Barack Obama said on December 20, 2007 that "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that doesn't involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Time magazine, in the June 24, 2011 issue, tried to explain how the Obama administration apparently defines hostilities "as a condition that exists only when U.S. troops are in a position to be fired on." When asked about what constitutes being at war, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said that if you have fired thousands of cruise missiles and launched hundreds of drone strikes at a country, that should constitute being at war.
President Obama has sent information to Congress on U.S. involvement in Libya but he has adamantly refused to comply with the specific provisions of the War Powers Act. I believe, as does Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) that only Congress can declare war and granting power to the executive branch to initiate war is a clear violation of the Constitution.
When protests broke out in Libya and Col. Muammar Qaddafi vowed to crush the uprising, the issue quickly became one of whether the United States should participate in a no-fly-zone being considered by our closest NATO allies. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposed the no-fly-zone because he considered it an act of war and doubted the capability of available U.S. military forces to sustain the action. The U.S. military officer, General Carter Ham, whose command included Libya, disagreed with his commander-in-chief's contention that our top objective was to drive Col. Qaddafi from power.
The United Nations" justification for use of force focused on protecting the population of Benghazi. By ignoring UN limits, NATO may have lost future legitimacy for a mission to protect a threatened population. The responsibility to protect became the opportunity to oust.
The final; showdown in Libya occurred in Sirte, Qaddafi's hometown. At that time, Qaddafi's power had been effectively broken and it was no longer necessary to protect the population. Thus, when a convoy of 18 expensive-looking vehicles left Sirte, it was very likely that Qaddafi and maybe members of his family were in the convoy. However, even though the mission of NATO was to protect, not to oust, the convoy was attacked from the air, including a U.S. Predator drone.
Col. Qaddafi was found hiding in a drainage pipe, hauled out, brutally beaten, shot in the head, and his body triumphantly displayed to the gathered crowd. Subsequently, a report surfaced that 53 Qaddafi loyalists were summarily executed, then hundreds similarly treated were mentioned and then it was reported that thousands of Qaddafi supporters and/or mercenaries were being held. This was an inauspicious beginning for a movement that was to bring an entirely different type of governance to Libya.
Eugene Robinson, the Washington Post columnist, has pointed out that one of the most troubling aspects of the U.S. involvement in Libya and, generally, in regard to the Arab Spring, is that there is no Obama Doctrine nor overarching plan. When a revolt broke out in Egypt, the Obama White House initially voiced cautious support for Hosni Mubarak, hoping he could quell the revolt with limited bloodshed. It was only after the U.S. saw the strength of the rebellion that the Obama administration began to demand that Mubarak leave.
In regard to Bahrain, a no-fly-zone nor any other intervention by force was not even contemplated, even after the monarchy began to kill its own citizens and Saudi Arabia sent in armed forces out of fear that a successful uprising in Bahrain would spur a rebellion among its own Sunni population. Soon after the rebellion in Bahrain was put down, the U.S. sent $50 million in military equipment to Bahrain.
It is only recently that talk of a no-fly-zone over Syria began to surface, despite the ongoing very bloody suppression of rebelling Syrians. Syria, it is true, presents a different situation from Libya, as it has a much stronger military and there is the prospect of a civil war between the ruling minority Aliwite sect and the majority Sunni Muslim population. Contrary to the situation in Libya, use of military force against the Syrian government could lead to a wider regional war. Yet, in Libya a threatened population was protected and in Syria an endangered population has not.
It is a good thing that Muammar Qaddafi no longer rules in Libya but the manner of his death and the absence of coherent policy guidance from those who will come into power, is troublesome. It is also possible that the killing of Qaddafi will bring about a regime as destructive as that of Qaddafi's.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tax Cuts and Military Spending Are Bad Job Creation Choices
The Obama strategy on job creation is now largely focused on a one-year cut in the payroll tax funding Social Security. President Obama originally wanted to cut the tax by 3.1 percent for employees and then later added employers. The cut in the employers' share of the tax cut was later dropped because of the difficulty of paying for it with additional revenue. Presently, the focus has shifted to carrying over for two months the two percent cut, which would have expired on January 1, 2012. The issue will then become whether to extend the two percent cut throughout 2012 of maybe even try to get the 3.1 percent cut that Obama originally wanted.
Economists are generally agreed that the unemployment rate will likely not have changed very much in the next year. The quarterly improvement in the GDP is also not expected to be very robust in the next year. Near the end of 2012, when taxation decisions on a further extension of the payroll tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts will arise, President Obama and Democratic lawmakers will likely be in much the same situation as they are today: needing to claim that the tax burden can't be increased on 160 million Americans. Thus, not only will the Democratic leadership be pushed by logic to ask for another extension of the payroll tax cuts, but it will be hard to argue against an extension of the Bush tax cuts. It will take an act of political jujitsu to extend the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 and let them expire for the high earners.
Not only has President Obama and the Democratic legislative leadership fallen into a trap by focusing so intently on tax cuts as the best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs, tax cuts rank low in the job creation hierarchy. The National Priorities Project has charted the impact of spending $1 billion on potential job creation in select sectors. Spending the $1 billion on the military creates 11,600 jobs; $1 billion in tax cuts creates 14,800 jobs; with the same expenditure, 17,100 jobs are created in clean energy, 18,800 in healthcare and 29,100 in education.
When President Obama proposed a three-year freeze on spending in his 2010 State of the Union address, he exempted military spending from that proposed freeze. As indicated by the National Priorities Project's job creation by sectors charting, military spending is about the worst way to try to create jobs. Yet President Obama, in his 12-year plan, proposes to cut only $400 billion in military spending -- roughly a five percent cut -- and he has appointed a Secretary of Defense who is predicting gloom and doom if there are any further cuts in military spending.
The extent to which military spending predominates over nonmilitary discretionary domestic spending is illustrated in both the long- and the short-term by the National Priorities Project.
Total Cost Since 9/11 in Congress-Approved Discretionary Funds (FY 2012 dollars).
Combined budgets of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Labor, Transportation and the EPA - $80.3 billion.
Spending on: Nuclear Weapons - $230.3 billion; Homeland Security - $472.1 billion; Iraq and Afghanistan - $1.36 trillion; Pentagon Base Budget - $5.6 trillion. The total spending in these categories is $7.66 trillion.
The combined spending on six domestic categories equals about one and one-half percent on what gets labeled as national security spending -- I like to call it "fear" spending.
The National Priorities Project has broken down FY 2011 discretionary spending as follows: Environment, Energy ad Science - 6 percent; Transportation - 3 percent; Income Security and Labor - 2 percent; International Affairs - 4 percent; Health - 5 percent; Housing and Community - 6 percent; Government - 6 percent; Food - 1 percent; Education - 4 percent; Veterans' Benefits - 5 percent; and Military - 58 percent.
By freezing domestic spending, continuing to maintain a bloated Pentagon and focusing so much on tax cuts, President Barack Obama has embarked on just about the worst possible strategy for creating jobs.
Economists are generally agreed that the unemployment rate will likely not have changed very much in the next year. The quarterly improvement in the GDP is also not expected to be very robust in the next year. Near the end of 2012, when taxation decisions on a further extension of the payroll tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts will arise, President Obama and Democratic lawmakers will likely be in much the same situation as they are today: needing to claim that the tax burden can't be increased on 160 million Americans. Thus, not only will the Democratic leadership be pushed by logic to ask for another extension of the payroll tax cuts, but it will be hard to argue against an extension of the Bush tax cuts. It will take an act of political jujitsu to extend the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 and let them expire for the high earners.
Not only has President Obama and the Democratic legislative leadership fallen into a trap by focusing so intently on tax cuts as the best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs, tax cuts rank low in the job creation hierarchy. The National Priorities Project has charted the impact of spending $1 billion on potential job creation in select sectors. Spending the $1 billion on the military creates 11,600 jobs; $1 billion in tax cuts creates 14,800 jobs; with the same expenditure, 17,100 jobs are created in clean energy, 18,800 in healthcare and 29,100 in education.
When President Obama proposed a three-year freeze on spending in his 2010 State of the Union address, he exempted military spending from that proposed freeze. As indicated by the National Priorities Project's job creation by sectors charting, military spending is about the worst way to try to create jobs. Yet President Obama, in his 12-year plan, proposes to cut only $400 billion in military spending -- roughly a five percent cut -- and he has appointed a Secretary of Defense who is predicting gloom and doom if there are any further cuts in military spending.
The extent to which military spending predominates over nonmilitary discretionary domestic spending is illustrated in both the long- and the short-term by the National Priorities Project.
Total Cost Since 9/11 in Congress-Approved Discretionary Funds (FY 2012 dollars).
Combined budgets of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Labor, Transportation and the EPA - $80.3 billion.
Spending on: Nuclear Weapons - $230.3 billion; Homeland Security - $472.1 billion; Iraq and Afghanistan - $1.36 trillion; Pentagon Base Budget - $5.6 trillion. The total spending in these categories is $7.66 trillion.
The combined spending on six domestic categories equals about one and one-half percent on what gets labeled as national security spending -- I like to call it "fear" spending.
The National Priorities Project has broken down FY 2011 discretionary spending as follows: Environment, Energy ad Science - 6 percent; Transportation - 3 percent; Income Security and Labor - 2 percent; International Affairs - 4 percent; Health - 5 percent; Housing and Community - 6 percent; Government - 6 percent; Food - 1 percent; Education - 4 percent; Veterans' Benefits - 5 percent; and Military - 58 percent.
By freezing domestic spending, continuing to maintain a bloated Pentagon and focusing so much on tax cuts, President Barack Obama has embarked on just about the worst possible strategy for creating jobs.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
What Nuclear Weapons Teach Us About Ourselves
David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was excited by the promises Barack Obama made about reducing the threat nuclear weapons pose to the world. In my last blog I did an update, showing are short President Obama has fallen on his specific promises, on which I had sufficient information to comment. On May 24, 2011, Krieger did a piece for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, with the title as shown above, which I think is a good companion piece for my last blog.
"Nuclear weapons are the most fearsome and destructive killing devices yet created by the human species. They have the capacity to destroy cities, countries and civilization. Yet, although these weapons give rise to some concern and worry, most humans on the planet are complacent about the inherent dangers of these weapons. It is worth exploring what our seeming indifference toward these weapons of mass annihilation teaches us about ourselves, and how we might remedy our malaise.
1. We are ill-informed. We appear to go about our daily lives with a self-assured degree of comfort that we will not be affected by the dangers of the weapons. We need more education about the extreme dangers and risks posed by nuclear weapons.
2. We are tribal. We divide ourselves into national tribes and identify with our own tribe while demonizing 'the other.' We need to be more global in our thinking. We need to think as members of the human species, not as members of a national tribe.
3. We are self-serving. We see our own nuclear weapons and those of our allies as being positive and useful, while we view the nuclear weapons of our enemies as being negative and harmful. We need to realize that nuclear weapons, as instruments of indiscriminate mass destruction, are illegal, immoral and dangerous in any hands, including our own.
4. We are arrogant. We seem to take perverse pride in our cleverness at having created such overwhelmingly powerful weapons. We need to take pride in constructive uses of our science-based technologies, and recognize the inherent dangers and immorality of their destructive uses.
5. We are pathological. We rely for our protection upon these weapons that threaten to kill millions of innocent civilians. We need to realize that true security cannot be based upon the threat of mass murder of innocents.
6. We are deluded. We believe that we will not survive threats from 'the other' if we do not rely upon these weapons of mass annihilation for our security. We need to engage 'the other' in dialogue until we realize that our common humanity supersedes our differences, and our common future demands our unity.
7. We are reckless. We are willing to bet the human species and the human future that we can keep these weapons under control. We need to stop playing Russian roulette with the human future.
8. We are foolish. We trust our leaders to act responsibly, so as to keep nuclear weapons under control. We need to realize that this is too great a responsibility for any person and that all leaders do not act responsibly at all times."
"Nuclear weapons are the most fearsome and destructive killing devices yet created by the human species. They have the capacity to destroy cities, countries and civilization. Yet, although these weapons give rise to some concern and worry, most humans on the planet are complacent about the inherent dangers of these weapons. It is worth exploring what our seeming indifference toward these weapons of mass annihilation teaches us about ourselves, and how we might remedy our malaise.
1. We are ill-informed. We appear to go about our daily lives with a self-assured degree of comfort that we will not be affected by the dangers of the weapons. We need more education about the extreme dangers and risks posed by nuclear weapons.
2. We are tribal. We divide ourselves into national tribes and identify with our own tribe while demonizing 'the other.' We need to be more global in our thinking. We need to think as members of the human species, not as members of a national tribe.
3. We are self-serving. We see our own nuclear weapons and those of our allies as being positive and useful, while we view the nuclear weapons of our enemies as being negative and harmful. We need to realize that nuclear weapons, as instruments of indiscriminate mass destruction, are illegal, immoral and dangerous in any hands, including our own.
4. We are arrogant. We seem to take perverse pride in our cleverness at having created such overwhelmingly powerful weapons. We need to take pride in constructive uses of our science-based technologies, and recognize the inherent dangers and immorality of their destructive uses.
5. We are pathological. We rely for our protection upon these weapons that threaten to kill millions of innocent civilians. We need to realize that true security cannot be based upon the threat of mass murder of innocents.
6. We are deluded. We believe that we will not survive threats from 'the other' if we do not rely upon these weapons of mass annihilation for our security. We need to engage 'the other' in dialogue until we realize that our common humanity supersedes our differences, and our common future demands our unity.
7. We are reckless. We are willing to bet the human species and the human future that we can keep these weapons under control. We need to stop playing Russian roulette with the human future.
8. We are foolish. We trust our leaders to act responsibly, so as to keep nuclear weapons under control. We need to realize that this is too great a responsibility for any person and that all leaders do not act responsibly at all times."
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Bright Promise on Nukes Dashed for Major Nuke Opponent
In December 2008, David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, saw president-elect Barack Obama as the great hope for a nuclear weapons-free world, based on statements and promises Obama had made.The Obama statement that Krieger liked the best was: "A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America's interest and the world's interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality. That's what I've done as a Senator and a candidate, and that's what I'll do as President."
Krieger also quoted Obama as saying: "I will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of US nuclear policy." And who would lead that effort? Obama had said that "if we want the world to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example."
David Krieger made a list of specific steps that candidate Obama had said must be taken. I will comment briefly on the current known status of each of the steps.
* lead an international effort to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons around the world. In April 2010, President Obama renounced the development of any new nuclear weapons and he explicitly committed the United States not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There has been no action beyond what was said in the first bullet point.
* lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are put there right know. Barack Obama was a leader on this issue when he was a U.S. senator. Although some funding has been provided for this type of program, it has not been a major priority.
* secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. Well behind schedule
* immediately stand down all nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty and urge Russia to do the same. The status of this step is uncertain, although Obama has pushed back the warhead dismantlement date based on compliance with prior START treaties.
* seek Russia's agreement to extend essential monitoring and verification provisions of the START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) before it expires in December 2009. No information on this step.
* work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic weapons stockpiles off hair-trigger alert. No information on this step.
* work with other nuclear powers to reduce global nuclear weapons stockpiles dramatically by the end of his presidency. The focus has been almost solely on Iran.
* stop the development of new nuclear weapons. Obama has pledged to not develop any new nuclear weapons; however, the building of three new nuclear weapons facilities will quadruple the capacity to build "pits", the triggers for nuclear weapons.
* seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material. Besides the three new facilities in the modernization program, the future weapons blueprint calls for a new class of nuclear submarines, new nuclear-capable bomber and fighter aircraft, and updated nuclear bomb warheads and missiles. The price tag of $185 billion for just the next decade will almost certainly be greatly exceeded.
* set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. No evident progress.
* build a bipartisan consensus for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Totally off the table.
* cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. Obama has continued funding at about past levels. Deployment of anti-missile systems continues. Instead of a missile defense designed to knock down improbably launched long-range missiles by Iran, as proposed by President Bush, President Obama is proposing to station in Eastern Europe, smaller SAM-3 missiles designed to blow up short-range missiles launched by Iran.
* not weaponize space. The Pentagon currently has a space command with a mission to put weapons in space.
One further comment on our current nuclear weapons arsenal: the enormous explosive yields of the U.S. arsenal makes it inappropriate for use against weak, desperate adversaries. Moreover, the collateral damage from an attack on our adversaries could cause great suffering to our friends land allies, even bringing on the possibility of a devastating nuclear winter.
Krieger also quoted Obama as saying: "I will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of US nuclear policy." And who would lead that effort? Obama had said that "if we want the world to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example."
David Krieger made a list of specific steps that candidate Obama had said must be taken. I will comment briefly on the current known status of each of the steps.
* lead an international effort to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons around the world. In April 2010, President Obama renounced the development of any new nuclear weapons and he explicitly committed the United States not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There has been no action beyond what was said in the first bullet point.
* lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are put there right know. Barack Obama was a leader on this issue when he was a U.S. senator. Although some funding has been provided for this type of program, it has not been a major priority.
* secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. Well behind schedule
* immediately stand down all nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty and urge Russia to do the same. The status of this step is uncertain, although Obama has pushed back the warhead dismantlement date based on compliance with prior START treaties.
* seek Russia's agreement to extend essential monitoring and verification provisions of the START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) before it expires in December 2009. No information on this step.
* work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic weapons stockpiles off hair-trigger alert. No information on this step.
* work with other nuclear powers to reduce global nuclear weapons stockpiles dramatically by the end of his presidency. The focus has been almost solely on Iran.
* stop the development of new nuclear weapons. Obama has pledged to not develop any new nuclear weapons; however, the building of three new nuclear weapons facilities will quadruple the capacity to build "pits", the triggers for nuclear weapons.
* seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material. Besides the three new facilities in the modernization program, the future weapons blueprint calls for a new class of nuclear submarines, new nuclear-capable bomber and fighter aircraft, and updated nuclear bomb warheads and missiles. The price tag of $185 billion for just the next decade will almost certainly be greatly exceeded.
* set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. No evident progress.
* build a bipartisan consensus for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Totally off the table.
* cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. Obama has continued funding at about past levels. Deployment of anti-missile systems continues. Instead of a missile defense designed to knock down improbably launched long-range missiles by Iran, as proposed by President Bush, President Obama is proposing to station in Eastern Europe, smaller SAM-3 missiles designed to blow up short-range missiles launched by Iran.
* not weaponize space. The Pentagon currently has a space command with a mission to put weapons in space.
One further comment on our current nuclear weapons arsenal: the enormous explosive yields of the U.S. arsenal makes it inappropriate for use against weak, desperate adversaries. Moreover, the collateral damage from an attack on our adversaries could cause great suffering to our friends land allies, even bringing on the possibility of a devastating nuclear winter.
Monday, December 19, 2011
King George Rules Again in the Good Old USA
The American colonies fought a revolutionary war to get out from under the tyrannical rule of King George III. Given the power of the U.S. president to assassinate U.S. citizens and hold then indefinitely without trial, we seem to have created a modern King George III. Writing in Salon on December 16, 2011, Glenn Greenwald has done an outstanding job of dissecting the two major pieces of legislation on indefinite detention: the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Both President Bush and President Obama have argued that the AUMF gives them the implicit power to detain indefinitely and to use force widely. Greenwald says that "the Obama administration justifies the ongoing bombing of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claims that they are support groups that did not exist at the the time of 9/!!." Contrary to this broad interpretation of the AUMF, which the courts have generally accepted, Greenwald argues that the AUMF specifically confined the president to use force against those who: 1) helped perpetuate the 9/11 attack; or 2) harbored the perpetrators.
What the NDAA has done is broaden and codify into law the AUMF. Section 1021 of the NDAA defines "a covered person" as "a person who was part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." Once more, Section 1021 (b) empowers the president to detain anyone "accused" of the acts in question, without trial, until the end of the hostilities.
Section 1021 further reads: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." This section would seem to restrict detention to those captured or arrested overseas; however, Section 1022 muddies the waters, as it states that anyone who is a member of a targeted group as defined above, or participates in the planning or carrying out of an attack, must be held in military custody (absent a presidential waiver) pending disposition under the law of war. Glenn Greenwald reads 1022 as making detention of a U.S. citizen optional, at best. Senator Diane Feinstein reads it the same way, as she tried to get enacted an amendment to make it crystal clear that indefinite detention would not apply to a U.S. citizen. He attempt to amend was defeated, as was an amendment to delete the offending sections from the NDAA.
President Barack Obama had vowed to veto the NDAA if it came to him with language authorizing the military to indefinitely detain persons. When he agreed to sign it, he said that the bill had been sufficiently changed to remove the objectionable language. He hasn't identified the changes nor has the media pressed him on it. The main attempts to amend the bill on the Senate floor were defeated. It would seem, then, that President Obama accepted language that he had said would necessitate a veto.
The weirdest scene on the Senate floor was when Senator Carl Levin was arguing that it was the Obama administration, not him as a main sponsor, who didn't want U.S. citizens excluded from the scope of the bill.
Both President Bush and President Obama have argued that the AUMF gives them the implicit power to detain indefinitely and to use force widely. Greenwald says that "the Obama administration justifies the ongoing bombing of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claims that they are support groups that did not exist at the the time of 9/!!." Contrary to this broad interpretation of the AUMF, which the courts have generally accepted, Greenwald argues that the AUMF specifically confined the president to use force against those who: 1) helped perpetuate the 9/11 attack; or 2) harbored the perpetrators.
What the NDAA has done is broaden and codify into law the AUMF. Section 1021 of the NDAA defines "a covered person" as "a person who was part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." Once more, Section 1021 (b) empowers the president to detain anyone "accused" of the acts in question, without trial, until the end of the hostilities.
Section 1021 further reads: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." This section would seem to restrict detention to those captured or arrested overseas; however, Section 1022 muddies the waters, as it states that anyone who is a member of a targeted group as defined above, or participates in the planning or carrying out of an attack, must be held in military custody (absent a presidential waiver) pending disposition under the law of war. Glenn Greenwald reads 1022 as making detention of a U.S. citizen optional, at best. Senator Diane Feinstein reads it the same way, as she tried to get enacted an amendment to make it crystal clear that indefinite detention would not apply to a U.S. citizen. He attempt to amend was defeated, as was an amendment to delete the offending sections from the NDAA.
President Barack Obama had vowed to veto the NDAA if it came to him with language authorizing the military to indefinitely detain persons. When he agreed to sign it, he said that the bill had been sufficiently changed to remove the objectionable language. He hasn't identified the changes nor has the media pressed him on it. The main attempts to amend the bill on the Senate floor were defeated. It would seem, then, that President Obama accepted language that he had said would necessitate a veto.
The weirdest scene on the Senate floor was when Senator Carl Levin was arguing that it was the Obama administration, not him as a main sponsor, who didn't want U.S. citizens excluded from the scope of the bill.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Obama Ignores Crimes of Occupation in Iraq
President Obama has refused to consider investigating any crimes that may have been committed by the prior administration on the grounds that he wants to look ahead, not back. Focusing only on Iraq and covering the period from March 2003 to June 2004, there are plenty of likely violations of international law, as compiled by United for Peace and Justice.
UN Security Council Resolution 1483 passed in May 2003 required the US-led coalition forces and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Conventions of 1907." This resolution has been largely ignored by the United States.
1. Failure to Provide Vital Services and Ensure Inalienable Rights
Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), articles 55 and 56, require the occupying power to secure the basic needs of the population. Well over a year since the invasion of Iraq, basic utilities such as electricity, gas, gasoline and water are still not available in adequate measures, nor are services such as sanitation and healthcare. The Iraqi Minister of Health has stated that the healthcare system is currently in worse condition than before the war during the sanctions. This has resulted in incalculable numbers of preventable deaths.
2. Unlawful Attacks
Extremely hostile and ineffective house searches, which are often conducted without prior warning, are common U.S. military practice and have resulted in countless civilian deaths as well as unlawful arrests, pillage and damage to property. Under the GCIV, article 33, "no protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all means of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." However, taking the lead from the widely condemned tactics used against Palestinians by Israeli forces, collective punishment and extra-judicial executions (outlawed by GCIV, articles 32 and 147 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) have become common U.S. military practice and has escalated to alarming levels with the indiscriminate attacks in Falluja, Ramadi and Baghdad. Many have fallen ill or have died as a result of being denied access to food, medical supplies and treatment. Clearly marked ambulances, medical personnel and facilities have been attacked. These are war crimes defined under GCIV, articles 14-23.
3. Illegal Arrest, Detention and Interrogation Practices
Human rights organizations in Iraq estimate that up to 18,000 Iraqis are being detained, most of whom have been denied any access to lawyers and families. The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that 70-90% of the 43,000 Iraqis detained during the occupation have been innocent bystanders.
According to the "Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade," conducted by Major General Antonio M. Taguba, acts of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison have included "forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped; positioning a naked detainee on a MRE box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes and penis to stimulate electric torture; a male military police guard having sex with a female detainee; breaking chemical lights and pouring phosphoric liquid on detainees; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell." Like many detainees who have been tortured in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, many have also been killed while in U.S. custody. All these practices are clearly banned by GCIV, articles 32 and 147, GCIV Protocol 1, article 85, and the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
4. Hiring of Private Military Contractors
Mercenaries have officially been banned since 1989 by the International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training of Mercenaries. In addition, there is very little jurisdiction beyond domestic laws that can place limits on the actions of private military companies. The U.S. has employed up to 20,000 private military contractors in Iraq (a ten-fold increase since the Gulf War), operating with virtual impunity.
5. Lack of Compensation, Even for Wrongful Death
Iraq was required under international law to pay for all the damage caused by its illegal invasion of Kuwait. However, unlike the UN Compensation Commission, which was set up to oversee Iraq's compensation payments to Kuwait, the U.S. compensation process is administered by the U.S. Foreign Claims Commission, which only compensates Iraqi civilians who have suffered loss or damage in "non-combat" incidents (as judged by the U.S. military) that took place after May 1, 2003. Human rights organizations in Iraq estimate that over 90% of Iraqi claims have been denied.
6. Lack of Accountability and Total Impunity
While the aforementioned violations are shocking, what is particularly disturbing is that coalition forces have created an atmosphere of impunity where there is no mechanism for coalition personnel to be charged or tried for such crimes under Iraqi law. AI, Section 2(3) of CPA Memorandum Number 3 removes the jurisdiction of the Iraqi courts over any coalition personnel, in relation to both civil and criminal matters. Furthermore, as Human Rights Watch has noted, private military contractors operate "outside the (U.S.) military chain of command and thus (are) ineligible for court-martial."
7. Changing Iraq's Laws and Restructuring Its Economy
One of the most devastating effects of the occupation has been the restructuring of the Iraqi economy. Many of the local laws have been changed to better serve foreign companies and to allow for tighter control of Iraqis. Changing the laws of an occupied country violates the Hague Convention, the Geneva Conventions, and the U.S. Army's own code of war, as stated in the Army Field Manual "The Law of Land Warfare." Perhaps most damaging is CPA Order 39, which has allowed for the privatization of Iraqi state companies, 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses including media and public services, unrestricted repatriation of profits and 40-year ownership licenses.
For more information, please refer to the Center for Economic and Social Rights'report: "Beyond Torture: U.S. Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq," available at http://cesr.org
UN Security Council Resolution 1483 passed in May 2003 required the US-led coalition forces and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Conventions of 1907." This resolution has been largely ignored by the United States.
1. Failure to Provide Vital Services and Ensure Inalienable Rights
Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), articles 55 and 56, require the occupying power to secure the basic needs of the population. Well over a year since the invasion of Iraq, basic utilities such as electricity, gas, gasoline and water are still not available in adequate measures, nor are services such as sanitation and healthcare. The Iraqi Minister of Health has stated that the healthcare system is currently in worse condition than before the war during the sanctions. This has resulted in incalculable numbers of preventable deaths.
2. Unlawful Attacks
Extremely hostile and ineffective house searches, which are often conducted without prior warning, are common U.S. military practice and have resulted in countless civilian deaths as well as unlawful arrests, pillage and damage to property. Under the GCIV, article 33, "no protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all means of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." However, taking the lead from the widely condemned tactics used against Palestinians by Israeli forces, collective punishment and extra-judicial executions (outlawed by GCIV, articles 32 and 147 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) have become common U.S. military practice and has escalated to alarming levels with the indiscriminate attacks in Falluja, Ramadi and Baghdad. Many have fallen ill or have died as a result of being denied access to food, medical supplies and treatment. Clearly marked ambulances, medical personnel and facilities have been attacked. These are war crimes defined under GCIV, articles 14-23.
3. Illegal Arrest, Detention and Interrogation Practices
Human rights organizations in Iraq estimate that up to 18,000 Iraqis are being detained, most of whom have been denied any access to lawyers and families. The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that 70-90% of the 43,000 Iraqis detained during the occupation have been innocent bystanders.
According to the "Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade," conducted by Major General Antonio M. Taguba, acts of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison have included "forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped; positioning a naked detainee on a MRE box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes and penis to stimulate electric torture; a male military police guard having sex with a female detainee; breaking chemical lights and pouring phosphoric liquid on detainees; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell." Like many detainees who have been tortured in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, many have also been killed while in U.S. custody. All these practices are clearly banned by GCIV, articles 32 and 147, GCIV Protocol 1, article 85, and the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
4. Hiring of Private Military Contractors
Mercenaries have officially been banned since 1989 by the International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training of Mercenaries. In addition, there is very little jurisdiction beyond domestic laws that can place limits on the actions of private military companies. The U.S. has employed up to 20,000 private military contractors in Iraq (a ten-fold increase since the Gulf War), operating with virtual impunity.
5. Lack of Compensation, Even for Wrongful Death
Iraq was required under international law to pay for all the damage caused by its illegal invasion of Kuwait. However, unlike the UN Compensation Commission, which was set up to oversee Iraq's compensation payments to Kuwait, the U.S. compensation process is administered by the U.S. Foreign Claims Commission, which only compensates Iraqi civilians who have suffered loss or damage in "non-combat" incidents (as judged by the U.S. military) that took place after May 1, 2003. Human rights organizations in Iraq estimate that over 90% of Iraqi claims have been denied.
6. Lack of Accountability and Total Impunity
While the aforementioned violations are shocking, what is particularly disturbing is that coalition forces have created an atmosphere of impunity where there is no mechanism for coalition personnel to be charged or tried for such crimes under Iraqi law. AI, Section 2(3) of CPA Memorandum Number 3 removes the jurisdiction of the Iraqi courts over any coalition personnel, in relation to both civil and criminal matters. Furthermore, as Human Rights Watch has noted, private military contractors operate "outside the (U.S.) military chain of command and thus (are) ineligible for court-martial."
7. Changing Iraq's Laws and Restructuring Its Economy
One of the most devastating effects of the occupation has been the restructuring of the Iraqi economy. Many of the local laws have been changed to better serve foreign companies and to allow for tighter control of Iraqis. Changing the laws of an occupied country violates the Hague Convention, the Geneva Conventions, and the U.S. Army's own code of war, as stated in the Army Field Manual "The Law of Land Warfare." Perhaps most damaging is CPA Order 39, which has allowed for the privatization of Iraqi state companies, 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses including media and public services, unrestricted repatriation of profits and 40-year ownership licenses.
For more information, please refer to the Center for Economic and Social Rights'report: "Beyond Torture: U.S. Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq," available at http://cesr.org
Friday, December 16, 2011
Constitution-Trashing by a Constitution Scholar
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) would expand the military's authority to deny accused terrorists arrested within the country the right to a trial and could subject them to indefinite detention. The NDAA applies to those "accused," not convicted. Thus, the radical expansion of power that has defined U.S. policy since the attacks of 9/11 will be augmented.
President Obama had vowed to veto the NDAA if it included the arrest and detention provisions, not on the basis that it was an affront to the Constitution, but because he felt it would undermine the way the executive branch was dealing with terrorists. On or about December 15, 2011, Obama withdrew the veto threat, citing changes made in the legislation.
If anyone opposed to holding people, perhaps indefinitely, without trial, sees the Supreme Court as a possible savior, Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the ACLU, throws cold water on that hope. Anders says that when the legislative and executive branches of government are working together, it gets a lot more deference from the courts; therefore, an Obama veto of this thrashing of the due process provisions in the Constitution would have increased the chances of an overturn in the courts.
Although Section 1032 of the NDAA exempts U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens from the mandate of detention, it still remains an option.
Section 1031 still permits the government to indefinitely detain American accused of terrorism in military custody. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruled that Yaser Esam Hamdi could not be held indefinitely without habeas release but it ruled only that detainees could challenge their status as an "enemy combatant," which itself was a case of the executive branch legislating a new category of criminal. An indication of how sloppily written was Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is that both sides in the indefinite detention debate on the Senate floor cited it as supporting their case.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did not grant access to the courts, instead it said that military tribunals must comport with treaty obligations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Supreme Court could have ruled that military tribunals were not an appropriate venue for trying civilians, thus preventing the Congress from authorizing them after engaging in a little tidying up. A previous blog pointed out that the Military Commission Act of 2006 allows the president to empower the CIA to torture under a national security rationale.
Perhaps the weirdest spectacle on the Senate floor was Senator Carl Levin (D-M) energetically making a case that it was the Obama administration that was insisting that an exemption for U.S. citizens be taken out of the bill. Apparently, it was Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) who was able to get an exemption reinstated, subject to the caveats noted above.
President Obama announced in early 2010 that at least 50 detainees at Gitmo would be held without charging or trying them.
The FBI's "Good" Muslims
Writing in the September 19, 2011 The Nation, Arun Kundnani says of the FBI's "good" Muslims: "Local authorities have worked in concert with intelligence agencies to establish widespread networks of informants, to place mosques under surveillance and to launch "pre-emptive" prosecutions, frequently involving schemes that, critics charge, have been more successful in trapping disaffected individuals than in netting actual terrorists."
Kundnani quotes Birmingham (Alabama) City Council member Salma Yaqoob as follows: "By promoting and recognizing only those Muslims who toe the line, government policy is serving to strengthening the hands of the genuine extremists, those who say that our engagement in the democratic process is pointless or wrong... .
"Muslim organizations that take a civil rights stand and are then rejected as partners and vilified as conveyors of the 'extremist' ideas that supposedly make people into terrorists."
The campaigning Barack Obama said he would rein in the sprawling intelligence complex: the President Obama should try reining in the FBI in its targeting of Muslims.
President Obama had vowed to veto the NDAA if it included the arrest and detention provisions, not on the basis that it was an affront to the Constitution, but because he felt it would undermine the way the executive branch was dealing with terrorists. On or about December 15, 2011, Obama withdrew the veto threat, citing changes made in the legislation.
If anyone opposed to holding people, perhaps indefinitely, without trial, sees the Supreme Court as a possible savior, Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the ACLU, throws cold water on that hope. Anders says that when the legislative and executive branches of government are working together, it gets a lot more deference from the courts; therefore, an Obama veto of this thrashing of the due process provisions in the Constitution would have increased the chances of an overturn in the courts.
Although Section 1032 of the NDAA exempts U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens from the mandate of detention, it still remains an option.
Section 1031 still permits the government to indefinitely detain American accused of terrorism in military custody. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruled that Yaser Esam Hamdi could not be held indefinitely without habeas release but it ruled only that detainees could challenge their status as an "enemy combatant," which itself was a case of the executive branch legislating a new category of criminal. An indication of how sloppily written was Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is that both sides in the indefinite detention debate on the Senate floor cited it as supporting their case.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did not grant access to the courts, instead it said that military tribunals must comport with treaty obligations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Supreme Court could have ruled that military tribunals were not an appropriate venue for trying civilians, thus preventing the Congress from authorizing them after engaging in a little tidying up. A previous blog pointed out that the Military Commission Act of 2006 allows the president to empower the CIA to torture under a national security rationale.
Perhaps the weirdest spectacle on the Senate floor was Senator Carl Levin (D-M) energetically making a case that it was the Obama administration that was insisting that an exemption for U.S. citizens be taken out of the bill. Apparently, it was Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) who was able to get an exemption reinstated, subject to the caveats noted above.
President Obama announced in early 2010 that at least 50 detainees at Gitmo would be held without charging or trying them.
The FBI's "Good" Muslims
Writing in the September 19, 2011 The Nation, Arun Kundnani says of the FBI's "good" Muslims: "Local authorities have worked in concert with intelligence agencies to establish widespread networks of informants, to place mosques under surveillance and to launch "pre-emptive" prosecutions, frequently involving schemes that, critics charge, have been more successful in trapping disaffected individuals than in netting actual terrorists."
Kundnani quotes Birmingham (Alabama) City Council member Salma Yaqoob as follows: "By promoting and recognizing only those Muslims who toe the line, government policy is serving to strengthening the hands of the genuine extremists, those who say that our engagement in the democratic process is pointless or wrong... .
"Muslim organizations that take a civil rights stand and are then rejected as partners and vilified as conveyors of the 'extremist' ideas that supposedly make people into terrorists."
The campaigning Barack Obama said he would rein in the sprawling intelligence complex: the President Obama should try reining in the FBI in its targeting of Muslims.
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Payroll Tax Cut and Other Matters
As has become all-too-typical of the way that President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress respond to Republican intransigence, the payroll tax cut proposal has been modified once again. The 3.1 percent cut for employers has been stripped from the bill and the "pay for" provision has been modified to change the duration of the millionaires' surcharge to ten years, rather than it being permanent.
In a further move to appease the hard-to-please Republicans, the Democrats have purchased tickets to join the GOP in the theater of the absurd by agreeing to means test both food stamps and unemployment benefits, so that millionaires and billionaires can't successfully apply for them.
President Obama's main pitch for the payroll tax cut -- also known as the FICA tax -- is that without the cut, 160 Americans will experience a tax hike on January 1, 2012. When tax cuts expire there is usually a reason why they were made to have a limited duration. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress had agreed to a one-year payroll tax cut because it was believed that the economy needed a quick, temporary jolt. There was no attempt to make the initial cut permanent or even several years in length..
What will happen, then, if late in 2012 the unemployment rate is above eight percent and the GDP is growing under three percent per quarter? If current thinking prevails, there should be another attempt to extend the payroll tax cut once again. The Republicans will very likely say that if you don't extend the Bush tax cuts, many Americans will then experience a tax increase on January 1, 2013.
I am afraid that President Obama's attempts to gain short-term political advantage by portraying himself as much more likely to compromise than his recalcitrant Republican opponents, overlooks the longer-term ramifications of what he is doing. For instance, Obama initially called for "shared sacrifice" and balance between spending cuts and tax increases, but later agreed to additional cuts in spending without any matching tax increases. He further rhetorically shifted an imbalance of spending cuts over tax increase by calling on the wealthy to pay "a little bit more." He doesn't want a top marginal tax rate of over 39.6 percent, when, given how much wealth and income is concentrated in a small percentage of American households, there is a crying need for a graduated tax scale, with a top rate of 60 to 70 percent.
There is a regrettable practice among Obama supporters to focus all of their attention for his actions on his political opponents. Republicans are being properly castigated for their hypocrisy when they refuse to give Obama credit for his killing of terrorists but would praise such actions if they had been done by a conservative Republican president. This hypocrisy becomes more pronounced when some admirers of George W. Bush give him credit for what Obama has done.
There is another side to this coin, however, and that is why there is little or no critical analysis among Obama supporters of his actions. Is it a good thing that innocent civilians have been killed in U.S. air attacks on suspected terrorists? Was it a good idea to kill Osama bin Laden when accounts by Navy Seals indicate it would have been easy to capture him? Didn't we cause undue relationship problems with Pakistan by not involving its security forces in bin Laden's capture? Don't we profess to oppose uninvited military invasions of another country's sovereignty?
Even the killing of a U.S. citizen by presidential order hasn't seemed to have fazed many Obama supporters, who seemingly have bought into the argument that there are no limits on what can be done to someone who gets labeled as a terrorist? An instructor in constitutional law, such as Obama was, should know that it is a fundamental violation of the Constitution to take the life of a U.S. citizen without due process of law. And might it not be some type of criminal act when a U.S. citizen gets killed in a targeted attack on another U.S. citizen? This happened with the killing of the cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen.
Obama supporters found excuses for him when he pandered and caved-in time-after-time to Republican demands. Now these supporters are praising him for buying into the Republican obsession with tax cuts as the best solution to the nation's economic doldrums.
An Added Note or Two: I have always been made uneasy when President Obama refers to a proposal of his as having been initiated by a Republican. This has struck me as pandering, which didn't impress the Republican leadership, who saw it as such. Thus, when in my research I found that the actuarial firm, Towers Perrin, discovered in a study that malpractice tort cases make up only 1-1.5 percent of total medical costs, what struck my mind was that Obama had offered to include a malpractice tort cost component in the health care reform bill. It would have been better for Obama to have made the case that malpractice tort cases make up a minuscule part of total medical costs, instead of elevating the subject as a serious issue.
Gordon Lafer, a professor at the University of Oregon's Labor Education and Research Center. had the following to say about the Democrats when they controlled both houses of Congress: "they considered but declined to enact proposals to impose a tax on Wall Street transactions; to limit executive compensation; to favor a mass WPA-style jobs program; to allow bankruptcy judges to mark underwater mortgages to market; to make it easier for Americans to form unions and bargain for better wages; to eliminate tax benefits for companies that transfer our jobs overseas; and to forswear any more NAFTA-style trade treaties."
In a further move to appease the hard-to-please Republicans, the Democrats have purchased tickets to join the GOP in the theater of the absurd by agreeing to means test both food stamps and unemployment benefits, so that millionaires and billionaires can't successfully apply for them.
President Obama's main pitch for the payroll tax cut -- also known as the FICA tax -- is that without the cut, 160 Americans will experience a tax hike on January 1, 2012. When tax cuts expire there is usually a reason why they were made to have a limited duration. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress had agreed to a one-year payroll tax cut because it was believed that the economy needed a quick, temporary jolt. There was no attempt to make the initial cut permanent or even several years in length..
What will happen, then, if late in 2012 the unemployment rate is above eight percent and the GDP is growing under three percent per quarter? If current thinking prevails, there should be another attempt to extend the payroll tax cut once again. The Republicans will very likely say that if you don't extend the Bush tax cuts, many Americans will then experience a tax increase on January 1, 2013.
I am afraid that President Obama's attempts to gain short-term political advantage by portraying himself as much more likely to compromise than his recalcitrant Republican opponents, overlooks the longer-term ramifications of what he is doing. For instance, Obama initially called for "shared sacrifice" and balance between spending cuts and tax increases, but later agreed to additional cuts in spending without any matching tax increases. He further rhetorically shifted an imbalance of spending cuts over tax increase by calling on the wealthy to pay "a little bit more." He doesn't want a top marginal tax rate of over 39.6 percent, when, given how much wealth and income is concentrated in a small percentage of American households, there is a crying need for a graduated tax scale, with a top rate of 60 to 70 percent.
There is a regrettable practice among Obama supporters to focus all of their attention for his actions on his political opponents. Republicans are being properly castigated for their hypocrisy when they refuse to give Obama credit for his killing of terrorists but would praise such actions if they had been done by a conservative Republican president. This hypocrisy becomes more pronounced when some admirers of George W. Bush give him credit for what Obama has done.
There is another side to this coin, however, and that is why there is little or no critical analysis among Obama supporters of his actions. Is it a good thing that innocent civilians have been killed in U.S. air attacks on suspected terrorists? Was it a good idea to kill Osama bin Laden when accounts by Navy Seals indicate it would have been easy to capture him? Didn't we cause undue relationship problems with Pakistan by not involving its security forces in bin Laden's capture? Don't we profess to oppose uninvited military invasions of another country's sovereignty?
Even the killing of a U.S. citizen by presidential order hasn't seemed to have fazed many Obama supporters, who seemingly have bought into the argument that there are no limits on what can be done to someone who gets labeled as a terrorist? An instructor in constitutional law, such as Obama was, should know that it is a fundamental violation of the Constitution to take the life of a U.S. citizen without due process of law. And might it not be some type of criminal act when a U.S. citizen gets killed in a targeted attack on another U.S. citizen? This happened with the killing of the cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen.
Obama supporters found excuses for him when he pandered and caved-in time-after-time to Republican demands. Now these supporters are praising him for buying into the Republican obsession with tax cuts as the best solution to the nation's economic doldrums.
An Added Note or Two: I have always been made uneasy when President Obama refers to a proposal of his as having been initiated by a Republican. This has struck me as pandering, which didn't impress the Republican leadership, who saw it as such. Thus, when in my research I found that the actuarial firm, Towers Perrin, discovered in a study that malpractice tort cases make up only 1-1.5 percent of total medical costs, what struck my mind was that Obama had offered to include a malpractice tort cost component in the health care reform bill. It would have been better for Obama to have made the case that malpractice tort cases make up a minuscule part of total medical costs, instead of elevating the subject as a serious issue.
Gordon Lafer, a professor at the University of Oregon's Labor Education and Research Center. had the following to say about the Democrats when they controlled both houses of Congress: "they considered but declined to enact proposals to impose a tax on Wall Street transactions; to limit executive compensation; to favor a mass WPA-style jobs program; to allow bankruptcy judges to mark underwater mortgages to market; to make it easier for Americans to form unions and bargain for better wages; to eliminate tax benefits for companies that transfer our jobs overseas; and to forswear any more NAFTA-style trade treaties."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)