Campaign Finance Reform Deferred

A year ago, President Barack Obama was considering an executive order to require all corporations with a government contract to disclose political spending. Campaign finance reformers were all aglow because it looked like a defacto Disclose Act, which would require disclosure of political spending of over $1,000.

In February 2012, Obama's re-election campaign announced that it would support Priorities USA and other Democratic Super PACs and it pledged to work on campaign finance work in the meantime. Obama supports House and Senate versions of the Disclose Act, which has no chance of passing.

President Obama could try to force nominees onto the Federal Election Commission or call for the Securities Exchange Commission to issue rules requiring political spending disclosure. He is not likely to do either.

War on Drones: An Aerial Outside Agitator Coming to Your Neighborhood

I have previously blogged on the dangers of U.S. drone attacks but the recent writings of Jeff Morley, who writes for Salon Magazine, have given updated context in terms of frequency of drone attacks, number of victims, the fear and intimidation they cause, and their use in the United States.

Jeff Morley's estimate that Barack Obama has launched three to four times the number of drone strikes as George W. Bush did, over a comparable period, is in line with other informed estimates. Morley's number of 174 children killed by drones is probably taken from the U.K.-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which puts the number of Pakistanis killed by drones in the range of 2,500 to 3,000, with between 479 and 831 being civilians.

According to polls Morley has see, opposition to drones is almost universal in Pakistan, fueled not only by the strikes themselves, but by the fact that in some areas of Pakistan, seeing a drone is almost a daily occurrence. it has got to be frightening to realize that anyone of those drones could be targeting you, your family, or friends and associates.

The accuracy of identifying legitimate targets is certainly a problem. During the war in Iraq, the International Red Cross found that most of the thousands of Iraqis being held in captivity by U.S. forces had not been charged with a crime. The fact that U.S. intelligence did not have good information on suspected insurgents meant that family members and close friends were held, because they might supply incriminating evidence or clues to suspect's locations.

During the early stages of the war in Afghanistan, some suspects were detained on the basis that they had the same or similar name of a suspected insurgent/terrorist. Others were turned in by someone who had a score to settle or wanted to get rid of an inconvenient rival.

Jeff Morley raises the issue that as the top terrorist leaders are being killed off, the bar might be lowered to attack lower echelon terrorist suspects. It wasn't long ago that reports surfaced of an argument raging in the Obama administration of targeting the "soldiers" who carry out terrorist plots. Thus, those seen unloading what looks like explosives could be hit, along with those frequenting a terrorist hangout.

Besides the real possibility that U.S. drone strikes might be creating more terrorists than they eliminate, Americans should be concerned about aerial outside agitators coming into their communities. Miami-Dade County and a county in Texas already have certification to use drones in law enforcement and ten more counties have applied for certification. We have already given up much of our privacy to government surveillance.

An Uninformative Afghan Speech and a Highly Questionable Agreement

President Barack Obama made his speech from Afghanistan very recently, with the podium parked in front of two U.S. armored vehicles with U.S. flags attached to them. This display of armored might is hardly comforting to those many viewers who don't associate war-making power with a nation intent on peacekeeping.

The Obama speech on the future conduct of the war was very short on content and was far more optimistic than the last six-month report by the Pentagon. Whereas Obama sees significant progress in reducing Taliban strength, the Pentagon report revealed a mixed picture of some reduction in violence and some territorial gains over the Taliban; however, the Taliban were described as resilient and capable of making gains in the spring and summer fighting season. General John Allen, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has been described as wanting to slow the pace of U.S. troop withdrawals, especially in areas where gains have been made against the Taliban.

There was no mention in Obama's speech of how many U.S. troops will be left in Afghanistan after December 2014, the date by which the U.S. is scheduled to have no further combat role in Afghanistan. The speech was also devoid of any estimate of how much the U.S. involvement with assisting the Afghans in the future will cost.

The rationale for the Obama speech was to announce the completion of a 10-year agreement, which would be the template for U.S. interaction with Afghanistan through 2024. Although in the agreement there is a provision stating that the agreement meet U.S. legal requirements, there has been no announced intent to submit it to the U.S. Congress for consideration as a treaty, yet the agreement contains many of the elements that would be found in a treaty. When George W. Bush concluded an agreement with Iraq, setting forth as a prime component that U.S. troops would depart from Iraq -- at least the great bulk of them -- no later than December 31, 2011, some Democratic legislators in Congress demanded the agreement be submitted for consideration as a treaty. Although it is still very early for reaction to fully form on the agreement, no member of Congress has yet requested the agreement's submission as a treaty.

The Wistful Fantasies of Obama Supporters

President Barack Obama offers little in the way of policy proposals for a second term, yet his most ardent supporters continue to spin wistful fantasies about the great changes an Obama second term will bring. Obama has declared inequality in the United States to be the signature issue of the times; however, he has virtually no program to address that inequality. Many of his supporters, who see the Affordable Care Act as falling short of their hopes and dreams, still tout it as a waystation to much more significant change. Obama's supporters pay much more attention to what he says than to what he does.

The tax rate system with a high top marginal tax rate could reduce the concentration of wealth and income among the top few percent of Americans, much as it did after World War II, when the top marginal tax rate ranged from 70.45 percent to 91 percent. Obama, at best, will restore the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent for those earning over $250,000 a year by not extending the Bush tax cuts for these high earners. It is unlikely that the Republicans in the House and Senate will agree to end the Bush tax cuts only for high earners.

Obama's only other tax proposals for the future are enacting the Buffett rule and ending some tax preferences and loopholes for the very well-off -- he has specifically called for an end to tax breaks for private airplane owners and oil and gas subsidies/credits. The Buffett rule enactment would bring in revenue of about $47 billion over ten years and would affect only a small percentage of millionaires and billionaires. Ending the tax breaks that Obama has specifically mentioned would not raise significant revenue. Moreover, in a pamphlet in which President Obama defines what "CHANGE IS," he calls for even more tax cuts to help create jobs. When you combine the real likelihood that Obama will not get much additional revenue in a possible second term, with the calculations of economists at the Center for American Progress that Obama has already cut taxes by $900 billion to $1 trillion, he will not have the money to do great things in a second term. And yet with all that has been said above, Obamas still proposes to increase revenue by $1.5 trillion over ten years.

The kind of wistful thinking referred to in the title of this blog, which limits the chances of getting fundamental change, was illustrated at a New Mexico Sierra Club event I attended last week. The speaker was Eric Griegos, a Democratic candidate for the First District U.S. House seat. I asked Mr. Griegos why he supported the Buffett rule, since it would not bring in much revenue and would probably make it more difficult in the future to get a tax structure with rates reminiscent of those in effect from the 1950s to 1980. Eric Griegos acknowledged the small revenue impact of the Buffett rule and also admitted that even with very high tax rates, there was great economic prosperity after World War II, but then said it would be remarkable if anti-tax Republicans -- and some Democrats -- would accept very wealthy people actually paying 30 percent of their income. Setting such a low taxation cap will cripple raising future revenue.

It is going to become apparent in the not-too-distant future that much more revenue must be raised to fund largely locked-in budgetary imperitives; therefore, responsible political parties must begin to prepare the public for needed financial sacrifices.

The focus to this point has been almost exclusively on taxation matters; however, the same kind of wishful thinking as with taxation prevails with health care reform. Many of those who wanted a single-payer plan or at least a robust public option, support the Affordable Care Act on the basis that it is a big step on the way to more fundamental reform. The more likely future reality is that a limited reform will make it less likely that a single-payer can be enacted, because some of the pressure for it has been vented away.

In looking at what an Obama second term might look like, it is more important to focus on what he has done, rather than rely on the generalized, unspecific things he might do in the future. Based on his record, he is not likely to: significantly deflate a bloated Pentagon; reduce our capacity to build nuclear warheads and delivery systems; trim and make more transparent a sprawling intelligence complex -- promised in the 2008 presidential campaign -- abandon his adherence to George W. Bush's positions on civil liberties; build a renewable energy future by cutting back on fossil fuel energy production; and substitute a law enforcement/diplomatic approach for the largely military force approach now being followed in the War on Terror.

Very recently, the Obama administration completed negotiations on a 10-year commitment to Afghanistan security after the tentative 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of the bulk of U.S. troops. We don't yet know the details of that agreement -- not yet formally signed -- but it portends a  large drain on U.S. resources until at least 2114. An early report on the agreeement is that the United States will supply Afghanistan with at least $2.3 billion in funding each year. If this is true, it would be unconstitutional, as the executive branch cannot commit unappropriated funds. Moreover, the word is that the agreement will be submitted to the Afghan parliament but not to the U.S. Congress, meaning that the Afghanistan government will be acting in a more democratic way than will the U.S. government. Coupled with this commitment to Afghan nation-building, President Obama says in "CHANGE IS" that the U.S. "remains committed to Iraq's long-term security...."

Overall, than, looking ahead to what Obama will likely do if elected to a second term, the public motto should not be "Yes We Can" but 'No We Shouldn't."

Dropping Iranian Options Off the Table

President Barack Obama has frequently stated that with regard to Iran's nuclear program, all options are open, including bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Yet, Obama has been dropping options off the table until the military attack option has become about the only one left standing.

The most intriguing question being raised now is whether or not Obama was mouse-trapped by the Israeli government. Did Israel trick Obama into narrowing his options by orchestrating a "Can't Wait" campaign on the need to bomb Iran now or soon to prevent irreversible progress on developing a nuclear bomb? And did Obama strike an agreement with Israel that if the Israelis didn't attack Iran before the U.S. November elections, the U.S. would do the job for them if Iran crossed a red line, probably short of confirmed development of a nuclear bomb?

The option to have other countries enrich Iranian low-grade uranium was dropped even before U.S.-Israeli consultations of the past few months. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, once endorsed outsourcing enrichment; however, when Turkey and Brazil were on the verge of such a deal with Iran, the United States led the opposition to it.

During the course of the Cold War, the United States followed a policy of live-and-let-live with the Soviet Union and other nuclear powers, including China. Obama has burned that bridge. So if the talks now underway with the Iranian government fail and sanctions don't induce Iranian capitulation in months, not years, the bombing option is the only one left. There is general agreement that bombing Iran would retard its nuclear program by only a year or two.

Jonathan Schell has said that "Disarmament wars threaten or occur when force becomes the chosen instrument for preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Schell sees a "remarkable" similarity between Obama's policy on Iran and George W. Bush's policy on Iraq a decade ago:

   "As Bush did, Obama suspects a country of developing nuclear weapons. As Bush did, he deems that unacceptable. As Bush did, he rules out the live-and-let-live solution of containment. As Bush did, he identifies military force as the ultimate solution. Most important, as Bush did, he sees the particular crisis in question (Iraq for Bush, Iran for Obama) as a skirmish in the larger global cause of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction."

There are two bills before Congress -- S. Res. 380 and H. Res. 568 -- which would require a military strike on Iran acquiring a "nuclear weapons capability." A total of 26 national organizations have banded together to sign a letter to the House and Senate chairpersons of committees considering the two bills. The organizations oppose the bills and also want the "no contact policy" with Iran abandoned.

In their letter, the 26 organizations cite likely consequences of a military strike on Iran: make a nuclear-armed Iran more likely; impose tremendous burdens on a fragile global economy; spike gas prices; cut jobs at home; and would be devastating to human rights and the pro-democracy movement in Iran.

Jonathan Schell's solution is to permit Iran's enrichment of nuclear fuel to nuclear power-grade in return for Iran's full disclosure of its nuclear programs and their history, along with acceptance of strict inspections and controls to prevent the country from enriching uranium to nuclear weapons-grade. Or to go Schell one better, the U.S. could follow the live-and-let-live policy of the Cold War.

The best solution of all for nuclear weapons proliferation is a nuclear weapons-free world.

Buffett Rule Exposed as Popular Fraud

The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group, has estimated that the average tax rate, including payroll taxes, for the middle 20 percent of U.S. families will be 15.9 percent in 2015. Of the 217,000 households that will be affected by the Buffett rule, 4,000 will have incomes exceeding $1 million and tax rates below 15 percent. So, according to the Tax Policy Center estimate, less than two percent of the families affected by the Buffett rule will have effective tax rates below that of the middle 20 percent of families.

Roberta Williams, a senior fellow at the Center, says: "The taxes paid by middle-class families are a lot lower than we think they are."

Democratic lawmakers and Democratic Party officials have largely embraced President Barack Obama's advocacy of the Buffett rule, by which millionaires and their billionaire betters would pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal income tax. The 30 percent standard is designed to make sure that the very wealthy pay a higher pecentage of income tax than do any members of the middle-class. The Buffett rule will have no effect on six-figure incomes.

Advocates of the Buffett rule argue that it will help reduce governmental deficit but the best estimate is that it will raise an addtional $47 billion over ten years, a relative pinprick on today's deficit figure.

It is the case that beginning with Ronald Reagan, the top marginal tax rate was significantly reduced and then George W. Bush drastically shifted the federal income tax burden down to those lower on the economic totem pole by giving the lion's share of two major tax cuts to the wealthiest few percent of Americans. From World War II to the Reagan 80s, the top marginal tax rate varied from 70.45 percent to 91 percent. The period after World War II was a time of great economic prosperity and the tax rate system was generally accepted as fair, because so many people were doing well economically and those who were not, were not doing so due to high taxes.

The wealth gap between the very rich and the poor or near-poor was far narrower in the roughly 35-year period after the the Second World War, due partly to high tax rates making it more difficult to accumulate great wealth. The wealth gap started to widen significantly in the Reagan 80s and was accelerated by George W. Bush. The wealthy, however, aren't the only share of the population that is under-taxed, as, generally speaking, when it comes to the federal income tax, under-taxing is nearly universal, illustrated most centrally by the IRS conclusion that in the last year for which data is fully available, only 53 percent of U.S. households paid any federal income tax. Those who try to excuse the non-payers contend that they pay sales tax, property tax and many other taxes. The flaw in this argument is that the 53 percent of payers also pay these other taxes.

The Buffett rule is currently polling very well with the general public, likely because it has the "feel good" effect of making the tax system seem to be fairer; however, the great potential drawback is that the Buffett rule will slow the momentum that has been built up, especially through the Occupy Movement, to have a progressive federal income tax structure with a much higher top marginal tax rate. The best we can hope from President Obama is that he will restore the 39.6 percent top rate by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Given that recent signs of an economic slowdown may mean that at the end of 2012 we might be in a situation similar to  the end of 2011, Obama might feel compelled to request another extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits. The GOP price would likely be another extension of the Bush tax cuts.

The chief features of a new income tax structure I proposed in a much earlier blog would be: 1) a tax rate structure of 16 percent at the low end and 60 percent at the high end -- Robert Reich has proposed a top rate of 70 percent -- 2) tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income; 3) cut in half the too-generous child care credit; and 4) tax corporations under the provisions in effect in the Eisenhower years, when corporations paid a much larger share of national government revenue. Eliminating the 10 and 15 percent rates, along with cutting the child care credit in half would increase the percentage of households paying income taxes; also, a top rate of 60 or 70 percent would bring the tax rate more in accordance with the actual distribution of income in the nation.