plants are among the biggest air polluters.

Holmstead oversees the EPA division that governs air pollution.

Environmental groups say the rewrite poses a health threat because it slows the reduction of mercury emissions by as much as 11 years. Those emissions can end up in water where they contaminate fish. Forty-three states have issued advisories about fish consumption because of mercury pollution, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group said.

One effect of the proposal would be that 168 of 236 Western-based plants, including those in Colorado, would not be required to reduce those emissions at all, Keating said.

Lobbyists commonly suggest wording for legislation. But even EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt objects to how this language was lifted.

"To take something from a source without noting it doesn't seem to be the normal course of business, and it shouldn't have been done," EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said, speaking for Leavitt.

Holmstead declined to comment.

Six Democratic senators are asking for an investigation. Ten attorneys general and 45 senators - including three Republicans - have asked Leavitt to void the proposed rule because of undue industry influence.

The inspector general hasn't decided whether to investigate. Bergman said the final pollution rule is still under development.

LAND USE

J. Steven Griles

The tenure of the veteran energy lobbyist at the Interior Department was labeled an "ethical quagmire" by the agency's inspector general.

At the U.S. Department of the Interior, which oversees some 507 million acres of national parks, refuges and rangeland, top officials weigh the competing merits of resource conservation and development.

Bush named J. Steven Griles, a veteran energy industry lobbyist, as the department's second-highest official in June 2001.

Griles earned $585,000 a year as a lobbyist, representing an array of oil, gas and other energy interests. As Interior's deputy secretary, he continues to receive $284,000 a year for four years to pay him for the value he had created for the firm by bringing in clients.

Upon entering the government, Griles had pledged to remove himself from deliberations that affected his former clients.

This year, the department's inspector general called Griles' tenure an "ethical quagmire."

"Mr. Griles' lax understanding of his ethics agreement and attendant recusals, combined with the lax dispensation of ethics advice given to him, resulted in lax constraint over matters in which the deputy secretary involved himself," the inspector general concluded.

That report or a subsequent review by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics found other issues:

A former business partner of Griles' hosted a party for Griles and top Interior officials for land and mining.

Also, a former Griles client, Advanced Power Technologies Inc., won some $2 million in no-bid contracts from his department after two people Griles supervised pressed APTI's case.

And Griles urged the EPA not to press concerns over a plan to open 8 million acres in Wyoming and Montana to gas drilling by companies including six of his former clients. The project is proceeding while a task force studies the matter.

The investigations of Griles found no illegalities. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton announced that her right-hand man had been "cleared."

Review of ethics guidelines

Neither the Bush administration nor Congress has called for a systematic review of government's ethics guidelines.

They should, says Stuart Gilman, president of the Ethics Resource Center, a nonprofit group in Washington that works with companies and government groups.

"The question is, are we dealing with the problems we're currently confronting in government?" Gilman said.

Complaints about ethical breaches within government in some cases can be politically motivated, said Gilman, who also worked in the Office of Government Ethics under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton.

At the same time, Gilman said, governmental leaders have a responsibility to eliminate both real and perceived conflicts of interest.

"For government to function, government must have the confidence of people," Gilman said. "If people don't believe the government is acting fairly, it encourages everyone to cheat."

Denver Post staff writers John Aloysius Farrell and Mike Soraghan and researchers Tamania Davis, Barbara Hudson and Regina Avila contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2004 The Denver Post

Better Day Coming

2006-09-04T04:37:00.000-07:00

Chapter 1 & 2

What different kinds of violence did African Americans experience in the South in the decades after the end of the Civil War? How was violence connected to political issues? What political function did violence serve? How did this violence also shape society and daily life for African Americans?

Chapters 3 & 4

Compare the ideas of WEB DuBois and Booker T. Washington. Be sure to address their different personal backgrounds and their different perspectives on Reconstruction, education, and political activism.

Chapter 5

How did the Great War change life for African Americans? What changed for blacks and what did not between 1914 and 1920? Would you say this was a period of progress or defeat? Why?

Chapter 6

Though most remember Garvey as advocating the return of blacks to Africa, we see here that his ideas were much more complex. What ideas about blacks and Africa did Garvey seek to change? Why did he think the establisment of a "free and independent Africa" would help black Americans? In what ways did his ideas differ with those of the NAACP?

Chapter 7
In the 1930s "radical" groups began to challenge the NAACP's position as the political voice of African Americans. What kinds of criticism were launched at the NAACP? What ideas, strategies, and tactics differentiated activism in the 1930s from the NAACP's approach? Why did some African Americans find communism so appealing?

Chapter 9
"World War II seemed to change everything" including life for African Americans and their quest for civil rights. What do you think are the most important gains for African Americans in this period? What setbacks and defeats for African Americans continued to slow racial progress in this period? Was president Roosevelt part of the problem or part of the solution, in your opinion?

alternative question for Chapter 9 -- you can do this one or the one above

In this chapter we learn more about the extent of and limits to FDR's contribution to civil rights. In what ways did FDR expand rights for blacks and further the goal of racial equality? What are some examples of his failures in supporting civil rights? How does the author explain these failures?

Chapter 10
How did the cold war and the "Red Scare" hurt the civil rights movement and how did it assist the cause of racial equality? How did the NAACP react to pressure from anti-communist activists? What happened to WEB Dubois in this period?

Chapter 11
What role did religion play in the Civil Rights movement? How did the Christian church shape MLK's ideology? How did it provide logistical support for the movement? How the church influence the model of leadership employed by King and the SCLC?

Chapter 12
NO essay question for this chapter

Chapter 13
What was the "Mississippi Freedom Summer"? Why did some civil rights activists think Northern college students could help break the stalemate in Mississippi? Why did some activists oppose the presence of these students? How did Johnson respond to the murder of Schwerner, Goodman, and Cheney?

Chapter 14
What kinds of discrimination did African Americans face in the North? What ideas and beliefs charcterised "black nationalists" and members of the Black Power Movement (including Malcolm X). How did they differ from the ideas of Martin Luther King?

Thus Spake Zinnmeister

2006-08-25T07:11:00.000-07:00

August 25, 2006 Friday

Thus Spake Zinsmeister By THOMAS FRANK.

Thomas Frank is the author, most recently, of ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America.'' He is a guest columnist during August.

In their more grandiloquent moments, conservative publicists will say that the decades-long Republican ascendancy in American government has been an intellectual achievement, that the G.O.P. prevails because it is the ''party of ideas.'' And, indeed, during the last three decades a cottage industry of conservative institutes and foundations has grown into a powerful quasi-academy with seven-figure budgets and phalanxes of ''senior fellows'' and ''distinguished chairs.''

While real academics dither and fret over bugbears like certainty and balance, the scholars of the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute act boldly in the knowledge, to quote a seminal conservative text, that ideas have consequences. Luckily, the consequences are for other people.

Now upon the national stage steps one Karl Zinsmeister, formerly the editor of the American Enterprise Institute's flagship magazine and now the president's chief domestic policy adviser. In right-wing circles he is regarded as an intellectual heavyweight. What his career really shows us, though, is the looming exhaustion of the conservative intellectual system; its hopeless addiction to dusty, crumbling cliches; and a blindness to the reality of conservative power so persistent and so bizarre that it amounts to self-deception or, in Zinsmeister's case, delusion.

Let us begin with Zinsmeister's infamous remark that the people of Washington are ''morally repugnant, cheating, shifty human beings,'' a declaration he later clarified to encompass only the city's ''overclass.'' One could justifiably read his words as an obvious reference to the lobbyists, think-tankers, and fund-raising Congressmen who make up the Republican machine.

But a brief read through Zinsmeister's journalistic oeuvre reveals that liberals are, with a few exceptions, the only ones capable of repugnancy, shiftiness and membership in overclasses. This last quality is a point of particular emphasis in Zinsmeister's writing. Over the years, his editorials come back again and again to ''elites'' and their nefarious ways: ''educated elites,'' ''East Coast elites'' and ''professor/lawyer/journalist/activist elites,'' all of them shamefully out of tune with the good people of America.

Now, I am all for criticizing elites, beginning with Zinsmeister's former employer, the American Enterprise Institute, which has long been the reliable voice of corporate money. Its principals effectively ran the Goldwater campaign in 1964, and it was deep thinkers from the institute who, after moving into the Bush administration, dreamed up the war in Iraq. Today, its roster is a comprehensive directory of conservative Washington power; there is no better-connected group of people outside the government itself.

One might say the institute is a living lesson in the power of elites and shifty overclasses to distort debate. But that would imply that we have classes, and as Zinsmeister once wrote, the idea ''that the United States has separate classes is dubious.''

Then why has Zinsmeister expended so much ink assailing elites and their works? Enter the magic concept of the market, the source of corporate power and all else that is sacred. The working of the free market ''is democracy,'' Zinsmeister writes, ''with pluralities of economic actors exerting votes.'' Democracy itself, however, if it takes the form of a regulatory state, ''is monarchism. It lets the handful at court boss the masses.''

Swallow this, and all the rest of it starts to make sense: how liberals are elites even when they aren't, how the sweatshop economy of the Mariana Islands is the will of a humble people looking to be free from a domineering central government (an argument Zinsmeister's magazine made in 1997), and how a well-subsized think-tank editor can advise the victims of economic dislocation to stop whining.

Swallow too much of it, though, and the almighty market will start to dissolve your moral sense. You might even unconsciously decide to reduce the Almighty to an advertising slogan. For an issue in 2003, Zinsmeister's magazine bore as its headline the words, ''Things Go Better With God,'' a repurposed Coca-Cola slogan in which the King of Kings was allowed to momentarily occupy the throne of the brand of brands. A better writer would have titled it, ''I'd Like to Buy the World a God'' -- but maybe Zinsmeister can propose that as a motto for his new employer.

Flag Burning Amendment

2006-06-30T06:37:00.000-07:00

FOR WHICH IT STANDS
COMMENT
New Yorker Issue of 2006-07-03

Thanks to Justice Brandeis (who lifted the phrase from Lord Bryce, the British scholar-diplomat and author of “The American Commonwealth”), the legislatures of the several states are often styled, not least by their own members, “laboratories of democracy.” And so they are, sometimes, along with also being, sometimes, cockpits of corruption and lairs of lassitude. If, however, a coalition of political panderers, muddleheaded patriots, constitutional defeatists, and outright cynics has its way in the United States Senate this week, the state legislatures will have to take on an additional role: lifeguards of liberty.

On June 22, 2005, without much fanfare, the House of Representatives passed a resolution “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” This was part of a distasteful but, up to now, ultimately harmless biennial political ritual that has been going on ever since the Republican Party took control of the House eleven years ago. The ritual goes like this: In every odd-numbered year (1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005), sometime around Flag Day or the Fourth of July, the House O.K.’s a constitutional amendment purporting to protect the American flag from the menace of burners, stompers, ripper-uppers, and suchlike miscreants. Later, the amendment dies in the Senate, either quietly, without a vote, or noisily, with one. This is going to be one of the noisy years. The difference this time is that the amendment may not die.

Like a dot-com I.P.O., flag mania reached its peak in the House on Day One: 1995’s version of the amendment got three hundred and twelve votes, with a hundred and twenty opposed. Over time, House support has drifted slowly southward. The current version won the backing of two hundred and eighty-six representatives, a record low, while a hundred and thirty voted “nay,” a record high. The other slope of Capitol Hill is another story. The last time the amendment reached the floor of the Senate, during the run-up to the 2000 election, it got sixty-three votes, four short of the needed two-thirds. This time, according to vote counters on both sides, sixty-six votes are a lock. If a sixty-seventh can be scrounged up—or if one of the opposing senators doesn’t show—then the only remaining obstacle will be winning the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures. The catch is that all fifty have passed resolutions endorsing just such an amendment. The resolutions are non-binding, but thirteen legislatures would have to summon the strength of character to walk away from them in order to keep this sad little campaign talking point from becoming forevermore part of the Constitution.

The proposed amendment is a one-liner, though lacking in comic punch. It goes, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” Now, really—is that so terrible? It doesn’t even prohibit flag burning, it just authorizes Congress to pass a law prohibiting it. As opponents point out, that would put the United States in the company of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, pre-invasion Iraq, and other tyrannies. But it turns out that France, Germany, Italy, and India, all of which are reasonably free countries, also have laws against insulting their national ensigns. (Japan, Norway, and—cartoons notwithstanding—polite little Denmark forbid the burning of foreign flags but not their own.) The flag-desecration amendment would hardly mean the death of free expression in America. And, at a time when our government regards itself as empowered to abuse prisoners with impunity and monitor telephone calls without a warrant, protecting the right of a few (mostly conjectural) protesters to engage in one particular, narrow form of political guerrilla theatre (while retaining the right to say or write whatever they please) may not seem the highest of civil-liberties priorities. Yet the prospect of our Constitution being altered in this way is almost unutterably dispiriting. Part of why that is so may be suggested by one of the amendment’s seventeen words, “desecration.”

The American flag is an abstraction, an idea expressed in a certain arrangement of colors and shapes. Any particular flag is merely a representation of that idea; and the idea of the flag, in turn, is a symbol of something else. That something else is certainly not the government of the day; nor is it, at bottom, the land or the nation, or even the people. It is, again, an idea—the idea of liberty, made real by institutional arrangements that protect the freedom of citizens to think and speak as they will. Liberty, which is a big idea, protects itself by protecting the expression (though not, of course, guaranteeing the triumph) of other, smaller ideas, good and bad. And the idea of liberty is embodied in the Constitution.

“Desecration” is a word foreign to the vocabulary of that fiercely secular document, whose only references to religion are in its stern proscriptions of any religious test for public office and any government establishment of, or infringement upon, religious practice. Still, almost all Americans, whatever their religious beliefs or lack thereof, would probably agree that both the flag and the Constitution have a certain sacred character. Most would probably agree on a hierarchy of sacredness that places the flag below the Constitution, and the Constitution’s instrumental passages—those dealing with the mechanics of government—below the Bill of Rights. If the proposed amendment is adopted, it will be the first time that the First Amendment, which is the Constitution’s crowning glory, has itself been amended—and to constrict it, not expand it.

The flag is not a piece of cloth, any more than the Constitution is a piece of paper; and the flag’s sacredness is not damaged when a piece of cloth representing it is burned or trampled or used as an autograph book, any more than the Constitution can be damaged by the destruction of a printed copy. But the Constitution can and would be damaged, to the nation’s shame, by the addition of something as inimical to its spirit as the flag-desecration amendment. One may safely assume that most of the sixty-six senators—fifty-two Republicans and fourteen Democrats—who at this writing are listed as supporting the amendment do not seriously regard it as a good, let alone a necessary, idea. Its Republican supporters intend to use it aggressively while its Democratic supporters intend to use it defensively, but for both the support is a by-product of negative campaigning. (Intellectual corruption, like the venal variety, is no stranger to either party, even if, in the present era, both varieties are more common among Republicans.) “Providence,” Lord Bryce, the laboratories-of-democracy chap, once remarked, “has under its special care children, idiots, and the United States of America.” The kids are still all right, but unless thirty-four senators hold firm Providence may no longer be able to indulge the second without harming the third.

— Hendrik Hertzberg

Health Care US vs UK (Gladwell)

2006-06-10T15:51:00.000-07:00

U.S. versus U.K.

Last week, in his New York Times column , Paul Krugman wrote about a study from the Journal of the American Medical Association , and the study is fascinating enough that it’s worth a second look. It was conducted by a group of epidemiologists at University College London (my parent’s alma mater!). The point was to compare the health of the United States and the United Kingdom. It’s an interesting question for a number of reasons, but principally because the United States spends $5274 per person, per year, on health care and the United Kingdom spends $2164, or substantially less than half as much. The question is—what do we get, in terms of health, that for extra $3100 a year?

Comparisons between countries are pretty tricky. So the study takes a number of precautions. Obviously the United States has a much larger percentage of immigrants, particularly Latino, and a large and (relatively poor) black population. So the comparison is limited to non-Hispanic whites in both countries. Health also differs, dramatically, by socio-economic status, so that everyone in the study was broken up into one of three groups by income and education. It was also limited to men and women between the ages of 55-64, and the age distribution of the two countries was identical.

So what do they find?

The first conclusion is that Americans are really, really sick compared to the British. In every socio-economic group, for instance, the prevalence of diabetes is roughly double in the United States than it is in the United Kingdom. Rates of hypertension, heart disease, heart attacks, stroke, lung disease and cancer are also all higher in the United States. And not just a little big higher. Much higher. So, for example, 2.3 percent of the English have had a stroke, versus 3.8 percent of the Americans.

Is that because Americans have unhealthier lifestyles? Not really. Levels of smoking, in the two countries, are pretty similar. Americans are much more likely to be obese (31.3 versus 23 percent). But then 30 percent of the British were heavy drinkers, versus 14.4 percent of Americans. (One of the curious facts in the study: in both the United States and the United Kingdom, the more money you make and the more education you have, the more you drink. There are roughly twice as many heavy drinkers in the best educated English cohort as there are in the least educated English cohort. So much for class assumptions about alcohol.) The study’s author did a statistical exercise, where they assumed that the British group had exactly the same lifestyle risk factors as their American counterparts. The result? Nothing much changes. Americans were still far sicker than the British.

Krugman argues that this is evidence of how much more stressful living in America is than living in England. I think that's absolutely right. I would simply add that it is one more nail in the coffin of the notion that good health is something that can be purchased through fancy, high-tech drugs and doctors and hospitals,.I know the idea that health care is just another consumer good is pretty popular at the moment. But its very hard to read the JAMA study, see what our $5274 actually buys us--and still believe in that notion. Our health is in reality a function of the broader society in which we live--the pressures and conditions and environments in which we find ourselves. The next time we have a debate about, say, how much to tax the rich, or how to structure old age pensions, it would be nice if someone in Washington had the courage to make this point.

Iraq timeline - Christian Coalition tax policy for Iraq

2006-04-28T06:57:00.000-07:00

Politicians Pander to a super stupid electorate : "Gas prices too high" NO POLITICAL COURAGE – Democrats and Republicans both afraid. We need gas taxes, not low gas prices to develop alternative fuels with markets , pork free, instead of subsidy-based. Avoid dead marines for the next 50 years. Americans are as averse to education or serious thought as an AttentionDeficitDisorder 5 year old "Education is the only commodity where people want as little as they can get for their money"
Fox News anchor & Bush new press secretary says : Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06]– “George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” – “No president has looked this impotent this long .... – Bush “has given the impression that [he] is more eager to please than lead, and that political opponents can get their way if they simply dig in their heels and behave like petulant trust-fund brats, demanding money and favor — now!” [9/30/05] – “When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no. In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.” “The president doesn’t seem to give a rip about spending restraint.” – “Bush, for all his personal appeal, ultimately bolstered his detractors’ claims that he didn’t have the drive and work ethic to succeed.” [11/16/00] – “George W. Bush ........ stunned a friendly audience by barking out absurd and inappropriate words, like a soul tortured with Tourette’s.” “He recently tried to dazzle reporters by discussing the vagaries of Congressional Budget Office economic forecasts, but his recitation of numbers proved so bewildering that not even his aides could produce a comprehensible translation. The English Language has become a minefield for the man, whose malaprops make him the political heir not of Ronald Reagan, but Norm Crosby.”
Bush43 is not a Conservative – he spends like a drunken sailor as noted above. Every one of you has a mortgage of over $150,000 in the national debt alone. In promised spending in the incredibly pork-ridden medicare drug benefit you have ied

B43 does not like science at least when it is not convenient to his campaign donors. He has feelings rather than thoughts . "I will not argue with myself" Complains "My advisors are trying to nuance me". Takes pride in making decisions with his gut . When he finds a person he feels good about will follow rather than making decisions himself. When he met Vladimir Putin – the man who is destroying democracy in Russia, Putin showed him his crucifix. Bush said ""I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country," Bush declared after their 2001 visit.
Bush43 meets with a novelist instead of scientist(s) on Global warming – Michael Crichton writes novels which claim Global Warming is a hoax. Bush43 loves this like reagan loved Star Wars. The White house hires an EXXON employee to add qualifiers to scientific reports on global warming. The scientific consensus on Global Warming is VERY strong. Latest papers argue that Hurricane Katrina's strength was a result of warming. In referreed papers (where data is checked by other scientists) 928 papers between 1993 & 2003 – none disagree with the consensus position Papers have vanishingly small differences – all the data, all the serious models, all the trends agree. Bush43 & Congressional Republicans get lotsa $$$ from energy companies and call Global Warming "the greatest hoax"
Many of Reagan's & Bush1's advisors – who really were CONSERVATIVE – are writing very angry books – B43 huge deficits, radical plans to reshape the world on the cheap, no respect for culture and tradition ...
Video: wonderfully manipulative with old craggy curmudgeon Democrat LtGov – "I'm gonna f*** you on this bill" "well, if you are, I'm going to get a kiss first" and grabs him and kisses him on the head – "Get offa me" - so now everyone has to laugh..... Whatever the legislature is planning to do next session B43 gets on TV and says we're going to do ______ which happens.
B43 fights to keep the lowest % of kids insured of any state under Clinton's health care "CHIPS" Childrens health. He wants a bit tax cut for energy companies.
Noone in media covers the internal debates – just the press conferences and human interest stuff. B43 big cuts in oil and other taxes, fights education increases, leaves Huge deficits which his successor has to handle – like a trust fund kid's huge bills But the short term politics is great.
N43 has Karl Rove to slime opponents and leak ( 5th time before grand jury today about exposing CIA non-proliferation agent - fired twice by Pappy Bush - first became known by his SUPER-SLASH-AND-BURN Campaign for President of National Young Republicans – makes into a guerilla war sliming opponent. Reagan had an 11th commandment "never speak ill other Republicans"
Hiring Reagan or Bush43 to run a country is Like hiring a doctor who doesn't have much interest in details and techniques of surgery. He just likes to walk around in a Surgeons scrubs with a stethescope & smoke a pipe and look thoughtful & act cool. Bush loves acting and cheerleading (his college activity)
Flew to an aircraft carrier "and pranced around the flight deck in his rented flight suit trying to look like a real warrior" – somebody with the Right Stuff instead of AWOL.
Big "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" SIGN becomes embarrassing when insurgency they hadn't planned for continues to grow. Blamed it on the sailors – that turns out to be a lie. Media plan : do no show casualties or coffins coming back.
The generals on the ground kept saying "We don't have anywhere near enough troops – there's an insurgency! But Rumsfeld is in deep denial – There is no such thing – "not and insurgency" ; just a few dead-enders and alarmists in the press

ECONOMICS Republicans have fought Minimum Wage increase - a reasonable Minimum wage – would slow down massive immigration because USA workers could make a living with manual labor – learn the disciline of work – we'd pay more for lettuce & grapes.
The Duke LaCrosse team might not be able to buy and sell people like the poor student who was doing exhotic dancing to pay her way through North Carolina State University. Has kids, working her way through college trying to improve herself – good luck having any time with the kids with a $5.45. Average income of a family in Durham lower than one-year-tuition for Duke students – many children of inherited privilege In New Orleans during Katrina media says whites "are scavenging for food", blacks are "looting"
In 1999, CEOs made 458 times as much as production and non-supervisory workers. If minimum wage had risen during the 1990s as rapidly as CEO pay, it would have been $24.13 an hour by 1999 instead of $5.15. Less in the realm of fantasy, if wages had at least kept pace with productivity, which rose 46.5 percent from 1973 to 1998, the median wage would have risen to $17.27 an hour, rather than $11.29, giving $12,438 more a year to full-time workers.
The countr- club Gated-community boys & the Christian Coalition – run the country – neither one could do it alone. One likes being able to hire gardeners & child care at even lower than the minimum wage. The other says "that slut got what she deserved."
Pell grants cover half as much of college costs as they used to. Working class students get out of school with big debt and not enough time to study working 30 or 40 hour weeks. American working class has very little family time. Work 2 months longer every year than Europeans who have 6 weeks off, a cabin in the country, time for an evening meal. Working Class Americans Fast Food and not enough time to follow politics.

Christian Coalition of Alabama tax facts
-What does the Bible say about taxes? There is no scriptural mandate that Christians should simply yield to any level of taxation or that we should not protest when tax dollars are used to fund un-godly purposes (example - public funding of abortions, obscene art, etc.).

-Why does the Christian Coalition of Alabama support low taxes? We believe that when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual, not the government. From a biblical perspective, we owe our first fruits to God. When taxes are low, this benefits families. How do bottom 60% of families do under Bush43 or Reagan? Are millions of kids into poverty “bernefits”? Increased abortions?

-What is a "fair" tax system? Many today, seem to define fair in a Marxian sense: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Regardless of the tax system, taxing some individuals at higher rates than others is "unfair" in the strictest sense of the word. The debate often centers on perceived inequity. The basic argument goes: "The more you make the more you should pay." The idea of taxing the rich is gratifying to many, but "rich" is a term rarely defined as well. According to the IRS, individuals making more than about $28,000 are included in the top 50% of taxpayers. Taxing the rich actually means taxing those in middle-income brackets as well. A second flaw in this reasoning is that it results in punishing success. The higher one moves in income the higher their tax burden should be, or so the argument goes.

Imposing greater tax burdens on families takes much needed resources from those who can least afford it. Creating a truly fair tax system is the subject of much discussion, with ideas including a national sales tax (consumption tax), reforming the current IRS code, a flat tax on income
"You cannot reduce the deficit by raising taxes. Increasing taxes only results in more spending, leaving the deficit at the highest level conceivably accepted by the public. Political Rule No. 1 is: Government spends what government receives plus as much more as it can get away with." -- Milton Friedman
1) Tax increases are one of the worst steps that can be taken to make up revenue shortfalls. This specifically includes taxes on capital and businesses
CONCLUSION When politicians pit one group against another, the only winners are those who believe that more power should be concentrated in the federal government. The economic evidence clearly demonstrates that the U.S. economy will produce significant income gains for all Americans as long as appropriate policies are followed.
In the gilded era of the 1920s, the last time the richest 1% of Americans owned over 40% of the wealth, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, "We can have democracy in this country or great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
We've responded to record-breaking income disparities by enacting a tax cut that will increase the wealth gap. The richest 1% of taxpayers will receive 38% of $1.34 trillion over ten years, while 34 million Americans will receive nothing.
top one percent captured 70 percent of all earnings growth since the mid-1970's. consumer debt hit a record $1.54 trillion in January, 2001.
Most successful airline – Southwest – has the smallest gap between top and bottom workers. The most profitable GM plant is in Europe where health care costs bite least and workers are well provided for and well educated. Highest executive pay : ENRON . Win's Forbes Magazine greatest corporation 3 years in a row. Steal $28Billion from Calif after their Chief Ken Lay tells Bush43 who to pick for head of Federal Energy Commission.
Franklin Roosevelt's views about economic justice were considered so central to his presidency that they are carved in stone on his monument in Washington, D.C.:
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
In the Declaration of Independence the founders replaced " ...Life liberty and property" with the phrase "Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If every child has the capabilities to pursue happiness all else is trivial pursuit.
B43 didn't want debates with serious questions. Pushed for a dual interview on Larry King for folksy schmoozing.
Gore wanted serious talk – 8 times first debate Gore says " most of B43 tax cut to top 5%" "42% to top 1%" - Second debate "you mention fuzzy math all the time – are there any of VP Gore's numbers you want to contest?" no number mentioned
Few voters REMEMBERS facts WHEN QUIZZED BY POLLSTERS. How YOU LOOK AND CARRY YOURSELF MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT YOU SAY. EASIER TO DETECT LIES ON RADIO – WE'RE instinctively CHARMED OR TURNED OFF BY BODY LANGUAGE. CLINTON AND B43 good persona. Gore is stiff and nervous & sighing and rolling his eyes as B43 talks – how could someone say such stupid things? Public reaction "the smart kid is picking on the dumb kid – what a meanie."

IRAQ TIMELINE
Nixon helps create OPEC so the Shah will have $ for huge weapons purchases. Our proxie to keep order in Persian Gulf. Texans love it – low priced oil drives down American oil prices. They love OPEC's ability to make them RICHER. HALIBURTON and others in Military industrial get big pork$$$$ from contracting, & defense industries.
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.
Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly. …………… We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren. We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices. The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation. Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy. ………. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. …………. demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. ………. But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden. ……………….. ……………… .. Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. …….. while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste. .... We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now…. Intense competition will build up among nations government must take responsibility - make the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and be willing to make sacrifices. effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs ….. energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it. ($50 now) ………………….. prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford …….. must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century. .--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, …..Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply. --Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses ……. give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act…………….The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.
Carter puts US on a Glide path for no Persian Gulf Oil
Reagan "sunrise in America" Free lunch – SUV's exempt from CAFE gas-milage standards. Prices
The whole world knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds that allied themselves with Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, including Iraq's ally, the United States. Not only did the Reagan administration turn a blind eye to Saddam's murders, but Reagan also blocked Congress from punishing Iraq with sanctions. "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," wrote Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy in September 1988 as he addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis.
Iraq I 1990 caused by miscalculations and mistakes – not purposeful lies. US helps arm Iraq – they are "enemy of our enemy" – Iran. Reagan & Bush41 Rumsfeld etc helps with poison gas of Iranians, send biological weapons material - refuse to criticize gassing – oppose congress attempt to sanction Sadaam – Believe Sadaam will only grab a little of Kuwait – "We have no defense treaty with Kuwait" – Kuwait has slant wells & overproduce OPEC quota to drive price down and hurt Iraq (deep in debt from fighting Iran)-

IRAQ I 1990
When Pappy Bush went to a meeting of world big-wigs at the Aspen Institute a few days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 he had said there would be no Military response. At Aspen however he talked to Maggie Thatcher, the conservative Prime Minister of England. She told the story of how her Falklands warwas respoonsible for her political survival "I was about to be defeated (1982) when the Falklands conflict happened. I stayed in office for 8 years after that".
Her popularity was at a low ebb – but a splendid quick little punitive expedition against the Argentine colonels had turned out triumphantly. She had gained the political capital that let her kill many social programs. She privatized Social Security & starved universal health care – all with the political capital garnered from Falklands.
In 1998 Bush43 told the family biographer: Dick Cheney sez an easy war against Iraq would have similar results to Maggies. It would be a glorious success – Bush would get himself "political capital," perhaps so he could privatize Social Security and screw universal health care, same as Maggie. Bush said that was his plan. He also told the biographer that he planned to never admit mistakes. It was better to keep to a simple story. Truth value is irrelevant politically. (remember George Wallace and ther judge he said backed down? Wallace just kept saying the judge backed down even though Wallace had - and it worked. If you say something sincerely over and over people will believe it if the story mekes them feel good or if it gives them a villain they can feel righteous indignation about... )

Bush41 took Maggie's advice In Iraq. "This will not stand"
But: in everything from war to health care the devil is in the details.
Bush41 warred in a careful "reality based" way.
He listened to Powell and Scocroft – who counseled caution.
He waited till after the election so the debate would be honest, not political posturing.
Colin Powell and many Democrats were for slightly more patience. Some for sanctions for a while. but almost everyone agreed that Sadaam would be made to withdraw.
I HAVE AN INTELLECTUAL AFFINITY TO PEOPLE WHO SERVED ON THE GROUND IN VIETNAM.
THEY DO NOT BULLSHIT ABOUT WAR.
SOLDIERS Zini, Shinseki, Powell, Armitage, Senators Hegel & Kerry
(McCain is airforce, Rummy is peacetime airforce, anyone from the airforce is dumb about blood
Iraq I (Desert Storm) was carefully planned – international support assiduously mustered –
Domestic debate careful and civil – few American lives lost –
Expenses paid on a cost-plus basis – by Saudis and others.
Sadaam was ejected from Kuwait,
BUT _ had anyone planned the after-war? OOPS! D'ooooh!
but the end of the war was a bit of a mess. Really ugly pictures of the "Road of Death" turned the stomach of Pappy, Powell and Scocroft – who had actually been in wars. We encouraged a revolt against Sadaam – but only enforced a no-fly-zone for the Kurds. Iraqi Shiites might be too close to the Mullahs in Iran – the reason we were arming Sadaam in the first place.

Jay Garner became our man in Kurdistan after we established the no-fly-zone.. He didn't micromanage make the locals do it themselves. He just refereed dispute resolution. No shelling cities, no bombing.
He held elections as soon as possible.
We gave the Kurds oil $ and let them do politics.
They cut infant mortality in half and built schools and hospitals and had a little free press –
although the two factions were fighting more than occasionally.
Gore 1993 – pushed for BTU (dirty energy) tax to cut deficit and encourage alternative energy and avoid pork.
Gore also pushed the Kyoto accords to limit CO2 (from oil and coal burning) and slow global warming
Clinton tried to get Bin Laden with cruise missiles after embassy bombings in 1998 . He just missed by 2 hours. Republicans screamed "wag the dog" and publicly claimed Clinton was doing this for political reasons in the middle of their sex scandals.
Republicans need an ENEMY! Too confusing to have SEX & TERRORISM at once.
The case for global hegemony through unilateral action was first presented in 1992 Pentagon paper Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney - rapidly suppressed by the Bush I administration. Wolfowitz opposed President Bush's 1991 decision not to press on to Baghdad and get rid of Saddam Hussein forever. In 1996 a document prepared by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith (Gen Franks calls "stupidest $#%** in history") , and half a dozen others for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli hard-liner, called for, among other things, a "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." The hard-liners were admirers of the hard-assed tactics of the Israelis.
Republicans need enemies Fukuyama says of Bill Kristol and his circle at The Weekly Standard that during the 1990s "There was actually a deliberate search for an enemy because they felt that the Republican Party didn't do as well" when foreign policy wasn't on the issue agenda. The obvious candidates were either China or something relating to Islamic fundamentalism and, as Fukuyama notes, what they came up with was China. Then 9/11 changed things around, at least for a few years. I think this is very telling, and reveals a great deal about the mentality that's been guiding America's foreign policy during the Bush years.
Having a scary enemy – like Arabs they subsidize and piss off - was not bad for their political influence – which needs enemies. It also wasn't bad for their investments in the Carlyle Group. Which invests in Aerospace, Defense & energy companies. Mostly owned by private individuals including Bush family, Bin Laden family former CIA & Defense department officials, who might possibly have inside information about government policy in many of those industries. One of the porky benefits of privatization. The Group's aerospace and defense investments have been a source of criticism because of the Group's alleged connections to the Middle East.
Unseating Sadaam in Iraq was very popular with Religions Right - Pat Robertson and Falwell - Jews reclaiming Jerusalem is important for the End Times. The Palestinians should just forget about all the land Israel has expropriated. In 1998 Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle were among the eighteen signers of an open letter to President Clinton arguing that regime change in Iraq "needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

CRONY-CORRUPTION
(
the Bush dynasty differs from other American families that have mixed wealth with political prominence. While the Kennedys and the Rockefellers may have a sense of entitlement, they also display a sense of noblesse oblige—what one might call an urge to repay, with charitable contributions and public service, their good fortune. The Bushes don't have that problem; there are no philanthropists or reformers in the clan. They seek public office but, if anything, they seem to feel that the public is there to serve them $$$.
Let's put W. to one side for a moment, and look at how his brothers used their political connections to enrich themselves. Here are a few highlights:
• Before he was elected governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, in partnership with a Cuban refugee whom Phillips suggests had CIA connections, bought an office building with $4.6 million borrowed from a savings and loan. When the S&L went bankrupt, the loan was taken over by the federal Resolution Trust Corporation, which for some reason allowed the partners to settle their debt for only $500,000. In another deal, Jeb was paid handsomely by a company selling pumps to Nigeria that somehow received large-scale financing from the US Export-Import Bank.
• Neil Bush sat on the board of another S&L, Silverado, which made $200 million in loans—subsequently defaulted—to an oil company that in turn gave Neil large loans with no obligation to repay. In recent divorce proceedings it has emerged that a firm backed by Chinese businessmen, including the son of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin, paid Neil large sums in return for vaguely defined services.
• After the first Gulf War Marvin Bush, who went to Kuwait seeking business in 1993, served on the boards of several companies controlled by the Kuwait-American Company. A member of Kuwait's royal family is one of Kuwait-American's major shareholders, and it seems reasonable to say that in effect Marvin works for the al-Sabahs.
And then there's the story of how George W. himself became rich. Many people now know the tale—the failed companies that somehow got bought out at premium prices, the insider stock sale that somehow was never properly investigated, the government generosity that made the Texas Rangers such a good deal for the businessmen who picked W. to be their public face. Several of these deals, like those of brother Marvin, had Middle East connections. Bush's first venture, Arbusto, may have involved bin Laden family money. The story of George W.'s stake in Harken Energy—which he sold two months before it announced large losses—involved a puzzling surprise deal with the government of Bahrain.
Here's how Phillips summarizes the picture:
All in all, if presidential family connections were theme parks, Bush World would be a sight to behold. Mideast banks tied to the CIA would crowd alongside Florida S&Ls that once laundered money for the Nicaraguan contras. Dozens of oil wells would run eternally without finding oil, thanks to periodic cash deposits by old men wearing Reagan-Bush buttons and smoking twenty-dollar cigars. Visitors to "Prescott Bush's Tokyo" could try to make an investment deal without falling into the clutches of the yakuza....
But aside from casting some light on the President's character, why does this shady family history matter? Phillips makes a convincing case that Bush family crony capitalism is closely intertwined with Bush administration policy.
In part, it's a matter of values, W.'s "instinctive policy fealty" to the activities that made his family rich. Although he ran in 2000 as a moderate, his policies, from the tax cuts to the scrapping of the Kyoto Protocol, have been relentlessly in favor of both the rich and the energy industry. And according to Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, W. appears to have a visceral dislike for corporate reform. More ominous, perhaps, is Phillips's contention that family history has shaped Bush foreign policy. It's a great irony that George W. Bush, beloved by red-blooded, red-state Americans for his down-home manner, comes from a family with deep political and business connections to the Middle East. As someone once pointed out, it's a lot easier to document links between the bin Laden family and the Bushes than it is to document links between the bin Ladens and Saddam Hussein....... George H.W. Bush's post-presidential employment by the Carlyle Group, the private global investment firm whose Saudi investors included members of the bin Laden family.
BUSH43 tax policy has contributed to surging economic inequality, which has led to a broad-based "dynastization of America." To put the matter simply, the economic elite has become far more elite than it was a generation ago. Since the late 1970s, the top 1 percent of the population has more than doubled its share of national income, and the top 0.01 percent has increased its share by a factor of six. Today there is, to an extent not seen since the 1920s, a substantial class of people wealthy enough to form their own dynasties. And in a variety of ways, from political contributions to more subtle shaping of culture, for example by promoting aristocratic values, this class has created an environment favorable for dynastic ambitions.
Second is the, um, unholy alliance between the dynastic class and the religious right. I found Phillips's explanation of how Bush uses religiously charged language to signal his alliance with fundamentalists revelatory
Bush's day-to-day language was a veritable biblical message center. Besides the ever-present references to "evil" and "evil ones," chief White House speechwriter Michael Gerson, a onetime college theology major, filled George W. Bush's delivery system with phrases that, while inoffensive to secular voters, directed more specific religious messages to the faithful....
Biblical scholar Bruce Lincoln's line-by-line analysis of Bush's October 7, 2001, address to the nation announcing the US attack on Afghanistan identified a half dozen veiled borrowings from the Book of Revelation, Isaiah, Job, Matthew, and Jeremiah. He concluded that for those with ears to hear a biblical subtext, "by the [speech's] end America's adversaries have been redefined as enemies of God and current events have been constituted as confirmation of scripture."

Clinton – arms sale embargo on Saudi Arabia May 1993 Aspin announced "the end of the Star Wars era,"
Clinton's first major defense initiative would finance more training and equipment maintenance, grant new cost-of-living pay increases, upgrade military housing and expand child-care services.
Creates a Peacekeeping Institute to handle after-war stabilization. Killed by B43 as soon as he is in office.
Transition 2001 Clinton tells Bush43 "Bin Laden should be your focus". – Bush sez no - Iraq ON TOP
BUSH43 - Has a great GUT reaction instinct for people and for how things will play politically
Paul O'Neill B43 Treasury secy and DeLulio first head of Faith based initiatives both say: "they never discuss policy, just the political implications of what they do" "Have no interest in actually getting benefits to poor people" "Mayberry Machiavellis"
B43 has been involved in campaigns not governing. As when a family friend helps him buy Baseball team he's the front man – the Public Relations face.
Does not want to talk about the nuances and details of public policy. Cuts off anyone who tried to talk about details – "put down that report - tell me what the most important thing I have to know to make this decision" Death penalty briefs – Gonzales leaves out mitigating factors – extremely cursory
COMPLEXITY Bush43 HATES complexity - Complains that advisors are "nuancing him to death" - Feels that he ios a good judge of people – more likely to judge by his gut reaction to a person than by debate and thought I don't argue with myself – VERY UNLIKELY TO reconsider a decision or learn from a bad decision Decisiveness – never a doubt – never ponders possible error - politically wonderful – dubious for good policy – at the mercy of advisors for details
B43 needs love and loyalty– didn't get from family. Harriet Meyers – his embarrassing Supreme court nominee – an undistinguished corporate lawyer and white-house-assistant council-to -the-president who writes fawning cards to the President telling him how inspiring he is – that he's "the most intelligent man I've ever met" He was disrespected in his family – talks about how his mother "Old Refigerator Hands" never cooked for him. Jeb is the fair-haired-boy disciplined hard working studious. B43 is the jokester -black sheep. The world didn't appreciate me – and they were wrong – God has decided I should be president. Rumors : may nuke Iran's nuclear program "because no president after me would have the courage to" ...
9/9 and 9/10 2001 Democrat Congress tries to move $ from star wars and anti-drug programs to war on terror defense spending and intelligence. Bush threatened a veto

Bush went on vacation instead of sounding an alarm when he read "Bin Laden determined to attack US." The CIA and terrorism chief were "running around with their hair on fire." Condi Rice refused to have a meeting Richard Clark (anti-teor-chief) was desperate for. Bush would have to make a decision. Bush demands short position papers with a simple consensus. The meeting in summer 2001 would have seen strong disagreements between Clark strongly advocating a Bin Laden focus against Cheney and Wolfowitz focused on Iraq.

9 / 11 Bush looks and acts like a deer in headlights for 10 minutes (Cynthia McKinney – sez he knew it was coming. If you knew it was coming would you look like a deer in the headlights after going awol once already?)

Bush43 squands chance (Gore would have siezed) to do something about what he has correctly characterised as America's "addiction" to oil. After the attacks of September 11 2001, the president had a unique opportunity to create a bipartisan and public consensus behind increased energy efficiency and reduced energy dependency, especially on oil imported from politically unreliable parts of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. He did not take it. Instead he said "GO SHOPPING" The administration took four years to produce an energy bill that in no way addresses the fact that per capita energy use in the US is far higher than in any of its competitors - in transport, for example, three times that of Japan.
This level of energy intensity has little to do with high rates of economic growth and a great deal to do with driving habits. More fuel-efficient engines do not translate into more miles per gallon if cars keep getting heavier and faster, and the culture and the economic incentives ensure that the Hummer trumps the Hybrid.
The solution – drill in Alaska. Make sure the grand-children have no oil left – to go with their huge mortgage.

Afghanistan - Neocons wanted to attack Iraq first – only talked into Afghhanistan by Powell and Blair.
US has huge international sympathy.
Lack of attention let Bin Laden escape Tore Bora
Resources were already moving to Iraq.
United Nations and Europeans brought in to do most of the policing and organize a government by traditional Loya Jurga – leave warlords in place. . 2.5 million Afghanis return home.
Too little help - but still much improved .
Powell – is in administration because VERY POPULAR most Americans. Shut out of Iraq debate & planning because he's not a "true believer." Powell gave his unvarnished opinion of draft-dodging chicken-hawks and National Guard Draft-dodgers like Cheney and Bush43 in his biography. Powell expressed contempt for "slide-rule prodigies" "High-tech warriors back in the Pentagon" Fight between Vietnam veterans of the war on the ground and Star wars true believers & Air Force
Future of Iraq Group has State Department experts, academics , many exiles from all Iraaqi groups. Detailed Planning for after-war Discarded completely.
Cheney :anyone connected to Powell must be excluced. Cheney is the one with a gut-connection to B43.
Cheney & Wolfowitz have visions of the quick and easy "political capital" "cakewalk" "oil will pay for reconstruction" "we'll be greeted as liberators with flowers like Liberating France in WWII. Their ignorance of Iraq is impermeable to logic experience and knowledge of Iraq "We don't study reality .... we change it" Ahmad Chibali is feeding their delusions with bd information on WMD and stories / visions of how he can take over and make eveything work – just put me in charge and you can leave – pln to be down to 30,000 troops

WAR DEBATE Vietnam Vets – army and Marines VS Neocon True Believers
Opposite of Pappy Bush who had serious policy debate – after election – B43 foreign policy decided by politics. Iraq timed for midterm election
Summer 2002 – election diskette from Rove says run against Democrats by calling them "soft on Iraq war" rather than look for national unity. It works.
Aug 2002 – Andy Card White House Chief of staff – "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August"
Elections campaign:– slime Max Cleland a veteran who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam because he objects to one anti-union provision in the Homeland Security bill. Commercials morph him into Osama. Bush43 had been resisting Homeland Security bill a few months before.
Slime Scott Ritter – head of weapons inspection team – who says there are no WMD. In the early 1990's Sadaam was denying WMD. When inspectors started finding stuff Sadaam didn't want to admit he'd been lying. Destroyed WMD secretly without calling press or making films. Had no receipts or proof. . Bush43 demands proof of a negative – prove you have no WMD
Powell speaks to United Nations before war. Loyal "good soldier" passing on BS gathered by OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS Feith and Cheney. Nothing true.

Three weeks before the war, Shinseki head of Joint Chiefs of Staff (lost part of his foot in Vietnam)testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Shinseki finally said, based on his own past experience, that he thought it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. Rummy (Air Force) wants only 80,000. Vietnam veterans have seen the results – a desrtoyed army – when civilians put army in a situation with not enough troops & no way to win & no exit strategy. Many more casualties when not enough troops to take control and secure order. Once you led disorder erupt you're screwed. Powell Doctrine or Scocroft Doctrine. Larry Lindsey – Treasury Secretary - told the truth on war cost - $200 Billion - was fired. Joe Wilson told the truth about Uranium from Niger and gets slimed and his wife (CIA agent) exposed. Oak Ridge was ignored on aluminum tubes (ubsuitable for uranium enrichment) .
Several days later, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, appeared before a different committee. [He] went out of his way essentially to slap Shinseki in the face, to say there had been some recent estimates that had been "wildly off the mark." Then he went on to say that it was almost impossible to imagine that it would be harder, and take more troops, to occupy Iraq than it had taken to conquer them; whereas that point, that it would be harder to occupy than conquer, was in fact the central theme the Army had been advancing before the war.
UN inspections were going well at this point – except from the Neocon's Point of view. The inspections weren't finding WMD's. The unanimous Security Council and the US Senate had authorized the threat of force to get inspections. Cheney and Rumsfeld often claimed they knew exactly where the weapons were. In hearings Senator Levin asked George Tenet (head of CIA) "are you telling the UN where the WMD are?" Tenet (head CIA) said they were,. But after the war started, just before his resignation, sent a letter saying "oops" - they hadn't given the UN inspectors any locations. Another accident. There were no WMD.
Cheney started his own alternative intelligence organization. They used sources like a man the Germans called "Curveball" because they thought he was mentally unstable.
Administration officials arguing for immediate war like Condi Rice used the theat that "the smokuing gun may be a mushroom cloud". Memo mysteriously appeared purporting to be about uranium shipped from Niger to Iraq. Everyone except Cheney and his independent intelligence unit (Feith) thought it was a forgery. Muhammed Al Baradai head of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) said it was a crude forgery and was attacked by Cheney. Even Tenet made the Neo-cons remove uranium references from a speech. Feith reinserted it into a State of the Union speech. The speech said that the British had the letter and described it as credible. They appologized for this lie later – said it was "an accident".
The Neocons did a similar job on Sadaam's aluminum tubes: they claimed were for Uranium enrichment. Everyone at Oak Ridge said this was crazy. The tube walls were too thick and they were anodized which doesn't work. Cheney found 2 young inexperienced technically naiive Defense Intelligence Agancy guys to say they were great for enrichment. They gave them (and Tenet) medals.
The CIA – responding to Cheney's push to find Uranium links - sent Pappy Bush's favorite ambassador (ambassador to Iraq during Iraq War I) Joe Wilson to Niger. Wilson knew Niger well having been ambassador there. . Wilson reported (like everyone else) that the uranium story was not credible, bogus. When Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times saying that the Administration knew the Uranium stories were bogus someone leaked his wife's name (a secret CIA agent working on Proliferation) to reporters. Turns out to be Rove (and Scooter Libby - on trial soon but will delay and be pardoned) and Robert Novak again. Remember Pappy Bush fired Rove for leaking to Novak twice years ago.
Bush43 said anyone who revealed classified info would be fired and he wanted to know if anyone did. The White House now says Bush himself secretly declassified the documents – and Cheney ordered the selective-deceptive-secret-partial-leaks. Oops.
WAR – Very QUICK – BYPASS RESISTANCE – DO NOT GUARD WEAPONS CACHES – DO NOT KEEP ORDER Army complains – is ignored.
REPUBLICAN THEORY OF Abu Ghraib : "BAD APPLES AT BOTTOM OF BARREL" Only investigate towards bottom of Chain of Command
WEAPONS CACHES : Rudy Giulani "Bad apples" soldiers on the ground failed to guard the weapons dumps NOT A FAILURE OF PLANNING!!!
AFTER WAR – Jay Garner (the guy who made Kurdistan work in the 1990's) – DEMOCRACY NOW! let them vote soon – FIRED after a few weeks – not a true-believer.
Paul Bremmer – true believer - rule from the top – hand-pick a few favorite Iraqis. Flat taxes. Against Islam's third Pillar. CHRISTIAN COALITION TAX POLICY FOR A MUSLIM COUNTRY. Disband the Iraqi Army – send them home – good luck – you're unemployed. Everyone except the Neocon true-believers argues vigorously against this. DEEP DE-BAATHIFICATION. Remove all sources of organization. No-one connected to State Department or non-true-believers can work in reconstruction.
Coalition strength
Dick Cheney said: "You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in '91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we've got 30 today. We've got troops beside us." Fred Kaplan supplies the actual numbers, from official U.S. government sources: Gulf war: 800,000 non-U.S. troops. Iraq war: 24,000 non-U.S. troops. So, according to the Vice President, a military force of 800,000 is not "far stronger" than a military force of 24,000.'...

Bush planned to put Chalabi in charge of Iraq, but Chalabi had no grass roots. He was the one who had the bright idea to throw thousands of ex-Baathists into unemployment (which encouraged them to join the guerrilla resistance). It later came out that some of the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon had let it slip to him that the US had broken the Iranian diplomatic codes. Chalabi is chummy with Tehran and let his friends among the Ayatollahs know this tidbit. As a result, the US can no longer closely track the Iranian nuclear program.
The Deep-Baathification – dismissing the army units which had answered our call to "melt away" during the war – instead of being sent to guard the borders were told "you're unemployed" Take your weapons home and watch your family starve.

LACK OF LEADERSHIP Without someone at the top, like a President, who could make decisions between competing plans, often parts of the administration were pursuing policies that were at odds with each other parts.
One of many examples was in December 2003 when James Baker set off to negotiate Iraqi debt forgiveness with our estranged allies. Mr. Baker's mission was part of an effort by veterans of the first Bush administration to extricate George W. Bush from the hard-liners' clutches. If the mission were to collapse for any reason – like maybe acrimony over contracts for oil and reconstruction - that's a good thing from the hard-liners' point of view.
So at that very moment Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense released a "Determination and Findings" on reconstruction contracts that not only excludes those allies from bidding, but does so with highly offensive language, deliberately sabotaging reconciliation.
The Neocons were still in denial at this point in public – denying publicly that there was any insurgency while the Army said the opposite. They still thought there would be lots of gravy and glory.
ZARQAWI! Bush administration deliberately avoided striking Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the war because doing so would undermine their deeply dishonest to tie Sadaam to terrorists. B43 later claimed they never said that. He admitted there was no connection. Somehow 80% of American voters heard and believed there was a connection – especially FOX viewers.
Sometimes, what you don't say is the most important part. Take Tony Snow's remarks to Carl Levin this week on Fox News Sunday: "You mentioned the link with al Qaeda. Of course that was Ansar al-Islam which did have a base in northern Iraq." As Senator Levin went on to point out, however, the portion of northern Iraq where Ansar had its base was in the Kurdish region outside the control of Saddam Hussein, thus making its existence perfectly irrelevant to the case for war.
Oftentimes, however, the news-watching public doesn't have a Democratic Senator on hand to keep them straight in the face of conservative lies and they have to rely on the press to keep them informed. Just the previous Sunday, Don Rumsfeld brought up Ansar's prewar activities in Iraq on three different Sunday shows without even a whiff of contradiction or clarification passing through the lips of Snow, George Will, George Stephanopoulos, or Tim Russert.
This particular bit of dishonesty began its life in the more sophisticated hands of Colin Powell, where it was more a piece of misdirection than outright deception. In his well-received presentation to the U.N. Security Council laying out the case for war, Powell noted the existence of Ansar al-Islam and did state that it operated "in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq," but alleged that its head, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had once received medical treatment in Baghdad. Based on this slender thread of a link, Powell dedicated about 1,000 words to detailing the threat posed by Zarqawi and his group.
If Ansar's activities really did pose a significant threat to the United States, then we should have attacked them at the earliest possible opportunity, but it seems that the administration found them to be more useful alive, as a bogus argument in favor of war, than dead.
Mention of Ansar al-Islam's prewar existence in Iraq without the qualification that it operated outside of Saddam's control surfaced on Fox News Sunday from the mouth of Paul Bremer on August 24 and October 26 and from Condoleezza Rice on September 7. August 24 also saw Bremer shopping the non-existent link on This Week with George Stephanopoulos and making an ambiguous reference to "refiltration" on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. That same day on Meet the Press, General Richard Myers remarked that "there was this group of Ansar al-Islam up in northeast Iraq that was working on poisons that had actually, in fact, infiltrated into Europe and some of those plots thwarted by the British and the French and others." In none of these instances did the interviewer see fit to note the fact that the group was operating outside the control of the Hussein regime or to question the administration's motives for presenting the facts in such an incomplete or misleading manner.
On CBS, where administration officials never seem to have told the lie, network correspondents still joined their brethren at other media outlets in doing the White House's dirty work for it, with reports both before and after the period of "major combat operations" noting without qualification that Ansar had a base "in Iraq" or was linked by Powell to the Iraqi government.
Even higher up the administration food chain, Dick Cheney told Tim Russert on September 14 that "we also knew al Qaeda was there, and Ansar al-Islam, up in northeastern Iraq" in the course of the same interview where he made the infamous claim that "we don't know" whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11. Russert couldn't be bothered to follow up on either point.
The president, famously, disavowed those remarks, but in the course of disavowing them yet again implied the existence of a significant Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying of Zarqawi "he's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
But he didn't. Nevertheless, over a period of months, the Bush administration has engaged in a sustained effort to convince the American people that Zarqawi's presence in Kurdistan was a justification for war. Democrats seeking to inquire into the administration's misuse of prewar intelligence stand accused of illegitimately "politicizing" the Senate, while top administration officials can go on television and misrepresent the facts without challenge. Matthew Yglesias is a writing fellow at The American Prospect.
Holy Zarqawi
Why Bush let Iraq's top terrorist walk.
By Daniel Benjamin
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 2:08 PM PT
Why didn't the Bush administration kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when it had the chance?
That it had opportunities to take out the Jordanian-born jihadist has been clear since Secretary of State Colin Powell devoted a long section of his February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council. In those remarks, which were given to underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, Powell dwelt at length on the terrorist camp in Khurmal, in the pre-invasion Kurdish enclave. It was at that camp that Zarqawi, other jihadists who had fled Afghanistan, and Kurdish radicals were training and producing the poison ricin and cyanide.
Neither the Khurmal camp nor the surrounding area were under Saddam's control, but Powell provided much detail purporting to show Zarqawi's ties to the Baghdad regime. His arguments have since been largely discredited by the intelligence community. Many of us who have worked in counterterrorism wondered at the time about Powell's claims. If we knew where the camp of a leading jihadist was and knew that his followers were working on unconventional weapons, why weren't we bombing it or sending in special operations forces—especially since this was a relatively "permissive" environment?
In recent months, the mystery of the administration's inaction has only grown. News reports—including, most recently, one in the Wall Street Journal this week—make it clear that military leaders and the CIA felt Zarqawi was a threat that could and should be removed. On at least three occasions between mid-2002 and the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon presented plans to the White House to destroy the Khurmal camp. Each time the White House declined to act or did not respond at all. The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.
Senior Pentagon officials who were involved in planning the attack said that even by spring 2002 Mr. Zarqawi had been identified as a significant terrorist target, based in part on intelligence that the camp he earlier ran in Afghanistan had been attempting to make chemical weapons, and because he was known as the head of a group that was plotting, and training for, attacks against the West. He already was identified as the ringleader in several failed terrorist plots against Israeli and European targets. In addition, by late 2002, while the White House still was deliberating over attacking the camp, Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been behind the October 2002 assassination of a senior American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.
But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.
The Journal can't say for sure why Bush made this call, though even if he made it for less-dishonorable reasons than those suggested above it's still incredibly damning. Even well-intentioned mistakes are hard to forgive when they lead to the deaths of hundreds of people and the undermining of our entire strategic project in the Middle East. But the Journal does report on the official explanation for why the camp wasn't hit: The White House and the Pentagon say they couldn't be sure Zarqawi was there. They also cite a number of former defense and intelligence officials who were working for the government at the time -- including General Tommy Franks -- as saying that the White House line isn't true.
that refusal was at least an enormous blunder – maybe worse. This week Zarqawi claimed responsibility for executing 49 Iraqi army recruits. Since shortly after Saddam was toppled, Zarqawi's Tawhid wal Jihad group has been astonishingly effective at undermining the U.S. occupation. These operatives have killed wholesale, with a long string of car and truck bombs to their credit, and they have killed retail, with the videotaped executions of hostages, which have become must-see TV in the Muslim world and are driving contractors and NGOs out of the country. There is no reliable tally of Zarqawi's victims, but it would not be surprising if it was over 1,000. The issue of why no attempt to get him was made has become even more pungent since President Bush began pointing to Zarqawi in response to Sen. John Kerry's contention that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror.
What seems evident is that the administration viewed Zarqawi as a lower-tier concern, despite his well-known history of running an Afghan terrorist training camp and conducting terrorist operations in Europe. The White House was unwilling to divert any effort from the buildup for war in Iraq to this kind of threat.
The idea that states are the real issue and terrorists and their organizations are of secondary concern has been present throughout the Bush presidency. Although the 9/11 commission wrote its report in a spare, non-judgmental tone to preserve bipartisan unity, its description of the long, aimless road the administration took to the first meeting of its national security Cabinet on the issue of al-Qaida on Sept. 4, 2001, speaks volumes. By contrast, the first "principals" meeting on the issue of regime change in Iraq took place in January 2001, shortly after Bush's inauguration.
After 9/11, senior officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, simply refused to believe the assessment of the intelligence community that Iraq had no hand in the attack and that al-Qaida operated independently of state support. In the Pentagon's conduct of operations in Afghanistan, the overwhelming focus was on unseating the Taliban, the effective state power, while less attention was paid to pursuing al-Qaida, which had just killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil. Thus we had the debacle at Tora Bora, where our subcontractors, the militias of Afghan warlords, allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape.
Similarly, the relentless focus on Saddam Hussein has led to the removal from Afghanistan of key intelligence and special operations assets, including much of the elite commando unit Task Force 5. This, like the case of the pulled punch against Zarqawi, suggests that the Bush team continued to believe that states were the key threats in the post-9/11 world; terrorist groups could easily be swept up after the rogue nations had been dispatched. The much vaunted doctrine of pre-emption was employed against Iraq—a state that was effectively deterred from attacking the United States—while undeterrable terrorists were left to their own devices. It seems never to have occurred to President Bush and his advisers that in a globalized world, where borders are porous and technologies of massive destructiveness are available, hidden networks can be far more dangerous than a state, which can be threatened and contained. Yet that surely has been the lesson of the last three years. It is an added irony that the administration's inability to fully assimilate the threat from "non-state actors" is leading, thanks in part to Zarqawi, to the failure of its effort to reinvent Iraq as a stable democracy in the Middle East. Daniel Benjamin, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff. He is the co-author of The Age of Sacred Terror.
(BushDynasty p311)Chr Sci Monitor analyzes prime time press conf in early 2003. A large majority of Americans believe WMD justify war. Bush mentions 9-11 8 times in the same breath as Sadaam. 53% believe Sadaam is personally connected to 9-11.
Rumsfeld had been advocating an invasion of Iraq long before Mr. Bush took office and wanted more damning evidence against Baghdad after 9/11 than the Central Intelligence Agency had. An operation, run by Doug Feith in Cheney's office, tried to persuade the Pentagon's own espionage unit, the Defense Intelligence Agency, to change its conclusion that there was no alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda. When the Defense Intelligence Agency rebuffed this blatant interference, Mr. Feith's team wrote its own report. It took long-discredited raw intelligence and resurrected it to create the impression that there was new information supporting Mr. Feith's preordained conclusions. It misrepresented the C.I.A.'s reports and presented fifth-hand reports as authoritative, all to depict Iraq as an ally of Al Qaeda. (from the fellow the Germans called curveball) Bipartisan reports from the 9/11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the intelligence community had been right and Mr. Feith wrong: there was no operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and no link at all between Mr. Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. We don't know exactly how much of that the White House knew because Mr. Feith tried to confuse things. He eliminated points that the C.I.A. disputed when he showed the intelligence agency his report, and he put them back in when he sent it to the White House. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which has reported on the C.I.A.'s actions before the war, has delayed a review of the administration's behavior until after the election. We also will not see the C.I.A.'s own report because Mr. Bush's new intelligence chief, Porter Goss, has rebuffed a bipartisan request from Congress to release it.

The Iraq Reconstruction FiascoPublished: August 9, 2004 NYTimes
Things have gone so obviously wrong with America's approach to rebuilding Iraq that even the Bush administration is now willing to listen to some informed advice. Before the invasion, the White House and Pentagon contemptuously ignored post-invasion planning memos drafted by State Department experts knowledgeable about Iraq, the Arab world and the broader problems of nation-building.

Now some of those same State Department experts are quietly being called back to try to repair the damage. Their re-emergence is welcome, but late in the game. Winning back the good will and trust of ordinary Iraqis will be, at best, an uphill fight.
Almost a year after Congress approved an American contribution of more than $18 billion to rebuild Iraq, very little of this money has been spent. Very little has actually been built in Iraq, and most of what has been done has been paid for out of Iraq's own revenues. This is more than an embarrassing case of dysfunctional aid management and shifty accounting. It helps explain why so many Iraqis have come to resent the American occupation even though it removed a hated dictator and ended 13 years of punishing economic sanctions. Even people who initially welcomed the invasion have had a hard time understanding or accepting why, 16 months after American troops took Baghdad, electricity and clean water are only intermittently available and nearly half of employable Iraqis are without work.
Of the $18.4 billion Congress approved last fall, only about $600 million has actually been paid out. Billions more have been designated for giant projects still in the planning stage. Part of the blame rests with the Pentagon's planning failures and the occupation authority's reluctance to consult qualified Iraqis. Instead, the administration brought in American defense contractors who had little clue about what was most urgently needed or how to handle the unfamiliar and highly insecure climate.
Occupation officials also felt free to tap into Iraqi revenues, which are subject to far less oversight and looser controls than Congressionally appropriated funds. Late last year, for example, the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root was awarded a no-bid contract out of Iraqi revenues. At the time, Congress might have balked at further dealings with a company facing questions about the inflated prices it charged for importing gasoline into Iraq and about a no-bid contract awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers just before the invasion. Last week, The Washington Post reported that almost $2 billion in Iraqi revenues had been awarded to American companies.
State Department experts now suggest a switch to smaller-scale projects that can produce visible results more quickly. They are also talking about deeper Iraqi involvement in the planning and carrying out of American-financed reconstruction projects. Greater Iraqi involvement would spread public awareness of these projects, provide new jobs for Iraqis and drastically reduce costs. Iraqi construction labor costs about one-tenth of what is typically paid to foreign contractors. Closer consultation with the Baghdad ministries and local councils would also add some plausibility to Washington's claims that Iraqis now exercise sovereignty in their own country. Despite all it has gone through, Iraq remains one of the Arab world's most advanced societies, with considerable professional expertise that should be put to better use.
All of this should have been done a year ago. It still needs to be done now. Iraq's reconstruction needs have only become more urgent and most of that huge appropriation is still unspent.
Army Historian Cites Lack of Postwar Plan
Major Calls Effort in Iraq 'Mediocre'
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 25, 2004; Page A01
The U.S. military invaded Iraq without a formal plan for occupying and stabilizing the country and this high-level failure continues to undercut what has been a "mediocre" Army effort there, an Army historian and strategist has concluded.
"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.
While there may have been 'plans' at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these 'plans' operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse" -- that is, laid out how U.S. forces would be moved and structured, Wilson writes in an essay that has been delivered at several academic conferences but not published. "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."
Similar criticisms have been made before, but until now they have not been stated so authoritatively and publicly by a military insider positioned to be familiar with top-secret planning. During the period in question, from April to June 2003, Wilson was a researcher for the Army's Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group. Then, from July 2003 to March 2004, he was the chief war planner for the 101st Airborne Division, which was stationed in northern Iraq. .....
As a result of the failure to produce a plan, Wilson asserts, the U.S. military lost the dominant position in Iraq in the summer of 2003 and has been scrambling to recover ever since. "In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative . . . gained over an off-balanced enemy," he writes. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
It was only in November 2003, seven months after the fall of Baghdad, that U.S. occupation authorities produced a formal "Phase IV" plan for stability operations, Wilson reports. Phase I covers preparation for combat, followed by initial operations, Phase II, and combat, Phase III. Post-combat operations are called Phase IV.
Many in the Army have blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon civilians for the unexpectedly difficult occupation of Iraq, but Wilson reserves his toughest criticism for Army commanders who, he concludes, failed to grasp the strategic situation in Iraq and so not did not plan properly for victory. He concludes that those who planned the war suffered from "stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt."
Army commanders still misunderstand the strategic problem they face and therefore are still pursuing a flawed approach, writes Wilson, who is scheduled to teach at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point next year. "Plainly stated, the 'western coalition' failed, and continues to fail, to see Operation Iraqi Freedom in its fullness," he asserts.
"Reluctance in even defining the situation . . . is perhaps the most telling indicator of a collective cognitive dissidence on part of the U.S. Army to recognize a war of rebellion, a people's war, even when they were fighting it," he comments. Because of this failure, Wilson concludes, the U.S. military remains "perhaps in peril of losing the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it."
Overall, he grades the U.S. military performance in Iraq as "mediocre."
Wilson's essay amounts to an indictment of the education and performance of senior U.S. officials involved in the war. "U.S. war planners, practitioners and the civilian leadership conceived of the war far too narrowly" and tended to think of operations after the invasion "as someone else's mission," he says. In fact, Wilson says, those later operations were critical because they were needed to win the war rather than just decapitate Saddam Hussein's government.
Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who as chief of the Central Command led the war planning in 2002 and 2003, states in his recent memoir, "American Soldier," that throughout the planning for the invasion of Iraq, Phase IV stability operations were discussed. Occupation problems "commanded hours and days of discussion and debate among CENTCOM planners and Washington officials," he adds. At another point, he states, "I was confident in the Phase IV plan."
Asked about other officers' reaction to his essay, Wilson said in an e-mail Monday, "What active-duty feedback I have received (from military officers attending the conferences) has been relatively positive," with "general agreement with the premises I offer in the work."
He said he has no plans to publish the essay, in part because he would expect difficulty in getting the Army's approval, but said he did not object to having it written about. "I think this is something that has to get out, so it can be considered," he said in a telephone interview. "There actually is something we can fix here, in terms of operational planning."
In his analysis of U.S. military operations in 2003 in northern Iraq, Wilson also touches on another continuing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq -- the number of troops there. "The scarcity of available 'combat power' . . . greatly complicated the situation," he states.
Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. "This overly simplistic conception of the 'war' led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve 'success,' " he writes.
Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: September 28, 2004 The National Intelligence Council is an independent group, made up of outside academics and long-time intelligence professionals. The C.I.A. describes it as the intelligence community's "center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking.'' Its main task is to produce National Intelligence Estimates, the most formal reports outlining the consensus of intelligence agencies. But it also produces less formal assessments, like the ones about Iraq it presented in January 2003.
One of the intelligence documents described the building of democracy in Iraq as a long, difficult and potentially turbulent process with potential for backsliding into authoritarianism, Iraq's traditional political model, the officials said.
The assessments were described by three government officials who have seen or been briefed on the documents. The officials spoke on condition that neither they nor their agencies be identified. None of the officials are affiliated in any way with the campaigns of Mr. Bush or Senator John Kerry. The officials, who were interviewed separately, declined to quote directly from the documents, but said they were speaking out to present an accurate picture of the prewar warnings. Wolfie RECONSTRUCT(Krugman 3-18-2005) You can say this about Paul Wolfowitz's qualifications to lead the World Bank: He has been closely associated with America's largest foreign aid and economic development project since the Marshall Plan. ……
Before the Iraq war, Pentagon hawks shut the State Department out of planning. This excluded anyone with development experience. As a result, the administration went into Iraq determined to demonstrate the virtues of radical free-market economics, with nobody warning about the likely problems.
Journalists who spoke to Paul Bremer when he was running Iraq remarked on his passion when he spoke about privatizing state enterprises. They didn't note a comparable passion for a rapid democratization.
In fact, economic ideology may explain why U.S. officials didn't move quickly after the fall of Baghdad to hold elections - even though assuring Iraqis that we didn't intend to install a puppet regime might have headed off the insurgency. Jay Garner, the first Iraq administrator, wanted elections as quickly as possible, but the White House wanted to put a "template" in place by privatizing oil and other industries before handing over control.
The oil fields never did get privatized. Nonetheless, the attempt to turn Iraq into a laissez-faire showpiece was, in its own way, as much an in-your-face rejection of world opinion as the decision to go to war. Dogmatic views about the universal superiority of free markets have been losing ground around the world.
TRAINING IRAQIS "You say we're training 100,000 Iraqi security forces and they'll take care of the situation? What happened to the 100,000 that Secretary Rumsfeld said were trained and ready last March?" "You say that training those 100,000 Iraqis is our highest priority. Then why is the American unit charged with this duty, under General Petraeus, at 30 percent of its authorized strength?
CLEANING UP MESS year ago (Sept 2002), American General John Abizaid published an internal Defense Department book about urban warfare. Abizaid's "Doctrine for Joint Urban Operations" (see sidebar) was all but ignored by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks, who ran the Iraq war and the initial postwar occupation.

Abizaid wrote about the massive troop requirements for urban warfare; warned of rapid burnout of soldiers and equipment assigned to urban battlegrounds; and time and again referenced catastrophic instances of over-confidence and under-preparedness among commanders and of disastrous misunderstandings of local cultures and their motivations. He also stressed how "essential" it is that "law enforcement" and other "routine activities" be "returned to civilian agencies as quickly as possible."

Abizaid was brought in a month ago to clean up the mess created by Franks and Rumsfeld.
STAFF CPA is one of the great scandals of the American occupation, although it has so far received little attention from the press. Republican political connections counted for far more than professional competence, relevant international experience, or knowledge of Iraq. In May, The Washington Post ran an account of three young people recruited for service in the CPA by e-mail, without interviews, security clearances, or relevant experience. They ended up responsible for spending Iraq's budget; because they knew little about the country or about financial procedures, they did so slowly. The failure to spend money was of course the source of enormous frustration to jobless Iraqis and undoubtedly produced recruits for the insurgency. According to the Post, the threesome, who included the daughter of a prominent conservative activist, had never applied to go to Iraq and could not figure out how they were selected. Finally they realized that the one thing they had in common was that they had applied for jobs at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which had kept their resumes on file.
In some cases, the quest for political loyalists meant dismissing qualified professionals who had already been recruited. In the June 20 Chicago Tribune, the reporter Andy Zajac described how, in April of 2003, the Bush administration replaced the chief CPA health official, Dr. Frederick Burkle, a medical doctor with close working relationships with humanitarian organizations and long experience in conflict zones, with James Haveman, a political crony of Michigan's Republican former governor. Unlike Dr. Burkle, who for months had been planning the restoration of Iraq's health care system and who was ready to put a program in action as soon as Baghdad fell, Haveman did not arrive in Iraq until June 7, 2003. Although he had never worked in a post-conflict environment, Haveman strongly denied that he lacked international experience, apparently considering his travel to twenty-six foreign countries (as he told the Chicago Tribune) a relevant qualification.
The privatizing of Iraq's economy was handled at first by Thomas Foley, a top Bush fund-raiser, and then by Michael Fleisher, brother of President Bush's first press secretary. After explaining that he had got the job in Iraq through his brother Ari, he told the Chicago Tribune—without any apparent sense of irony—that the Americans were going to teach the Iraqis a new way of doing business. "The only paradigm they know is cronyism."
Haveman, according to the Tribune, ignored Iraq's private health care system (which meets half the country's needs) and wasted huge amounts of money by refusing to collect data on the existing clinics. It is probably just as well that Iraq's privatization program has not worked out, since the CPA could not, as the agent of an occupying power, lawfully sell any Iraqi assets, although it is unlikely that Fleisher or Foley knew this.
US spending in Iraq has been slow and misdirected. Politically connected corporations, such as Vice President Cheney's Halliburton, received "no bid" contracts and have been accused of bilking the government with tens of millions in overcharges. But don't expect politically embarrassing investigations. The CPA's inspector general is Stuart Bowen Jr., a longtime Bush aide, who came to the position from the Washington lobbying firm of Patten Boggs. Among the contracts he is supposed to monitor is one for URS, a client whose $30 million contract he helped obtain. The US failure to meet the basic needs of ordinary people in postwar Iraq is the major reason so many Iraqis feel so bitterly angry with the occupation. The failure was not a matter of money. From the start the CPA had access to more than $1 billion in cash left behind by Saddam's regime and $4 billion in UN oil-for-food funds earmarked for Kurdistan, but redirected (to the great anger of the Kurds) to a CPA-controlled budget. In October 2003, the US Congress appropriated $19 billion for Iraq reconstruction. The CPA also controlled revenues from Iraqi oil exports, which were, in spite of periodic sabotage, very substantial.
Eight months after receiving the congressional appropriation, however, the CPA had spent less than $500 million of it on reconstruction. The only part of Iraq not subject to the CPA's financial control was Kurdistan, where the regional government received a cash allocation equal to just 6 percent of Iraq's total budget (on a per capita basis it should have received 15 percent), but spent it so effectively that the local economy has enjoyed a boom that, in some areas, outstripped the local labor market. By contrast, unemployoment in Arab Iraq has hovered around 50 percent. The hiring of unqualified staff by the CPA, documented by the Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post, helps to explain why the CPA (known to my Iraqi friends as "Cannot Provide Anything") accomplished so little.
Reconstruction Funds Bypass Iraqis (center for strategic and int'l studies)
Much of the $18.4 billion dollars appropriated for the reconstruction effort in Iraq last year will never reach Iraqi hands, "as much as 73 percent of the funds is spent on security and insurance costs for foreign contractors, U.S. government overhead, profits for foreign companies, salaries for foreign workers, and corruption, fraud, and mismanagement." An estimated 27 percent is left to provide "direct benefit to Iraqis and Iraq's economy." (http://www.csis.org/
LOOT AND DISORDERIn the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said . . . "They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting." . . .

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

. . . his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments.

Army report: U.S. lost control in Iraq three months after invasion
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, March 7, 2005
WASHINGTON – The U.S. military lost its dominance in Iraq shortly after its invasion in 2003, a study concluded.
A report by the U.S. Army official historian said the military was hampered by the failure to occupy and stabilize Iraq in 2003. As a result, the military lost its dominance by July 2003 and has yet to regain that position.
"In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative gained over an off-balanced enemy," the report said. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
The report was authored by Maj. Isaiah Wilson, the official historian of the U.S. Army for the Iraq war. Wilson also served as a war planner for the army's 101st Airborne Division until March 2004, Middle East Newsline reported. His report, not yet endorsed as official army history, has been presented to several academic conferences.
In November 2003, the military drafted a formal plan for stability and post-combat operations, Wilson said. Termed Phase-4, the plan was meant to follow such stages as preparation for combat, initial operations and combat. "There was no Phase IV plan," the report said. "While there may have been plans at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these plans operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse. There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."
Other military commanders, including former Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks, have disputed Wilson's conclusions. They said the military entered Iraq with a stabilization plan.
The report disclosed the lack of planning by the U.S. military for the occupation of Iraq. Over the last year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides have been blamed for lack of post-war planning based on their assessment that the military campaign in Iraq would be brief and quickly lead to a democratic and stable post-Saddam Hussein government.
In contrast, Wilson said army planners failed to understand or accept the prospect that Iraqis would resist the U.S. forces after the fall of the Saddam regime. He deemed the military performance in Iraq mediocre and said the army could lose the war.
"U.S. war planners, practitioners and the civilian leadership conceived of the war far too narrowly," the report said. "This overly simplistic conception of the war led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies and too little allotted time to achieve success."

Rummyache

2006-04-27T16:36:00.000-07:00

Final exam question : Why are these generals so angry at Rummy?

RUMMYACHE
Issue of 2006-05-01
Posted 2006-04-24
In the ongoing South Americanization of political culture north of the border—a drawn-out historical journey whose markers include fiscal recklessness, an accelerating wealth gap between the rich and the rest, corruption masked by populist rhetoric, a frank official embrace of the techniques of “dirty war,” and, by way of initiating the present era, a judicial autogolpe installing a dynastic presidente—what has been dubbed the Revolt of the Generals is one of the feebler effusions. But it is striking all the same. By last week, the junta had swelled to six members: General Anthony C. Zinni, of the Marine Corps (four stars); Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, also of the Marines (three stars); and Major Generals John Batiste, Paul D. Eaton, John Riggs, and Charles H. Swannack, Jr., of the Army (two stars). Some reckon that Wesley Clark (Army, four stars), William E. Odom (ditto, three stars), and Bernard E. Trainor (Marines, three stars) are entitled to spots as auxiliary members. All these generals have said devastating things about the job performance of the current Secretary of Defense, particularly with respect to the Iraq war. Their critiques vary—some of them see the war as a series of tactical blunders, others as a strategic disaster doomed from the start—but on one point the Pentagon Six are unanimous: Please. Bring us the head of Donald Rumsfeld.
This brass band of clarion calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation or dismissal has occasioned a certain amount of hand-wringing about alleged threats to the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military. But, as military coups go, this one is pretty weak tea by hemispheric standards. Instead of seizing the radio stations and the Presidential Palace, our disgruntled generals are content to overrun the op-ed pages, the bookstore signing tables, and the greenrooms of the cable-TV news talk shows. Also (and this is not a small point), the generals in question, however youthful and vigorous some of them may appear, are retired. They are no longer links in the chain of command; not being subordinate, they can’t be insubordinate. They are civilians. And they are every bit as entitled to express their views publicly, and to give their former civilian superiors a hard time in the process, as were Andrew Jackson in 1824, and Dwight Eisenhower in 1952—not to mention the nine other ex-generals who became President, beginning with General George Washington (ret.), in 1789.
There’s nothing new, let alone unconstitutional, about the bitching of pensioned-off generals. What is unusual—unprecedented, apparently—is for so many to speak out so strongly against a prominent architect of an ongoing war and to demand his removal. But then it is also unusual (though not, alas, unprecedented) for the United States to fight a war of choice on the basis of ideological fervor and faulty or falsified intelligence. And it is not just unusual but unprecedented for the stated primary aims of such a war (in this case, to prevent Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction and from aiding terrorist attacks on the American homeland) to have been achieved before a shot was fired, forcing the war’s advocates to scramble for new ones.
The generals’ revolt of 2006 has resonated. One reason, no doubt, is that the experience of these particular generals suggests that they know what they are talking about. Three of the six—Batiste, Eaton, and Swannack—held positions of command in Iraq; a fourth, Zinni, is steeped in the region, having served as chief of the U.S. Central Command and as President Bush’s own special envoy to the Middle East. A second reason is their relative immunity to assaults of the kind that right-wing publicists and talk-radio hosts routinely launch at the patriotism and integrity of Iraq-war critics. One or two bemedalled warriors can be taken down that way; a dense pack is not so easily Swift-boated.
If the generals have struck a chord, a third reason, surely, is a widespread public hunger for some sort of accountability. The White House dimly understands this; hence last week’s highly touted “shake-up,” which saw the departure of the President’s hapless press secretary and the lateral transfer of Karl Rove from deputy chief of staff for policy to just plain deputy chief of staff. These moves, though, are entirely beside the point. If Bush were serious about stanching the hemorrhage of public support for any kind of American role in Iraq, then Rumsfeld’s exit—a step that has been suggested not only by generals and Democrats but also by conservative hawks like George Will, Max Boot, David Brooks, and Bill Kristol—would be the obvious beginning. The President’s response has been an adamant refusal. “I’m the decider,” he said last Tuesday. “And I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense.”
His reasons for this decision are obscure, a matter for speculation—wild speculation, as he might phrase it. “We had an accountability moment,” Bush said a few days before his second Inaugural, “and that’s called the 2004 election.” Perhaps he thinks that that was the last such moment he owes the country; perhaps dumping Rumsfeld would feel too much like another one. Perhaps his attachment to Rumsfeld—whom the elder President Bush is known to dislike—has something to do with the younger’s need for substitute fathers. Perhaps he is simply afraid to lose him, for reasons he understands no better than the rest of us. A couple of weeks ago, answering a question from a student after giving a speech at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, Bush provided a hint of the emotional texture of his extraordinary dependence on his Secretary of Defense. “My question,” the young woman said,
is in regards to private military contractors. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.

The President: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter) Help. (Laughter)

Q: I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws, which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws. . . . Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?

The President : I appreciate that very much. I wasn’t kidding. (Laughter ) I was going to—I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I’ve got an interesting question. (Laughter ) This is what delegation—I don’t mean to be dodging the question, although it’s kind of convenient in this case, but never— (laughter ). I really will—I’m going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That’s how I work. I’m—thanks. (Laughter )
Thanks? No. No, thanks. (And no laughter.) He’s the decider, and there’s the rub.

— Hendrik Hertzberg

Clinton New Democrats

2006-04-24T10:52:00.000-07:00

Papers – happy to have re-writes -

NEW DEMOCRATS HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Clinton was what is called a “New Democrat”
old “New Deal” Democrats liked big government programs like Social Security and Medicare
wanted Government to regulate business pretty heavily
New Dems responded to American disillusion with Government & distaste for bureaucracies
“I don't like to be bossed”
BUT there are things where “externalities” from individual or corporate greed need to be curbed
Try to achieve results in least intrusive way – market incentives
Cut government spending and bureaucracy Gore “reinventing gGovernment”
cut 500,000 employees
Bush43 – huge increase federal employees and spending
Internet project – very libertarian – opens communication – beyond big-media filter
Telecommunications industry wants regulation limiting competition and taxes
New Dems instead LOVE open competition & communication– limit taxation – competitive markets
Gore has nurtured “Information Superhighway” earlier 1985 & 1989 with
funding for research on fibre-optics and hi-speed switches
set common protocols to make various networks ethernet, Arpanet .... compatible
Keep the “individual effort” part of capitalism – Welfare reform –
with incentives for work instead of punishment of those who see poor as evil or inferior

“LIBERAL” THINKING
Clinton always understands market oriented positions & argues his opponent's position before deciding
often better than the opponent can
Limbaugh ridicules empathy with others - “I feel your pain”
if world is divided into Good VS Evil why should you sympathize with EVIL?
Clinton is often indecisive – too open to other ideas to be politically or ideologically tidy & Simple
opposite Reagan and Bush43 – go with very simple gut reaction and simple stories
More free market programs than Gingrich – Muc much more than Bush43Republicans
Always a compromiser – from household where he loves alcoholic step-father
abuses mother – takes shot at Bill as teen – always looking to defuse conflict – anti-ideological
only stands up for poor & against increasing inequality
everything else is negotiable
AVOID WEDGE ISSUES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE – PICK A COMMON SENSE MIDDLE
Abortion – reduce the number of abortions VS
Scream about morality and increase rates by hurting poor women economically
Clinton has Reaganesque talent for translating policy into emotions

Domestic policy rhetoric "every working person should have a chance"
strengthen "Earned Income" tax credit
Welfare Reform – increase child care & do not cut off health care "make work pay"
Fight Republican rhetoric of undeserving poor
Clinton Irritates Old-Left "Entitlement" Democrats
in Gerrymandered Poor & Black "Liberal" Districts
Due to continuing “scandals” Clinton can't get big programs through Republican Congress –
Small incrimental & persistent
WORKING CLASS & Poor Children BENEFITS
Head Start $2.8 billion to $5.3 Billion
Child Care $4.5 biillion to $9.3 billion
Earned Income Tax Credit $12.4 billion to $30.4 billion
$30 billion New tax credits for higher education – affects more people than GI Bill
$24 billion Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
(Bush43 cuts taxes on energy in Texas – covers lower % children through CHIP than any other state
fights increase in education funding – takes credit when he is overridden – predecessors did hard education work
leaves huge deficits for successor to fix)

BUDGET FIGHT & DEFICITS
Gingrich & Republican anti-government forces want MORE TAX CUTS FOR RICH to solve deficits
CLINTON - Right after election finds out that Bush Administration statements grossly underestimate
present and future deficits –
Clinton had promised tax cuts and social spending but now feels he must bite the bullet
Clinton - raise taxes ON UPPER INCOME & cut spending to make economy viable long term
everybody hates both – Republicans hate progressive taxes - Dems hate spending cuts
Republicans like Steve Forbes predict 39% marginal rates on upper income taxpayers will damage
incentives to invest - the onerous labor of sitting and investing millions
Reagan who made $1/2 million per movie and decided to make only 3 movies a year –
investors will sit on sidelines “American economy will be ruined; put your $$$ in Japan”
INSTEAD CLINTON economy CREATES EXCESS Investment – Bubble -
twice as much car, steel capacity - 3 times fibre-optic-cable capacity
Balanced budgets don't suck up private capital with deficits – Clinton gets savings rate up slightly
(now negative B43)
Bush43 Huge tax cuts for rich – deficits video
At first wants them because “surplus too big”
when deficits rise wants more cuts – especially Capital Gains – to “decrease deficits”
when we have "excess capacity" wants to encourage investment (more capital) instead of demand
Higher Taxes on labor relative to capital or energy hurts hiring – payroll tax etc -
Clinton - EITC & other pro-labor tax policy creates huge jobs growth
Bush43 Jobs growth does not match increase in population
Labor Market participation from 65% to aapprox 63%
Labor gets small fraction of it's usual share of growth
Corporate profits record highs level and %
Gore wants to cut payroll taxes and puit Social Security on slightly progressive general revenues

Discretionary non-defense spending (before Katrina)
Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year
Carter: 2.0% per year
Reagan: -1.3% per year
Bush I: 4.0% per year
Clinton: 2.5% per year
Bush II: 8.2% per year
next person to be elected will be screwed – huge deficits – have to cut spending and raise tgaxes

HEALTH CARE
Why auto industry jobs are moving from Detroit to Ontario
Clinton has no mandate – 43% vote – cannot go for “Single Payer” politically – “socialized medicine”
Hillary takes over with Guilt-leverage from Bimbo-alarms
Universal coverage eliminates:

Free Riders people with low odds of illness (or poor) do not get insurance – use emergency rooms
very expensive, no preventative – whole system costs more

ADVERSE SELECTION
Insurance companies spend huge amounts (15% administrative costs) trying to figure out
who not to cover – avoid those with previously existing conditions who need care
diabetes and other chronic diseases not treated – huge costs at emergency, end of life
Religious Right & Terry Shiavo – $$$ hundreds of thousands - one person with liquid brain
if a blastula is “murder” Schiavo must be “life” too
the world is not over-populated – God Will Provide - we need every possible child,
but must not help poor mothers – encourage laziness
Large Co-operatives give:

Market leverage
Veterans Administration gets drugs for 1/3 retail cost –

Hillary Plan –
“Managed Competition” between a few large Blue-Cross-Blue-Shield type organizations
each large enough to negotiate low drug and service prices
compete with each other on providing “extras” above basic requirements

Republican Prescription Drug Benefit – Law forbids market competition Drug prices
even if Democrats were to change that thousands of plans – lots of research for elderly
not big enough to have market power against Big-Pharmaceuticals
Passed with Republican votes only – vote kept open for bribes and threats –
earmarks bribe – no hearings – Republicans increase by 100 times
Campaign contributions – K-Street Project – lobbying firms only hire Republicans
Campaign contibutions go to Republicans even heavier than usual
Stifle Government Accountant – forbid testimony – costs twice as much as claimed
so it can meet bogus budget limit

Health Savings Accounts – big deductions for rich taxpayers who already have coverage
remove rich and healthy from insurance pool

Prescription Drug Benefit - written by Pharmaceutical industry
NO negotiation for low prices – pay 3X more for drugs – get lots of campaign $$$$$ pharmaceutical
NO clear requirements for coverage – thousands of web-sites for elderly to investigate – SCAM?
Strong-Arm tactics – Republicans hold vote open while they bribe & threaten wavering members
Lie about cost – Government accountant silenced – cost underestimated – less than half reality
only talk short term – adds $8 Trillion long term debt – double in one year – equal all previous debt

Welfare Reform – just before 1996 election – Clinton Campaign promise -
Republicans put in gratuitous brutal provisions – limit food stamps and childhood disability payments
deny benefits to legal immigrants
Hope Clinton will veto – he doesn't – but gets rid of nasty stuff after winning election
in 1986 single mother eleave welfare makes $2,000 more, lose health care
1999 single mother makes $7,000 more & keep health benefits
Good policy to encourage work – poverty declines sharply – big increase labor market participation

FARM SUBSIDIES
Clinton cuts – take money from American consumers to subsidize
hi-Capital hi-petrochemical farming
Sugar Beets – keep people in Carribean poor – WTO fighting –
we're not as bad as Europe & Japan
cultural significance of rice farming – French want picturesque farms & traditional slow food irrigation & water projects – horrible to environment
Everglades – use wetlands as free sewer for agriculturel wastes & steal water for cities & irigation
Bush huge raise in subsidies – easy politically

NAFTA & FREE TRADE –
Clinton offends labor unions who want protection – gets passage on Bi-Partisan basis
Bush43 Goes against free-market principles for political purposes
2000 Election – promises steel tariffs to West Virginia and Pennsylvania –
close states in election – too much steel capacity – 30,000 jobs at risk – increase price steel
wins West Virginia (also promises to allow mountaintop removal coal mining –
weaken clean water rules (Federalist Society property rights fundamentalism Judges
This drives up Steel prices for the 30,000 at risk steel jobs
higher steel prices hurts 300,000 jobs in Appliance and auto parts industries – local Carrier layoff

ENVIRONMENT AND Pollution – tax, not regulation and bureaucrats - make industry pay for cleaning up their own mess
Pollution credit trading – if you cut pollution by a higher percentage than required
you get to sell to other companies that have more difficult problem cutting pollution
the cuts are accomplished with an incentive to achieve extra cuts where cheap
more pounds of pollution removed for less cost
Acid Rain Sulfur-dioxide pollution cuts achieved at 1/10 of expected cost with pollution-credit-trading
tend to remove pollution from the most primitive older industries – often in low-income area
which have less political clout – reduces “environmental ghettos” in
avoid pork and “agency capture”
Ralph Nader angry AT CLINTON-GORE– he shares the religious-right “good must punish evil”
but reverses it – ReligRight good capital & rich VS undeserving-poor laboring
Nader sees Good consumer VS evil corporation
Nader condems pragmatic market compromise – must go to court and find against evil corp
condemns Joan Claibrook for working for Carter – compromise with Nader's holy outlook
tells voters to vote Reagan not Carter , Bush, not Gore
Judges effectiveness by number of lawsuits (Exxon Valdiz case takes many years) or large Bureaucracy

New Democrats Adam Smith was right – markets are good – but a government of businessmen
is likely to be a device for enriching themselves and fleecing the poor - worry about :
AGENCY CAPTURE -
Bush 43 and Federal Energy Commission (or Cheney energy task force – industry writes report)
Ken Lay of ENRON gets to select head of Federal Energy Commission (gave Bush43 $2 million – Gore $20,000)
BIG HELP WITH ELECTION OF 2000
Enron traders get to manipulate energy prices with strategic shutdown of plants at hi-demand times
steal $28 billion from California
California gets $27 billion debt – dissatisfaction with government leads to Arnold Schwartznegger gov
fo fix deficit? Cut taxes on cars. Issue bonds to let thew future pay debt

Deregulation – Carter market oriented vs Reagan fat cats unregulated, avoid transparency
Trasparency & efficiency – Gore “competence is charisma”

ENERGY Gore pushes BTU – Energy tax – promotes alternative energy by market mechanism
REPUBLICANS DO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY THROUGH SUBSIDY - OPPORTUNITY FOR PORK
B43 & farm state Senators & reps give subsidies to favored political groups –
farm states disproportionate power -
Senate apportionment – 17% of population in sparsely populated states can elect 51 votes
Ethanol inefficient byt politically dynamite

SCIENCE
Newt Gets Rid of OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT - independent scientific advisory
Newt's Political power NEEDS emotional issues – not careful practical assessment
Star Wars assessments by elite National Academy of Science - peer-reviewed
have angered Reganites
Condoms, AIDS PS Senator Doctor Frist must lie about AIDS spreading from tears and condom failure rates
Evolution – School boards do science – gets Christian Right excited – great political issue,

Global Warming –
Science is inconvenient politically & financially
campaign contributions Big Oil, Pharmaceuticals, Christian Right in jepardy
School Bards are better at Science than Scientists?
Republican party is party of Producing coalition: Oil Industry, mining, Industrial farming, Western anti-environmentalism, SUV's and NASCAR, long
Al Gore Book “Earth in the Balance” argues that not paying for costs of unbridled consumption
pollution, global warming, Mid-East involvement - endangers the future of the world

1994 ELECTION
Gingrich Contract with America – runs a national campaign – LlIMBAUGH & Religious right
Gingrich plays Hardball in House – kills seniority – puts loyalists into committee chairmanship
Term Limits – fits anti-Government rhetoric
removes expertise and institutional memory - those proud of their place in Government
Beginning of more centralized fundraising – House of Representatives especially
increase Earmarks -
BALANCED BUDGED AMENDMENT great rhetoric – bad policy
Medicare cuts & more tax cuts for rich

SHUTDOWN GOVERNMENT – battle to the finish – Gingrich strategy vs
Clinton “Deep cuts health care Education & new taxes on working people”
“Put your cuts on the table”
Gingrich whines - President dissed me on plane to mideast – pouting does not work on public wins
During shutdown young intern who has a history of seducing older men in HS flashes thong at
“ELVIS” President in empty White House without staff around – hanging around for negotiations
very nervous and depressed from election results – oops – no “SEX” just foreplay
depending on how old you are (Under 50's believe Oral is not “SEX” - over 50's reverse)
Gingrich – only accept measures that will pass with 100% of Republican votes – no compromise

Election 1996
Clinton spends $ early – paint Dole as ally of Gingrich Hard Right

Mid-East – distinction between B43 & Reagan VS Clinton & B41
after 200 Colin Powell wants to continue – Mid east, Korea, terror – Al
sets country on good fiscal path
be a slob – dems will be unpopular cleaning up our crap
Video – Okla City parallel 9-11 – President gets power

FOREIGN POLICY
Jimmy Carter “Human Rights” “Do unto others – it pays in the long run”
punish human rights violators by witholding aid or trade –
BUT : Talk to even the worst sinners – understand everyone - where they're coming from
know reality and history “Cultural sensitivity” – Liberal arts - understand from many POV Negotiate even with North Korea etc
Try to avoid strong support for thugs – encourage Samoza to leave Nicaragua
do not encourage SHAH to use massive force against demonstrators
SOMALIA Bush41 accepts this humanitarian logic – intervenes in Somalia to stop humanitarian tragedy
Clinton continues – Clan leader Aidid stealing humanitarian convoys – attempt to capture fails
“Black Hawk Down” - Powell left just before as head JCS –
Defense Secretary Aspin fired – accountability for errors not enough armor for mission
Makes Clinton scared to intervene in Rwanda genocide
MEXICO Clinton bails out Mexican economy with loans – paid back ahead of schedule
avoid disoorder and suffering -
Gingrich opposes loans to “drug-running-dictatorship”
AFGHANISTAN Clinton hits Bin Laden cammps – Repubs “wag the dog” get back to Monica
Democrats learn the lesson of failed states and disorder as primary problem -
create “Peace Keeping Institute” - Army loves – since Ike – Army should not do Peacekeeping
Right-wing-Republicans happy to punish evil Soviets
Condaleeza Rice essay against “Nation Building” -
HAITI
SOUTH AFRICA – boycott Apartheid & demand democracy vs Reagan against Sanctions
VIETNAM – recognize vs continue to punish
BOSNIA – intervene to stop Genocide
RWANDA
ISRAEL
1998 – Embassy Bombing Kenya and Tanzania
Clinton hits training camps in Afghanistan & “Asprin Factory” in Sudan owned by Bin Laden
Republicans claim “Wag the Dog” attempt to distract attention from Monica'

Larger Shame - Poverty in America

2006-04-21T05:24:00.000-07:00

September 6, 2005
The Larger Shame
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The wretchedness coming across our television screens from Louisiana has illuminated the way children sometimes pay with their lives, even in America, for being born to poor families.

It has also underscored the Bush administration's ongoing reluctance or ineptitude in helping the poorest Americans. The scenes in New Orleans reminded me of the suffering I saw after a similar storm killed 130,000 people in Bangladesh in 1991 - except that Bangladesh's government showed more urgency in trying to save its most vulnerable citizens.

But Hurricane Katrina also underscores a much larger problem: the growing number of Americans trapped in a never-ending cyclone of poverty. And while it may be too early to apportion blame definitively for the mishandling of the hurricane, even President Bush's own administration acknowledges that America's poverty is worsening on his watch.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported a few days ago that the poverty rate rose again last year, with 1.1 million more Americans living in poverty in 2004 than a year earlier. After declining sharply under Bill Clinton, the number of poor people has now risen 17 percent under Mr. Bush.

If it's shameful that we have bloated corpses on New Orleans streets, it's even more disgraceful that the infant mortality rate in America's capital is twice as high as in China's capital. That's right - the number of babies who died before their first birthdays amounted to 11.5 per thousand live births in 2002 in Washington, compared with 4.6 in Beijing.

Indeed, according to the United Nations Development Program, an African-American baby in Washington has less chance of surviving its first year than a baby born in urban parts of the state of Kerala in India.

Under Mr. Bush, the national infant mortality rate has risen for the first time since 1958. The U.S. ranks 43rd in the world in infant mortality, according to the C.I.A.'s World Factbook; if we could reach the level of Singapore, ranked No. 1, we would save 18,900 children's lives each year.

So in some ways the poor children evacuated from New Orleans are the lucky ones because they may now get checkups and vaccinations. Nationally, 29 percent of children had no health insurance at some point in the last 12 months, and many get neither checkups nor vaccinations. On immunizations, the U.S. ranks 84th for measles and 89th for polio.

One of the most dispiriting elements of the catastrophe in New Orleans was the looting. I covered the 1995 earthquake that leveled much of Kobe, Japan, killing 5,500, and for days I searched there for any sign of criminal behavior. Finally I found a resident who had seen three men steal food. I asked him whether he was embarrassed that Japanese would engage in such thuggery.

"No, you misunderstand," he said firmly. "These looters weren't Japanese. They were foreigners."

The reasons for this are complex and partly cultural, but one reason is that Japan has tried hard to stitch all Japanese together into the nation's social fabric. In contrast, the U.S. - particularly under the Bush administration - has systematically cut people out of the social fabric by redistributing wealth from the most vulnerable Americans to the most affluent.

It's not just that funds may have gone to Iraq rather than to the levees in New Orleans; it's also that money went to tax cuts for the wealthiest rather than vaccinations for children.

None of this is to suggest that there are easy solutions for American poverty. As Ronald Reagan once said, "We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won." But we don't need to be that pessimistic - in the late 1990's, we made real headway. A ray of hope is beautifully presented in one of the best books ever written on American poverty, "American Dream," by my Times colleague Jason DeParle.

So the best monument to the catastrophe in New Orleans would be a serious national effort to address the poverty that afflicts the entire country. And in our shock and guilt, that may be politically feasible. Rich Lowry of The National Review, in defending Mr. Bush, offered an excellent suggestion: "a grand right-left bargain that includes greater attention to out-of-wedlock births from the Left in exchange for the Right's support for more urban spending." That would be the best legacy possible for Katrina.

Otherwise, long after the horrors have left TV screens, about 50 of the 77 babies who die each day, on average, will die needlessly, because of poverty. That's the larger hurricane of poverty that shames our land.

Republicans "Gods Own Party"

2006-04-21T05:23:00.000-07:00

How the GOP Became God's Own Party
By Kevin Phillips Sunday, April 2, 2006; B03
Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.
We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.
Indeed, there is a potent change taking place in this country's domestic and foreign policy, driven by religion's new political prowess and its role in projecting military power in the Mideast.
The United States has organized much of its military posture since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks around the protection of oil fields, pipelines and sea lanes. But U.S. preoccupation with the Middle East has another dimension. In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits -- oil and biblical expectations -- require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.
The political corollary -- fascinating but appalling -- is the recent transformation of the Republican presidential coalition. Since the election of 2000 and especially that of 2004, three pillars have become central: the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.
President Bush has promoted these alignments, interest groups and their underpinning values. His family, over multiple generations, has been linked to a politics that conjoined finance, national security and oil. In recent decades, the Bushes have added close ties to evangelical and fundamentalist power brokers of many persuasions.
Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860.
I have a personal concern over what has become of the Republican coalition. Forty years ago, I began a book, "The Emerging Republican Majority," which I finished in 1967 and took to the 1968 Republican presidential campaign, for which I became the chief political and voting-patterns analyst. Published in 1969, while I was still in the fledgling Nixon administration, the volume was identified by Newsweek as the "political bible of the Nixon Era."
In that book I coined the term "Sun Belt" to describe the oil, military, aerospace and retirement country stretching from Florida to California, but debate concentrated on the argument -- since fulfilled and then some -- that the South was on its way into the national Republican Party. Four decades later, this framework has produced the alliance of oil, fundamentalism and debt.
Some of that evolution was always implicit. If any region of the United States had the potential to produce a high-powered, crusading fundamentalism, it was Dixie. If any new alignment had the potential to nurture a fusion of oil interests and the military-industrial complex, it was the Sun Belt, which helped draw them into commercial and political proximity and collaboration. Wall Street, of course, has long been part of the GOP coalition. But members of the Downtown Association and the Links Club were never enthusiastic about "Joe Sixpack" and middle America, to say nothing of preachers such as Oral Roberts or the Tupelo, Miss., Assemblies of God. The new cohabitation is an unnatural one.
While studying economic geography and history in Britain, I had been intrigued by the Eurasian "heartland" theory of Sir Halford Mackinder, a prominent geographer of the early 20th century. Control of that heartland, Mackinder argued, would determine control of the world. In North America, I thought, the coming together of a heartland -- across fading Civil War lines -- would determine control of Washington.
This was the prelude to today's "red states." The American heartland, from Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico to Ohio and the Appalachian coal states, has become (along with the onetime Confederacy) an electoral hydrocarbon coalition. It cherishes sport-utility vehicles and easy carbon dioxide emissions policy, and applauds preemptive U.S. airstrikes on uncooperative, terrorist-coddling Persian Gulf countries fortuitously blessed with huge reserves of oil.
Because the United States is beginning to run out of its own oil sources, a military solution to an energy crisis is hardly lunacy. Neither Caesar nor Napoleon would have flinched. What Caesar and Napoleon did not face, but less able American presidents do, is that bungled overseas military embroilments could also boomerang economically. The United States, some $4 trillion in hock internationally, has become the world's leading debtor, increasingly nagged by worry that some nations will sell dollars in their reserves and switch their holdings to rival currencies. Washington prints bonds and dollar-green IOUs, which European and Asian bankers accumulate until for some reason they lose patience. This is the debt Achilles' heel, which stands alongside the oil Achilles' heel.
Unfortunately, more danger lurks in the responsiveness of the new GOP coalition to Christian evangelicals, fundamentalists and Pentecostals, who muster some 40 percent of the party electorate. Many millions believe that the Armageddon described in the Bible is coming soon. Chaos in the explosive Middle East, far from being a threat, actually heralds the second coming of Jesus Christ. Oil price spikes, murderous hurricanes, deadly tsunamis and melting polar ice caps lend further credence.
The potential interaction between the end-times electorate, inept pursuit of Persian Gulf oil, Washington's multiple deceptions and the financial crisis that could follow a substantial liquidation by foreign holders of U.S. bonds is the stuff of nightmares. To watch U.S. voters enable such policies -- the GOP coalition is unlikely to turn back -- is depressing to someone who spent many years researching, watching and cheering those grass roots.
Four decades ago, the new GOP coalition seemed certain to enjoy a major infusion of conservative northern Catholics and southern Protestants. This troubled me not at all. I agreed with the predominating Republican argument at the time that "secular" liberals, by badly misjudging the depth and importance of religion in the United States, had given conservatives a powerful and legitimate electoral opportunity.
Since then, my appreciation of the intensity of religion in the United States has deepened. When religion was trod upon in the 1960s and thereafter by secular advocates determined to push Christianity out of the public square, the move unleashed an evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal counterreformation, with strong theocratic pressures becoming visible in the Republican national coalition and its leadership.
Besides providing critical support for invading Iraq -- widely anathematized by preachers as a second Babylon -- the Republican coalition has also seeded half a dozen controversies in the realm of science. These include Bible-based disbelief in Darwinian theories of evolution, dismissal of global warming, disagreement with geological explanations of fossil-fuel depletion, religious rejection of global population planning, derogation of women's rights and opposition to stem cell research. This suggests that U.S. society and politics may again be heading for a defining controversy such as the Scopes trial of 1925. That embarrassment chastened fundamentalism for a generation, but the outcome of the eventual 21st century test is hardly assured.
These developments have warped the Republican Party and its electoral coalition, muted Democratic voices and become a gathering threat to America's future. No leading world power in modern memory has become a captive of the sort of biblical inerrancy that dismisses modern knowledge and science. The last parallel was in the early 17th century, when the papacy, with the agreement of inquisitional Spain, disciplined the astronomer Galileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our solar system.
Conservative true believers will scoff at such concerns. The United States is a unique and chosen nation, they say; what did or did not happen to Rome, imperial Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain is irrelevant. The catch here, alas, is that these nations also thought they were unique and that God was on their side. The revelation that He apparently was not added a further debilitating note to the late stages of each national decline.
Over the last 25 years, I have warned frequently of these political, economic and historical (but not religious) precedents. The concentration of wealth that developed in the United States in the bull market of 1982 to 2000 was also typical of the zeniths of previous world economic powers as their elites pursued surfeit in Mediterranean villas or in the country-house splendor of Edwardian England. In a nation's early years, debt is a vital and creative collaborator in economic expansion; in late stages, it becomes what Mr. Hyde was to Dr. Jekyll: an increasingly dominant mood and facial distortion. The United States of the early 21st century is well into this debt-driven climax, with some analysts arguing -- all too plausibly -- that an unsustainable credit bubble has replaced the stock bubble that burst in 2000.
Unfortunately, three of the preeminent weaknesses displayed in these past declines have been religious excess, a declining energy and industrial base, and debt often linked to foreign and military overstretch. Politics in the United States -- and especially the evolution of the governing Republican coalition -- deserves much of the blame for the fatal convergence of these forces in America today. KevinPhillips is the author of "American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" (Viking).

Weathering the Red Storm - China resources

2006-04-19T08:17:00.000-07:00

How to Weather The 'Red Storm'

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, April 19, 2006; A17

President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington this week has members of Congress grumbling that the Chinese are selling too much to the rest of the world. CNN commentator Lou Dobbs calls it the "Red Storm." But the bigger worry over the next 25 years is that a rising China will consume too much of the world's resources. If models for economic growth don't change, that's a recipe for continual battles over oil and other scarce commodities.

Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, presents some startling estimates of future Chinese consumption in a new edition of his book "Plan B 2.0." He begins by noting that China already has replaced the United States as the world's leading buyer of basic commodities, consuming more grain, meat, coal and steel on an aggregate basis than America does. Only in oil does America remain the top consumer, using three times as much as China in 2004.

For all of China's growth, in terms of per capita consumption, it still lags well behind the United States, which continues to gobble up vastly more than its share of world resources. But as the Chinese economy prospers and grows, it's inevitable that living standards will push consumption toward American per capita levels. That's where Brown's estimates become mind-boggling.

Let's start with assumptions about income and population. Brown thinks that if China's economy continues to grow at the rate of 8 percent a year, by 2031 the per capita income of its 1.45 billion people will equal that of the United States in 2004. If consumption patterns approximate those of today's Americans, what will that mean?

Brown reviews the list of basic commodities, starting with grain: If Chinese grain consumption per person equals the current annual U.S. rate, by 2031 it will consume about two-thirds of the world's total current grain harvest. If the Chinese use paper at the current U.S. level, their 2031 consumption will be nearly double the current world production of 161 million tons. If the Chinese match America's rate of three cars for every four people, they will have 1.1 billion vehicles, nearly 40 percent more than the world's current fleet. And if China consumes oil at the same per capita rate as the United States, it will use 99 million barrels of oil a day by 2031, well over total current world oil production. In other words, if the Chinese consume at current U.S. rates, there won't be enough of anything left for the rest of the world.

But the Chinese won't match America's per capita consumption of these resources. And that's Brown's real point: China's overwhelming demand for commodities will break the current models for economic growth. Prices for commodities will rise so sharply that the world will be driven onto a different growth path, where it takes a smaller input of energy to produce a given increase in output. New technologies and food sources will alter the supply-demand picture. Either that or the world will face an era of wars over resources. Some would argue that war in Iraq and rumors of war with Iran are harbingers of the coming battle for control of resources, but I'm skeptical. I wish Iraq were as simple as a war for oil.

Brown's dire forecasts are easy to criticize. They are static, straight-line projections premised on the unrealistic assumption that economists veil with the Latin term ceteris paribus , or "other things being equal." But, of course, other things never stay the same. The variables in a global economy are changing constantly in response to price signals about supply and demand. But that is Brown's message. As he puts it, "The western economic model -- the fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy -- will not work for China's 1.45 billion people in 2031."

The commodities markets already are signaling what China's rise (and the uncertainties caused by America's recent difficulties) will mean for the global economy. Oil hit a record high of more than $70 a barrel this week. Gold, a measure of investor anxiety about inflation and instability, has more than doubled in price over the past four years. Silver has jumped even faster, more than tripling in price since 2002. According to economist Philip K. Verleger Jr., commodities have become the hot new investment play as investors look at the basic supply-demand squeeze and conclude that these raw materials are a safer and more lucrative bet than stocks or bonds.

President Hu's visit to Washington should focus our attention on the central strategic issue of the next 25 years: how to bring a newly prosperous China into the global economy. The existing economic structure will either adapt or it will break.

davidignatius@washpost.com