Information and Proposed Changes in the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAP)
The ASVAP has been a powerful recruiting tool for the Pentagon, with hundreds of thousands of student scores routinely being sent to the military each year, typically leading to follow-up calls from recruiters. About 621,000 students took the ASVAP test in 2006-07, yielding 23,000 military recruits, or 9.3 percent of total enlistments, according to the Department of Defense (DoD). Of the 11,900 schools nationwide that gave the test, 92 percent allowed military recruiters to receive test results and personal contact information.
Civilian Defense Department employees seeking to market the ASVAP attend educator conferences, give talks in schools and can spend up to $1,000 for events where they make presentations, or give training to school employees.
The 693,600-student Los Angeles Unified School District mandated in the 2011-12 school year that no ASVAP information go to recruiters. About 2,700 students still took the test.
Among the changes that critics -- chiefly Safe Passage USA -- propose are:
- equal access for organizations providing alternatives to military careers;
- reporting of policy violations to school boards; and
- possible banning of recruiting organizations after two violations of policy.
Charter School Fraud
Between 2005 and 2011, the U.S. Department of Education opened 53 investigations of charter school fraud, resulting in 21 indictments and 17 convictions. Nineteen of Philadelphia's 84 charter schools were under investigation by state and/or local authorities.
Influences on Student Performance
A study titled "Withering Opportunity" reported that the family is by far the most important influence on student performance, topping both school and community. It is the latest in a series of studies showing that it is difficult to overcome a bad family situation in educating a child.
In 2010, the results of international testing comparing students in 34 developed countries showed a stunning decline in U.S. test scores.
The two findings above have a relationship to President Barack Obama's policy preferences, as he believes in tying teacher evaluations to student performance on high stakes testing. Teachers working in poverty-stricken areas have an additional hurdle to overcome in raising their students' test scores. Secondly, the decline in the test scores of U.S students in 2010 testing shows that years of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) may not have had a beneficial effect. Although Obama proposes to remove the NCLB emphasis on failing students and schools, he still does not want to kill NCLB.
On-Line Education
When President Obama held a well-publicized meeting with former Florida governor Jeb Bush, the GOP's "go-to guy" on educational issues, he gave prominence to the GOP's ultimate goal of breaking teachers' unions through use of vouchers, increasing the number of mostly non-union charter schools and promoting on-line education. Jeb Bush has possible conflict of interest problems, because a brother sells products tailored for on-line education. Jeb, himself, travels the country extolling the virtues of for-profit on-line education.
On-line education has a number of drawbacks: it siphons money from public institutions into for-profit companies; it undercuts public employees and their unions; it is beset with allegations of fraud; on-line schools rank among the most troubled of schools; and the digital learning products tend to be of low-quality.
There tends to be little teacher involvement in on-line education and parents do much of the teaching. Class sizes tend to be large, as illustrated by more than 100 students in some Wisconsin on-line classes. Also, teachers' salaries comprise just 17 percent of the budget for the on-line company, ECOT; in contrast, in Ohio's public schools, teachers may comprise 75 percent of the education budget.
Spending priorities can be very skewed at on-line education companies: Q Academy Wisconsin spent $424,700 on ads.
Finally, a CREDO research study shows learning gains for on-line students are significantly worse than in traditional public schools.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The High and Escalating Cost of Warplanes
A piece I wrote for the Peace Action network on July 13, 2009 points up the sharp cost escalation of warplanes. It is timely, in a sense, to reissue this communication in light of the Obama White House not cutting a single new warplane in the $487 billion, ten-year projected Pentagon budget cuts announced in January.
The fact sheet on the F-22 "Raptor" Fighter shows that the per unit cost increased from $148.8 million in early 1992 to $350.8 million in late 2008. This substantial increase in cost of a very sophisticated but fragile jet fighter is not unusual, as the cost of military fighter planes and bombers has historically wildly escalated. In her book, The Baroque Arsenal, the defense analyst, Mary Kaldor, writes that between the Second World War and 1980, the cost of bombers increased 200 times and fighter planes, 100 times.
The B-1B bomber had a per unit cost estimate of $30 million in 1972 but the per unit cost was about nine times higher in 1987. When first proposed late in the Reagan administration, the estimated cost of a 132-plane B-2 Stealth bomber wing was equaled by the cost of a 75-plane wing a few years later in 1991.
Not only is the F-22 a costly plane to build, but according to a July 10, 2009 Washington Post article, it requires 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, or $44,000 for every hour of flight. Ever since jet fighters began to be crammed with electronics -- a process Mary Kaldor called "positively rococo in their elaborate and frivolous features" -- failures requiring maintenance have been a common occurrence. Kaldor said the time between failures varied from 12 minutes for the F-111D to 18 minutes for the F-14A and F-45 fighters. In comparison, the A-10 general-attack aircraft was a maintenance marvel, as it could commonly fly for 72 minutes without a failure requiring maintenance work.
At the turn of the century, when the F-22 passed from drawing board and prototype to actual production, analysts were generally agreed that the U.S. did not need to build a single new fighter, as it would have jet fighter superiority until at least 2020. So when the argument is made that the 187 F-22s are sufficient, the honest answer is that we didn't need to build a single one.
Parts for the F-22 are made in 44 states, meaning that it is difficult to curtail the F-22 program due to the job-loss argument. To those who say that we can build more F-35 Joint Strike fighters to offset job losses from production curtailment of the more trouble-plagued F-22, the reply should be that we didn't need the F-35 either.
After the piece above was distributed to the Peace Action network, the Pentagon announced the "fully burdened" cost of a gallon of gasoline used by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The cost includes shipping, the loss of fuel when supply convoys are ambushed and the voracious consumption of fuel by military vehicles and combat aircraft.
The F-16 and the B-52 bomber can be used to illustrate this voracious consumption of fuel. The F-16 uses in less than an hour as much fuel as the average motorist uses in two years. The F-16 fuel consumption pales in comparison to the B-52. According to the book, At the Abyss, written by Thomas C. Reed, a former Secretary of the Air Force, an eight-engine B-52 at full-throttle uses a ton of fuel every four minutes. At a fully burdened cost of $400 a gallon, the one-hour fuel cost of a B-52 would be $1,440.000. Some B-52s have been used in bombing runs in Afghanistan.
The fact sheet on the F-22 "Raptor" Fighter shows that the per unit cost increased from $148.8 million in early 1992 to $350.8 million in late 2008. This substantial increase in cost of a very sophisticated but fragile jet fighter is not unusual, as the cost of military fighter planes and bombers has historically wildly escalated. In her book, The Baroque Arsenal, the defense analyst, Mary Kaldor, writes that between the Second World War and 1980, the cost of bombers increased 200 times and fighter planes, 100 times.
The B-1B bomber had a per unit cost estimate of $30 million in 1972 but the per unit cost was about nine times higher in 1987. When first proposed late in the Reagan administration, the estimated cost of a 132-plane B-2 Stealth bomber wing was equaled by the cost of a 75-plane wing a few years later in 1991.
Not only is the F-22 a costly plane to build, but according to a July 10, 2009 Washington Post article, it requires 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, or $44,000 for every hour of flight. Ever since jet fighters began to be crammed with electronics -- a process Mary Kaldor called "positively rococo in their elaborate and frivolous features" -- failures requiring maintenance have been a common occurrence. Kaldor said the time between failures varied from 12 minutes for the F-111D to 18 minutes for the F-14A and F-45 fighters. In comparison, the A-10 general-attack aircraft was a maintenance marvel, as it could commonly fly for 72 minutes without a failure requiring maintenance work.
At the turn of the century, when the F-22 passed from drawing board and prototype to actual production, analysts were generally agreed that the U.S. did not need to build a single new fighter, as it would have jet fighter superiority until at least 2020. So when the argument is made that the 187 F-22s are sufficient, the honest answer is that we didn't need to build a single one.
Parts for the F-22 are made in 44 states, meaning that it is difficult to curtail the F-22 program due to the job-loss argument. To those who say that we can build more F-35 Joint Strike fighters to offset job losses from production curtailment of the more trouble-plagued F-22, the reply should be that we didn't need the F-35 either.
After the piece above was distributed to the Peace Action network, the Pentagon announced the "fully burdened" cost of a gallon of gasoline used by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The cost includes shipping, the loss of fuel when supply convoys are ambushed and the voracious consumption of fuel by military vehicles and combat aircraft.
The F-16 and the B-52 bomber can be used to illustrate this voracious consumption of fuel. The F-16 uses in less than an hour as much fuel as the average motorist uses in two years. The F-16 fuel consumption pales in comparison to the B-52. According to the book, At the Abyss, written by Thomas C. Reed, a former Secretary of the Air Force, an eight-engine B-52 at full-throttle uses a ton of fuel every four minutes. At a fully burdened cost of $400 a gallon, the one-hour fuel cost of a B-52 would be $1,440.000. Some B-52s have been used in bombing runs in Afghanistan.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Some Pitfalls of E-Verify
In the February 22 presidential debate, Mitt Romney singled out Arizona's E-Verify program as a model for the nation. The Public Policy Institute of California said that the 2010 SB 1070 law was probably the reason that 92,000, or 17 percent of Arizona's Hispanic non-citizen population -- most of them probably illegals -- left the state. Magnus Lofstrom, coauthor of the study, said that most who stayed increasingly shifted into a shadow economy, nearly doubling the self-employment rate among non-citizen Hispanics in Arizona. Lofstrom believes the shadow, or informal economy would grow significantly if a national E-Verify system were established. An informal economy increase is much more likely than a massive movement toward self-deportation.
Lofstrom sees an increase in the informal economy as resulting in lower tax revenue, higher poverty rates and an increase in employer abuse.
Another problem in E-Verify is that according to a government-commissioned study, E-Verify only flags illegal immigrants half the time, because it can't detect when a worker is using documents that belong to someone else. Mill Romney supports a biometric ID card but universal ID cards have run into a lot of political opposition in the past.
Arizona does have a state-wide system to make sure businesses are using E-Verify: it relies on individual citizens reporting businesses who break the law. Thus far, only three businesses have been prosecuted. Business owners are worried that E-Verify's high error rate leaves them open to prosecution.
Lofstrom sees an increase in the informal economy as resulting in lower tax revenue, higher poverty rates and an increase in employer abuse.
Another problem in E-Verify is that according to a government-commissioned study, E-Verify only flags illegal immigrants half the time, because it can't detect when a worker is using documents that belong to someone else. Mill Romney supports a biometric ID card but universal ID cards have run into a lot of political opposition in the past.
Arizona does have a state-wide system to make sure businesses are using E-Verify: it relies on individual citizens reporting businesses who break the law. Thus far, only three businesses have been prosecuted. Business owners are worried that E-Verify's high error rate leaves them open to prosecution.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Lowering Corporate and Manufacturers' Tax Rates Is Problematic
President Barack Obama is proposing to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and close some tax loopholes; also, some manufacturers would get a tax rate of 25 percent. There are a number of reasons why these tax proposals might not be a good idea:
1) the Congressional Budget Office has found that about two-thirds of U.S.-chartered corporations do not pay any federal income tax;
2) a study of the top 100 companies in the Fortune 500 found they pay their CEOs more than they pay in federal income tax;
3) several surveys have shown that businesses list lack of consumer demand, not taxes, as the major reason they cannot expand or hire more workers;
4) before the Reagan tax cuts, corporations provided about three times as much in federal government revenues as they do today -- they also provided almost double the revenue of state governments as they do today;
5) closing the loopholes previously identified by President Obama would not make a significant dent in the national government's budgetary debt;
6) although U.S.-chartered corporations have a higher income tax rate than do most of the other industrialized nations, when you factor in exemptions, deductions, generous depreciation rules and credits, U.S. corporations wind up paying lower rates than the aggregate of the other industrialized nations; and
7) since the U.S. Supreme Court found in Citizens United that corporations could contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, they should not be taxed at a lower rate than that of the higher income tax brackets -- if corporations are people they should pay at least the same rate as the higher bracketed individuals do.
In regard to number 4), the period after World War II was a time of economic prosperity, yet corporations were much more heavily taxed than they are today.
President Barack Obama has largely bought into the GOP position that lowered taxes are the solution for many of the nation's economic problems. Obama has made frequent mention of how much he has cut middle-class taxes in his tenure in office. Withe the extension of the payroll tax cut through 2012, the total tax cuts in the last three years will approach the $1 trillion mark. Since the latest Obama proposal on revenue is to raise $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, two crucial questions must be asked: 1) Will that $1.5 trillion be an aggregate increase of about $2.5 trillion to cancel out the nearly $1 trillion already cut? and 2) How much of the tax increase will take place after President Obama has left office, assuming he wins a second term?
We don't know, of course, if President Obama is done cutting taxes: for instance, if recent signs of an economic recovery prove to be illusory and the economy seriously falters, wouldn't Obama be almost compelled by his argumentative rhetoric of the recent past to seek another extension of the payroll tax cut, at minimum? The 2012 payroll tax cut is seen as a big political victory for Obama but it carries within it the seeds of future serious budgetary trouble.
1) the Congressional Budget Office has found that about two-thirds of U.S.-chartered corporations do not pay any federal income tax;
2) a study of the top 100 companies in the Fortune 500 found they pay their CEOs more than they pay in federal income tax;
3) several surveys have shown that businesses list lack of consumer demand, not taxes, as the major reason they cannot expand or hire more workers;
4) before the Reagan tax cuts, corporations provided about three times as much in federal government revenues as they do today -- they also provided almost double the revenue of state governments as they do today;
5) closing the loopholes previously identified by President Obama would not make a significant dent in the national government's budgetary debt;
6) although U.S.-chartered corporations have a higher income tax rate than do most of the other industrialized nations, when you factor in exemptions, deductions, generous depreciation rules and credits, U.S. corporations wind up paying lower rates than the aggregate of the other industrialized nations; and
7) since the U.S. Supreme Court found in Citizens United that corporations could contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, they should not be taxed at a lower rate than that of the higher income tax brackets -- if corporations are people they should pay at least the same rate as the higher bracketed individuals do.
In regard to number 4), the period after World War II was a time of economic prosperity, yet corporations were much more heavily taxed than they are today.
President Barack Obama has largely bought into the GOP position that lowered taxes are the solution for many of the nation's economic problems. Obama has made frequent mention of how much he has cut middle-class taxes in his tenure in office. Withe the extension of the payroll tax cut through 2012, the total tax cuts in the last three years will approach the $1 trillion mark. Since the latest Obama proposal on revenue is to raise $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, two crucial questions must be asked: 1) Will that $1.5 trillion be an aggregate increase of about $2.5 trillion to cancel out the nearly $1 trillion already cut? and 2) How much of the tax increase will take place after President Obama has left office, assuming he wins a second term?
We don't know, of course, if President Obama is done cutting taxes: for instance, if recent signs of an economic recovery prove to be illusory and the economy seriously falters, wouldn't Obama be almost compelled by his argumentative rhetoric of the recent past to seek another extension of the payroll tax cut, at minimum? The 2012 payroll tax cut is seen as a big political victory for Obama but it carries within it the seeds of future serious budgetary trouble.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Israel Exempted From Austerity Measures
Speaking before students at Northern Virginia Community College on February 13, 2012 to unveil his FY 2013 budget, President Barack Obama was in his best cinch-the-belt, austerity mode. Obama said he had proposed "some difficult cuts that, frankly, I wouldn't normally make if they weren't absolutely necessary. But they are." He added that "the truth is that we're going to have to make some tough choices in order to put this country back on a more sustainable fiscal path."
Israel is to be spared from the austerity program, even though the International Monetary Fund rates Israel the 28th. wealthiest country in the world. President Obama proposes to increase military aid to Israel from the $3.075 billion in FY 2012 to $3.1 billion in FY 2013. From 2000 to 2009, the United States provided Israel with more than $24 billion of military aid. Israel has made use of these weapons to commit grave and systematic human rights abuses against Palestinians. The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem says that from 2000 to 2009, Israel killed 2,969 Palestinians "who did not participate in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces (not including the objects of targeted killings)."
While exempting Israel from budgetary pain, President Obama proposes to make deep cuts in domestic spending, highlighted by the $360 billion cut in Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs over ten years, even though the World Health Organization rates the United States 37th. in health care performance.
It would seem that the wealthy country of Israel should have shared in the cuts that Obama wouldn't have "normally" made but has found it "absolutely necessary" to make.
Israel is to be spared from the austerity program, even though the International Monetary Fund rates Israel the 28th. wealthiest country in the world. President Obama proposes to increase military aid to Israel from the $3.075 billion in FY 2012 to $3.1 billion in FY 2013. From 2000 to 2009, the United States provided Israel with more than $24 billion of military aid. Israel has made use of these weapons to commit grave and systematic human rights abuses against Palestinians. The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem says that from 2000 to 2009, Israel killed 2,969 Palestinians "who did not participate in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces (not including the objects of targeted killings)."
While exempting Israel from budgetary pain, President Obama proposes to make deep cuts in domestic spending, highlighted by the $360 billion cut in Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs over ten years, even though the World Health Organization rates the United States 37th. in health care performance.
It would seem that the wealthy country of Israel should have shared in the cuts that Obama wouldn't have "normally" made but has found it "absolutely necessary" to make.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Right-to-Work -- for Less
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Ohio Governor John Kasich have led the efforts to destroy collective bargaining for public sector employees. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is intent on destroying private sector unions and to make Indiana a right-to-work (RTW) state -- many people leave off "for less" at the end of "right-to-work." It is too bad that an examination has not been done of the pathology of the residents of those three states to find out why they would elect such destructive individuals to the highest elective office in their respective states.
One of the best indicators that we live in an Orwellian world is that right-to-work is presented as a job-creation strategy. Oklahoma thought it was being a smarty-pants by adopting RTW. In the ten years after the adoption, manufacturing jobs in the state fell by one-third. Surveys of manufacturers confirm that RTW is not a significant draw, as in a 2010 survey, manufacturers ranked it sixteenth among factors affecting location decisions.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is very comfortable with political indoctrination when it comes to reinforcing a state's RTW status but it doesn't want any independent workers's organization exercising any political role in the workplace.
President Barack Obama is unlikely to be a formidable foe against work-to-work in a possible second term, as he did little to defend collective bargaining or promote the growth of organized labor in his first term.
One of the best indicators that we live in an Orwellian world is that right-to-work is presented as a job-creation strategy. Oklahoma thought it was being a smarty-pants by adopting RTW. In the ten years after the adoption, manufacturing jobs in the state fell by one-third. Surveys of manufacturers confirm that RTW is not a significant draw, as in a 2010 survey, manufacturers ranked it sixteenth among factors affecting location decisions.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is very comfortable with political indoctrination when it comes to reinforcing a state's RTW status but it doesn't want any independent workers's organization exercising any political role in the workplace.
President Barack Obama is unlikely to be a formidable foe against work-to-work in a possible second term, as he did little to defend collective bargaining or promote the growth of organized labor in his first term.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Law-Breaking Threat on Iran
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." The United States is a founding member of the UN and has adopted the UN Charter by treaty. Any attack or threat of attack is a violation of both international and U.S. law.
Based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), of which Iran is a signatory, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has had regular access to Iranian nuclear facilities and has not found Iran to be in violation of the NNPT. The latest IAEA report, issued in November 2011, said the agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007 found that Iran did not have an active nuclear weapons program.
Brazil and Turkey submitted a plan to store Iran's nuclear fuel that was very similar to one advanced by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany. The United States rejected the Brazil and Turkey plan, creating the impression that the United States is more interested in the issue instead of a solution.
We should all recall the erroneous, low-grade or falsified intelligence used to justify military action in Iraq.
U.S. Role in Iran's Nuclear Program
In 1957 the United States and Iran signed their first civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Over the next three decades, the U.S. not only provided Iran with technical assistance but supplied the country with its first experimental nuclear reactor, complete with enriched uranium and plutonium with fissile isotopes. In 1975 the Ford administration approved the sale of up to eight nuclear reactors, with fuel, to Iran and, in 1976, approved the sale of lasers believed to be capable of enriching uranium.
Based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), of which Iran is a signatory, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has had regular access to Iranian nuclear facilities and has not found Iran to be in violation of the NNPT. The latest IAEA report, issued in November 2011, said the agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007 found that Iran did not have an active nuclear weapons program.
Brazil and Turkey submitted a plan to store Iran's nuclear fuel that was very similar to one advanced by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany. The United States rejected the Brazil and Turkey plan, creating the impression that the United States is more interested in the issue instead of a solution.
We should all recall the erroneous, low-grade or falsified intelligence used to justify military action in Iraq.
U.S. Role in Iran's Nuclear Program
In 1957 the United States and Iran signed their first civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Over the next three decades, the U.S. not only provided Iran with technical assistance but supplied the country with its first experimental nuclear reactor, complete with enriched uranium and plutonium with fissile isotopes. In 1975 the Ford administration approved the sale of up to eight nuclear reactors, with fuel, to Iran and, in 1976, approved the sale of lasers believed to be capable of enriching uranium.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Obama's SOU Speech Utterly Devoid of Big Ideas
The last five words of this blog title are taken from a recent article by Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist. My politics are the polar opposite of Krauthammer's but some of his criticisms of P:resident Barack Obama's State of the Union speech are on target. I would, however, change Krauthammer's title ending to "Brimming With Bad or Unworkable Ideas."
Krauthammer labels Obama's proposed Buffett Rule as "a tired replay of the alternative minimum tax...." and he ridicules Obama's proposal to give a double tax break for high-tech firms as posing defiinition problems and unlikely to create blue-collar jobs. I agree with Krauthammer's take on the double tax break but my concern about the Buffett Rule is much different from that of Krauthammer. I view the Buffett Rule as gimmickry and that it will impede efforts to get fundamental change in the tax rate schedule. I view a a giant mistake the adoption o thef conventional wisdom that the top marginal tax rate should be under 40 percent, which is well out of line with the reality that a tiny percentage of the nation's population owns most of the nation's wealth. In an earlier blog I proposed a tax rate schedule ranging from 16 to 60 percent -- Robert Reich wants a top rate of 70 percent. My prior blog lays out other needed taxation changes.
My fear is that adoption of the Buffett Rule will kill any momentum to raise the taxes on those with six-figure or even five-figure incomes. Relative to other industrialized nations, U.S. citizens are under-taxed. In this regard, I feel that Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire for only those earning over $250,000 a year as a mistake, not only because the GOP will not likely agree to it, but because the nation's taxpayers, speaking generally, either pay no federal income tax or pay too little
I also share Krauthammer's concerns about Obama's plans to give tax breaks to employers who hire veterans, employers who add workers for any sorts of jobs -- easily subject to manipulation -- and having separate tax rates for corporations based on whether they create U.S. jobs, or are low-tech instead of high-tech firms.
Krauthammer also caught correctly, I believe, the Clintonian aspects of Obama's speech, in which he called for "little things:" "little watchdog agenices to round up Wall Street miscreants and Chinese DVD pirates...." These little things include a trade inspection unit and a financial fraud unit in the Justice Department. The time to go after Wall Street "miscreants" was three years ago; however, Obama didn't want to look backward, only forward, at the time, so the Bush administration's complicity in torture and other illegal actions was given a free pass. Now he proposes to look back at possible serious financial wrongdoing when the trail has grown cold.
What particularly stood out in the speech was Obama's flat statement that "all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18." Kratuhammer calls this Obama "playing truant officer." Obama didn't say a single word about how this very improbable outcome might happen.
Charles Kratuhammer made no comment about Obama's opening and ending his speech with glorification of the military and Krauthammer also ignored any foreign policy comments. I was dismayed by the fact that Obama signaled no downsizxing of a bloated Pentagon; in addition, his advice that a represetnative demcoracy should model itself on a hierarchical, orders-from-the-top-down military structure is simply absurd.
President Obama made no mention of his assumption of the power to detain U.S. citizens and even order their killing. His celebration of the elimination of top Al Qaeda leaders masks the possible downside of drone strikes creating more violent extremists than they eliminate.
Missing from the speech was any indication that Obama might end his assault on civil liberties, which exceeds, if anything, any action taken by George W. Bush.
We also saw in the SOU speech the Obama practice of following two incompatible pathways, as illustrated by: 1) his call for more oil and natural gas production juxtapositioned against his call for clean energy tax credits and standards; 2) his vow to tear down regulations that hold back small businesses countered by the need to enact smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior; and 3) his fulsome praise of the military posited against the need for a new defense strategy. President Obama has largely followed the defense policies he inherited.
One thing Obvama did not take off the table in his SOU speech was his threat to use nuclear weapons if Iran crosses certain red lines in its nuclear program. The danger and lawlessness of this stance will be explored in my next blog.
In summary, the Obama SOU speech doesn't hold up well under close scrutiny but it appears to have been extremely effective as a political statement. His political base is more focused on playing up the weakness and meanness of his political opposition than in holding him to the promises of fundamental change he made the core of his presidential campaign.
Krauthammer labels Obama's proposed Buffett Rule as "a tired replay of the alternative minimum tax...." and he ridicules Obama's proposal to give a double tax break for high-tech firms as posing defiinition problems and unlikely to create blue-collar jobs. I agree with Krauthammer's take on the double tax break but my concern about the Buffett Rule is much different from that of Krauthammer. I view the Buffett Rule as gimmickry and that it will impede efforts to get fundamental change in the tax rate schedule. I view a a giant mistake the adoption o thef conventional wisdom that the top marginal tax rate should be under 40 percent, which is well out of line with the reality that a tiny percentage of the nation's population owns most of the nation's wealth. In an earlier blog I proposed a tax rate schedule ranging from 16 to 60 percent -- Robert Reich wants a top rate of 70 percent. My prior blog lays out other needed taxation changes.
My fear is that adoption of the Buffett Rule will kill any momentum to raise the taxes on those with six-figure or even five-figure incomes. Relative to other industrialized nations, U.S. citizens are under-taxed. In this regard, I feel that Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire for only those earning over $250,000 a year as a mistake, not only because the GOP will not likely agree to it, but because the nation's taxpayers, speaking generally, either pay no federal income tax or pay too little
I also share Krauthammer's concerns about Obama's plans to give tax breaks to employers who hire veterans, employers who add workers for any sorts of jobs -- easily subject to manipulation -- and having separate tax rates for corporations based on whether they create U.S. jobs, or are low-tech instead of high-tech firms.
Krauthammer also caught correctly, I believe, the Clintonian aspects of Obama's speech, in which he called for "little things:" "little watchdog agenices to round up Wall Street miscreants and Chinese DVD pirates...." These little things include a trade inspection unit and a financial fraud unit in the Justice Department. The time to go after Wall Street "miscreants" was three years ago; however, Obama didn't want to look backward, only forward, at the time, so the Bush administration's complicity in torture and other illegal actions was given a free pass. Now he proposes to look back at possible serious financial wrongdoing when the trail has grown cold.
What particularly stood out in the speech was Obama's flat statement that "all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18." Kratuhammer calls this Obama "playing truant officer." Obama didn't say a single word about how this very improbable outcome might happen.
Charles Kratuhammer made no comment about Obama's opening and ending his speech with glorification of the military and Krauthammer also ignored any foreign policy comments. I was dismayed by the fact that Obama signaled no downsizxing of a bloated Pentagon; in addition, his advice that a represetnative demcoracy should model itself on a hierarchical, orders-from-the-top-down military structure is simply absurd.
President Obama made no mention of his assumption of the power to detain U.S. citizens and even order their killing. His celebration of the elimination of top Al Qaeda leaders masks the possible downside of drone strikes creating more violent extremists than they eliminate.
Missing from the speech was any indication that Obama might end his assault on civil liberties, which exceeds, if anything, any action taken by George W. Bush.
We also saw in the SOU speech the Obama practice of following two incompatible pathways, as illustrated by: 1) his call for more oil and natural gas production juxtapositioned against his call for clean energy tax credits and standards; 2) his vow to tear down regulations that hold back small businesses countered by the need to enact smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior; and 3) his fulsome praise of the military posited against the need for a new defense strategy. President Obama has largely followed the defense policies he inherited.
One thing Obvama did not take off the table in his SOU speech was his threat to use nuclear weapons if Iran crosses certain red lines in its nuclear program. The danger and lawlessness of this stance will be explored in my next blog.
In summary, the Obama SOU speech doesn't hold up well under close scrutiny but it appears to have been extremely effective as a political statement. His political base is more focused on playing up the weakness and meanness of his political opposition than in holding him to the promises of fundamental change he made the core of his presidential campaign.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
A Very Light Diet for the Pentagon
Diane Sawyer, ABC anchor, described as "massive" the Pentagon budget cuts announced by President Barack Obama on January 5, 2012. The Pentagon is trying to frame the overall cut of $487 billion over ten years as the maximum sacrifice it will be able to endure. Yet Obama gave much of the game away when he said that even with the cuts, the United States would be spending more on the military than the ten next highest military spending nations in the world; also, he stated that the Pentagon would continue to get its "normal" increases.
None of the 11 aircraft carrier flotillas will be cut, except that their sailing schedules might be reduced. None of the current missions of the Pentagon would be eliminated, only "narrowed." There would still be a formidable nuclear weapons force, with the triad deployment probably preserved. Even though there might be fewer nuclear warheads, the modernization program, a new fleet of nuclear weapons-armed submarines and a new bomber equipped to nuclear warheads will apparently not be affected.
The planned 2,400 plane air wing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be affected, except for a delay in deployment. The cost of a single F-35 almost doubled in just eight years; also, the Pentagon announced last year that projected maintenance costs alone of the F-35 could reach $1 trillion in 30 years. Fighter planes designed to serve two of the military services, as the F-35 is built to do, haven't worked out well in the past.
Although it is contended that the armed forces will have a reduced capacity to fight land warfare, this limitation is "reversible," as reserve forces and the National Guard will allow the U.S. to fight two land wars simultaneously. It is hard to imagine that given the drain on resources of the two wars during the last decade, that we are even contemplating fighting an additional war(s) in the next decade.
The Pentagon is following several major pathways: 1) the last Quadrennial assessment elevated fighting an insurgency of violent extremists to the highest planning level; 2) the Pentagon is also engaged in surmounting the major technological challenges in creating the electronic, robotic battlefield of the future, once the apple of Donald Rumsfeld's eye; and 3) the Pentagon is continuing to build the sophisticated weapons systems appropriate to fighting a major peer enemy, such as the Soviet Union once was.
There is a sense of deja vu in elevating fighting an insurgency to the top of the planning list, as about the time that Barack Obama came into the presidency, a Defense Department directive put "IW" (irregular warfare) to a level "as strategically important as traditional warfare," arguing that for the "foreseeable future, winning the Long War against violent extremists will be the central objective of U.S. policy."
The fact that we are militarily following several major pathways in military planning is linked to the concept of "full spectrum dominance," whereby a joint military structure achieves control over all elements of the battlefield, using surface, sub-surface and air space-based assets. Full spectrum dominance includes the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that the freedom of an opposition force to exploit the battlefield will be wholly contained.
How will the $487 billion in cuts be achieved? The U.S. Army will be cut from 570,000 to 490,000 by 2017 and the U.S. Marines will go from 202,000 troops to 182,000. It was as recently as 2005 that the armed forces was increased by 92,000 troops, so this 100,000 cut basically restores the troop numbers to what they were seven or eight years ago. If Barack Obama wins a second term, the troop reduction will not be completed during his presidency.
Besides the troop reduction, some old planes will be retired -- two dozen C-5A cargo aircraft and 65 of the oldest C-130 cargo planes -- the U.S. Navy will retire seven cruisers earlier than planned and delay some purchases; the new generation of submarines will be deployed in 2032, not 2030 as now blueprinted; and there will be a delay in full deployment of the F-35. Notable in this list of cost savings is that not a single weapons system will be eliminated.
Given that the ten-year projection of Pentagon base budget spending and ongoing war-fighting spending submitted with the FY 2012 budget is nearly $6.4 trillion, a cut of $487 billion is not that impressive.
None of the 11 aircraft carrier flotillas will be cut, except that their sailing schedules might be reduced. None of the current missions of the Pentagon would be eliminated, only "narrowed." There would still be a formidable nuclear weapons force, with the triad deployment probably preserved. Even though there might be fewer nuclear warheads, the modernization program, a new fleet of nuclear weapons-armed submarines and a new bomber equipped to nuclear warheads will apparently not be affected.
The planned 2,400 plane air wing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be affected, except for a delay in deployment. The cost of a single F-35 almost doubled in just eight years; also, the Pentagon announced last year that projected maintenance costs alone of the F-35 could reach $1 trillion in 30 years. Fighter planes designed to serve two of the military services, as the F-35 is built to do, haven't worked out well in the past.
Although it is contended that the armed forces will have a reduced capacity to fight land warfare, this limitation is "reversible," as reserve forces and the National Guard will allow the U.S. to fight two land wars simultaneously. It is hard to imagine that given the drain on resources of the two wars during the last decade, that we are even contemplating fighting an additional war(s) in the next decade.
The Pentagon is following several major pathways: 1) the last Quadrennial assessment elevated fighting an insurgency of violent extremists to the highest planning level; 2) the Pentagon is also engaged in surmounting the major technological challenges in creating the electronic, robotic battlefield of the future, once the apple of Donald Rumsfeld's eye; and 3) the Pentagon is continuing to build the sophisticated weapons systems appropriate to fighting a major peer enemy, such as the Soviet Union once was.
There is a sense of deja vu in elevating fighting an insurgency to the top of the planning list, as about the time that Barack Obama came into the presidency, a Defense Department directive put "IW" (irregular warfare) to a level "as strategically important as traditional warfare," arguing that for the "foreseeable future, winning the Long War against violent extremists will be the central objective of U.S. policy."
The fact that we are militarily following several major pathways in military planning is linked to the concept of "full spectrum dominance," whereby a joint military structure achieves control over all elements of the battlefield, using surface, sub-surface and air space-based assets. Full spectrum dominance includes the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that the freedom of an opposition force to exploit the battlefield will be wholly contained.
How will the $487 billion in cuts be achieved? The U.S. Army will be cut from 570,000 to 490,000 by 2017 and the U.S. Marines will go from 202,000 troops to 182,000. It was as recently as 2005 that the armed forces was increased by 92,000 troops, so this 100,000 cut basically restores the troop numbers to what they were seven or eight years ago. If Barack Obama wins a second term, the troop reduction will not be completed during his presidency.
Besides the troop reduction, some old planes will be retired -- two dozen C-5A cargo aircraft and 65 of the oldest C-130 cargo planes -- the U.S. Navy will retire seven cruisers earlier than planned and delay some purchases; the new generation of submarines will be deployed in 2032, not 2030 as now blueprinted; and there will be a delay in full deployment of the F-35. Notable in this list of cost savings is that not a single weapons system will be eliminated.
Given that the ten-year projection of Pentagon base budget spending and ongoing war-fighting spending submitted with the FY 2012 budget is nearly $6.4 trillion, a cut of $487 billion is not that impressive.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The U.S. Military's Impact on the Environment
Barry Sanders has chronicled the U.S. military's impact on the environment in his book entitled The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of the Military, published by AK Press in 2009.
Sanders makes the very serious charge that instead of protecting Americans, the U.S. military, by itself, produces enough greenhouse gases to put the entire globe, with all its inhabitants, in the "most imminent danger of extinction."
Sanders conservatively estimates the U.S. military uses one million barrels of oil a day, or almost 20 million gallons, for the benefit of those who look at fuel use in terms of gas put into cars.This fuel consumption ranks with that of countries like Iran, Indonesia and Spain, keeping in mind that Indonesia has 235 million people.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that each gallon of gasoline produces 19.4 pounds of CO2 (carbon dioxide). Thus, in fuel usage alone the U.S. military accounts for 73 million tons of carbon a year.
The environment is further impacted by exploding bombs -- conventional and cluster -- napalm, depleted uranium and so forth. The military estimates it annually needs 1.5 billion rounds for its M-16 rifles.
Sanders singles out depleted uranium (DU) as a particularly dangerous threat. DU is essentially U-238, the isotope left after the fissionable isotope, U-235, has been extracted from uranium ore. DU has a half-life of 4.7 billion years. Sanders describes the devastating impact of DU: "When DU hits something, it ignites, reaching temperatures between 3,000-5,000 degrees Celsius (5,432-9,032 F). It goes through metal like a hot knife through butter, making it a superb military weapon. But it also releases radiation upon impact, poisoning all around it. Its tiny particles can be inhaled -- people don't have to touch irradiated materials. Thus, Iraqis are being poisoned by simply breathing the air! And, once inhaled, DU hardens, turning into insoluble pellets that cannot be excreted. DU poisoning in a literal death sentence. It not only kills, however, but it can damage human DNA -- it's the gift that keeps on giving, to generations and generations."
Since 1991 the United States has been manufacturing just about all of its bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb and smart bombs out of depleted uranium. A single cruise missile weighs 3,000 pounds and carries within its casing, 600 pounds of DU. The U.S. fired 800 cruise missiles in just the first two days of the invasion of Iraq.
DU can bite back on the generators. Depleted uranium researcher Arthur Bernklau has said: "Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are now dead. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability." The low casualty tolls in Gulf War I were highly misleading, because the damage came later and continues to build. One caveat in Bernklau's figures is that some of the damage to U.S. troops may have come from the U.S. exploding large stocks of Iraqi chemical weapons.
Sanders makes the very serious charge that instead of protecting Americans, the U.S. military, by itself, produces enough greenhouse gases to put the entire globe, with all its inhabitants, in the "most imminent danger of extinction."
Sanders conservatively estimates the U.S. military uses one million barrels of oil a day, or almost 20 million gallons, for the benefit of those who look at fuel use in terms of gas put into cars.This fuel consumption ranks with that of countries like Iran, Indonesia and Spain, keeping in mind that Indonesia has 235 million people.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that each gallon of gasoline produces 19.4 pounds of CO2 (carbon dioxide). Thus, in fuel usage alone the U.S. military accounts for 73 million tons of carbon a year.
The environment is further impacted by exploding bombs -- conventional and cluster -- napalm, depleted uranium and so forth. The military estimates it annually needs 1.5 billion rounds for its M-16 rifles.
Sanders singles out depleted uranium (DU) as a particularly dangerous threat. DU is essentially U-238, the isotope left after the fissionable isotope, U-235, has been extracted from uranium ore. DU has a half-life of 4.7 billion years. Sanders describes the devastating impact of DU: "When DU hits something, it ignites, reaching temperatures between 3,000-5,000 degrees Celsius (5,432-9,032 F). It goes through metal like a hot knife through butter, making it a superb military weapon. But it also releases radiation upon impact, poisoning all around it. Its tiny particles can be inhaled -- people don't have to touch irradiated materials. Thus, Iraqis are being poisoned by simply breathing the air! And, once inhaled, DU hardens, turning into insoluble pellets that cannot be excreted. DU poisoning in a literal death sentence. It not only kills, however, but it can damage human DNA -- it's the gift that keeps on giving, to generations and generations."
Since 1991 the United States has been manufacturing just about all of its bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb and smart bombs out of depleted uranium. A single cruise missile weighs 3,000 pounds and carries within its casing, 600 pounds of DU. The U.S. fired 800 cruise missiles in just the first two days of the invasion of Iraq.
DU can bite back on the generators. Depleted uranium researcher Arthur Bernklau has said: "Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are now dead. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability." The low casualty tolls in Gulf War I were highly misleading, because the damage came later and continues to build. One caveat in Bernklau's figures is that some of the damage to U.S. troops may have come from the U.S. exploding large stocks of Iraqi chemical weapons.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Contraception Is the New Abortion
Daily Kos days "a tiny handful of very angry men, especially Catholic bishops, have been shrieking that Obama is waging a war on religion and it will be the end of freedom as we know it." What Daily Kos is commenting on is the contretemps that has arisen between President Obama and the U.S. Catholic bishops, with the Re;publican establishment weighing in to equate women's use of contraceptives with abortion.
The base of this brewing battle is the federal rule that extends all preventive services, including contraceptive services, to women who are insured through their employers. The rule, which explicitly exempts churches, requires those employers with more than 50 employees, who offer health insurance to their employees, to cover all preventive care without charge to the insured.
The Institute of Medicine has found that contraceptive services are preventive services because contraception prevents so much maternal, infant and fetal illness and death. Around the world, more than a quarter of a million lives are saved each year by the availability of modern contraception.
In an op-ed in the February 11, 2012 Albuquerque Journal, Robert Schwartz, professor of law at the University of New Mexico, lays out the absurdity of the position taken by the Catholic bishops and their surrogates in one concise sentence: "Even when their employees are paid by taxpayer funding, as many are, and even when the church-run enterprises get a hefty government subsidy through their tax-exempt status, as almost all do, some religious employers insist that they have a First Amendment right to control the morality of the medical and sexual decision-making their employees do after work." U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand struck a strong nerve in the general public when she commented that women should not have their medical decisions made by their bosses.
Professor Schwartz sees the controversy as pitting protection of public health against protection of religious doctrine. He notes that since it upheld the constitutionality of the government-mandated smallpox vaccine, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that religious beliefs are outweighed by the health of the public when such a balance is undertaken.
There are significant weaknesses in the position of the Catholic bishops and those who have joined them in making contraception a First Amendment issue of religious freedom. A number of the major Catholic institutions, such as Georgetown University, Catholic University and DePaul University offer contraceptive coverage. According to the ACLU and other sources, 98 percent of Catholic women have used contraception at some point in their lives. A poll of self-identified Catholics found that 58 percent support contraception insurance coverage. It is also the case that the major Catholic institutions employ people of all faiths. A further curious fault line in the position of the bishops is that 28 states follow the same birth control rule as enunciated by President Barack Obama.
The radio talk show host Bill Press has pointed out that in 2000 the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission set as policy that if insurance covers Viagra for men, it must also cover women's contraceptives. Also, Press notes that the same policy on contraception as under Obama was in effect under George W. Bush, and the Republicans did not raise a ruckus.
As the controversy has swirled, President Obama announced an "accommodation" whereby religious institutions will not be responsible for providing birth control; however, women employed by organizations such as Catholic hospitals, schools or universities will be able to get contraceptives without charge from their insurance companies. CNN News has called this a back-pedal by Obama. Rep. Rosa Delauro (D-Conn), who supported Obama's original statement on the contraception issue, now fully backs his "accommodation."
There is some concern that non-religious employers will see an opening to drop contraception coverage for their employees on the grounds that it violates their consciences.
Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast has raised questions about Obama shortcomings in the contraceptive matter: he may have consulted insufficiently with the bishops and even Catholic progressives and administration supporters; he may have believed that political actors won't deal with him in bad faith; he may be too aloof and solitary to rely on advice; and he may demand too little of his staff. The Obama is playing chess and the GOP is playing checkers school has raised the possibility that the White House deliberately created this controversy to show how unwilling the bishops are to compromise and how fanatical many Republicans are about denying women assistance in birth control.
What stands out in this contraception controversy is the degree to which the U.S. Catholic bishops are obsessed with sex. The Catholic Church was against the war in Iraq; it is against capital punishment; and it is for the eradication of poverty. However, the bishops really get up in arms when the subjects of abortion and birth control become prominent in the public discourse. It was in 1968 that the Catholic Church declared the use of contraceptives to be immoral.
A central irony of the uproar over contraceptives is that there was fear that John F. Kennedy might run his presidency in accordance with Catholic doctrine but now it is a non-Catholic President Obama who is leaning over backward to please the Catholic hierarchy.
The controversy over contraception may have been avoided if President Obama had pushed hard for a single-payer system instead of the hybrid health care legislation now subject to serious legal challenge.
The base of this brewing battle is the federal rule that extends all preventive services, including contraceptive services, to women who are insured through their employers. The rule, which explicitly exempts churches, requires those employers with more than 50 employees, who offer health insurance to their employees, to cover all preventive care without charge to the insured.
The Institute of Medicine has found that contraceptive services are preventive services because contraception prevents so much maternal, infant and fetal illness and death. Around the world, more than a quarter of a million lives are saved each year by the availability of modern contraception.
In an op-ed in the February 11, 2012 Albuquerque Journal, Robert Schwartz, professor of law at the University of New Mexico, lays out the absurdity of the position taken by the Catholic bishops and their surrogates in one concise sentence: "Even when their employees are paid by taxpayer funding, as many are, and even when the church-run enterprises get a hefty government subsidy through their tax-exempt status, as almost all do, some religious employers insist that they have a First Amendment right to control the morality of the medical and sexual decision-making their employees do after work." U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand struck a strong nerve in the general public when she commented that women should not have their medical decisions made by their bosses.
Professor Schwartz sees the controversy as pitting protection of public health against protection of religious doctrine. He notes that since it upheld the constitutionality of the government-mandated smallpox vaccine, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that religious beliefs are outweighed by the health of the public when such a balance is undertaken.
There are significant weaknesses in the position of the Catholic bishops and those who have joined them in making contraception a First Amendment issue of religious freedom. A number of the major Catholic institutions, such as Georgetown University, Catholic University and DePaul University offer contraceptive coverage. According to the ACLU and other sources, 98 percent of Catholic women have used contraception at some point in their lives. A poll of self-identified Catholics found that 58 percent support contraception insurance coverage. It is also the case that the major Catholic institutions employ people of all faiths. A further curious fault line in the position of the bishops is that 28 states follow the same birth control rule as enunciated by President Barack Obama.
The radio talk show host Bill Press has pointed out that in 2000 the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission set as policy that if insurance covers Viagra for men, it must also cover women's contraceptives. Also, Press notes that the same policy on contraception as under Obama was in effect under George W. Bush, and the Republicans did not raise a ruckus.
As the controversy has swirled, President Obama announced an "accommodation" whereby religious institutions will not be responsible for providing birth control; however, women employed by organizations such as Catholic hospitals, schools or universities will be able to get contraceptives without charge from their insurance companies. CNN News has called this a back-pedal by Obama. Rep. Rosa Delauro (D-Conn), who supported Obama's original statement on the contraception issue, now fully backs his "accommodation."
There is some concern that non-religious employers will see an opening to drop contraception coverage for their employees on the grounds that it violates their consciences.
Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast has raised questions about Obama shortcomings in the contraceptive matter: he may have consulted insufficiently with the bishops and even Catholic progressives and administration supporters; he may have believed that political actors won't deal with him in bad faith; he may be too aloof and solitary to rely on advice; and he may demand too little of his staff. The Obama is playing chess and the GOP is playing checkers school has raised the possibility that the White House deliberately created this controversy to show how unwilling the bishops are to compromise and how fanatical many Republicans are about denying women assistance in birth control.
What stands out in this contraception controversy is the degree to which the U.S. Catholic bishops are obsessed with sex. The Catholic Church was against the war in Iraq; it is against capital punishment; and it is for the eradication of poverty. However, the bishops really get up in arms when the subjects of abortion and birth control become prominent in the public discourse. It was in 1968 that the Catholic Church declared the use of contraceptives to be immoral.
A central irony of the uproar over contraceptives is that there was fear that John F. Kennedy might run his presidency in accordance with Catholic doctrine but now it is a non-Catholic President Obama who is leaning over backward to please the Catholic hierarchy.
The controversy over contraception may have been avoided if President Obama had pushed hard for a single-payer system instead of the hybrid health care legislation now subject to serious legal challenge.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Large Banks to Pay Small Price for Fraud and Illegal Foreclosures
In a well-researched email for CREDO Action, Becky Bond sets up her piece with the following statement: "Wall Street bankers fraudulently and illegally foreclosed on your house. You get $2,000." With an average mortgage of $180,000, the homeowner gets a little over one percent of the mortgage amount.
Bond belittles the impressive-looking amount of $26 billion announced by President Obama in concert with many of the state attorney generals. She contends that based on her research, an estimated $10-20 billion in the deal for reduction of the mortgage principal would reduce by about only two percent the $700 billion destroyed during the financial crisis. Banks will pay about $5 billion out of their own pockets. Investors and taxpayers will be hit the hardest and they didn't cause the robo-signing or instigate other illegal activity.
Becky Bond writes that one in five of the underwater Americans owe their banks an average of $50,000 each, creating a very large negative equity.
The size of the home mortgage deal is less than one tenth the size of the settlement reached with tobacco companies, which in today's dollars is $350 billion. It also is dwarfed in comparison with the $1.2 trillion provided to Wall Street banks by the Federal Reserve.
Bond is also concerned by the national government's bad record in enforcing settlement terms with Wall Street banks.
Banks have profited from taking illegal shortcuts. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the largest mortgage banks saved $20 billion by use of illegal shortcuts. There has been no full investigation of the robo-signing scandal nor what Reuters has called "copious evidence" of "widespread forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice and illegal foreclosures...."
It was either ABC or CBS evening news that interviewed a robo-signer. He admitted to signing up to 4,000 documents a day and there were days when he may have signed for five or six bank vice presidents. Under questioning, he acknowledged having no prior bank experience and no special skills, other than being able to sign his name a lot.
The bottom line is that widespread lawlessness of banks is whitewashed and no banker is under risk of an indictment. Failure to impose a real penalty for unlawful behavior will encourage other bankers to try to get away with illegal shortcuts in the future.
A Final Note: In his State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama said that "responsible" underwater homeowners would get $3,000. Apparently that amount has been scaled back to $2,000, which as a New York Times financial writer has said would be great if you had a $2,000 mortgage.
Bond belittles the impressive-looking amount of $26 billion announced by President Obama in concert with many of the state attorney generals. She contends that based on her research, an estimated $10-20 billion in the deal for reduction of the mortgage principal would reduce by about only two percent the $700 billion destroyed during the financial crisis. Banks will pay about $5 billion out of their own pockets. Investors and taxpayers will be hit the hardest and they didn't cause the robo-signing or instigate other illegal activity.
Becky Bond writes that one in five of the underwater Americans owe their banks an average of $50,000 each, creating a very large negative equity.
The size of the home mortgage deal is less than one tenth the size of the settlement reached with tobacco companies, which in today's dollars is $350 billion. It also is dwarfed in comparison with the $1.2 trillion provided to Wall Street banks by the Federal Reserve.
Bond is also concerned by the national government's bad record in enforcing settlement terms with Wall Street banks.
Banks have profited from taking illegal shortcuts. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the largest mortgage banks saved $20 billion by use of illegal shortcuts. There has been no full investigation of the robo-signing scandal nor what Reuters has called "copious evidence" of "widespread forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice and illegal foreclosures...."
It was either ABC or CBS evening news that interviewed a robo-signer. He admitted to signing up to 4,000 documents a day and there were days when he may have signed for five or six bank vice presidents. Under questioning, he acknowledged having no prior bank experience and no special skills, other than being able to sign his name a lot.
The bottom line is that widespread lawlessness of banks is whitewashed and no banker is under risk of an indictment. Failure to impose a real penalty for unlawful behavior will encourage other bankers to try to get away with illegal shortcuts in the future.
A Final Note: In his State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama said that "responsible" underwater homeowners would get $3,000. Apparently that amount has been scaled back to $2,000, which as a New York Times financial writer has said would be great if you had a $2,000 mortgage.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Update of Prior Blogs
The following segments represent either additional information or a new perspective on topics covered in prior blogs.
The U.S.Empire of Military Bases
How many military bases does the United States have in other countries? The Pentagon's most recent answer is 865 but that doesn't include the bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. overseas bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases maintained by one country on another country's territory. The historian Chalmers Johnson has called it an "empire of bases."
Of the total number of bases, 227 are in Germany and it makes little sense to keep them there, given Germany's internal strength.
If the argument is made that the transplanted troops are getting exposure to another way of life, the counter-argument is that the Americans live in a little America, watching American TV, listening to American rap and heavy metal, and eating American fast food.
Military bases, by their very nature, discharge toxic waste into local ecosystems. Two examples of this pollution are the 19 superfund sites created in Guam and the exploded or unexploded ordinance and other residue from live-bombing practice conducted in Puerto Rico's Visques region for 180 days a year until 2003.
The magnitude of crimes U.S. troops commit in overseas assignments is best illustrated by the 52,000 crimes that Korean activists claim U.S. troops committed in South Korea from 1967 to 2002.
The information above is taken from an article by Hugh Gusterson, writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
A 2009 Proposal that President Obama Should Resurrect
Rep. David Price introduced the Interrogation and Detention Act three years ago, which would have repealed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and endorsed the existing military and civilian justice systems as the most appropriate venues for prosecuting terrorists. At the time of introduction, the military commissions system had achieved only three convictions in terrorism cases since 9/11, while civilian courts had convicted over 145 terrorists in the same time span, although we too easily accept the definition of who is a terrorist. The legislation would have closed the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities and established uni\form, government-wide standards for interrogation that prohibit torture.
Price's bill would have enacted forward-looking proposals designed to strengthen intelligence collection, including the creation of a center of excellence training and research, as recommended by the Intelligence Science Board, and the development of an expert cadre of career military interrogators.
Campaign Finance Percentages
The following percentages are distilled from the January/February 2012 issue of Mother Jones.
Campaign spending by the finance, insurance and real estate sectors has grown about eight-fold since 1990 and reached $500 million for the 2008 election. Ninety percent of the outside money spent without disclosure in 2010 was from conservative groups.
Forty-six percent of the outside groups active during the 2010 election did not disclose information about their funding.
The U.S.Empire of Military Bases
How many military bases does the United States have in other countries? The Pentagon's most recent answer is 865 but that doesn't include the bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. overseas bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases maintained by one country on another country's territory. The historian Chalmers Johnson has called it an "empire of bases."
Of the total number of bases, 227 are in Germany and it makes little sense to keep them there, given Germany's internal strength.
If the argument is made that the transplanted troops are getting exposure to another way of life, the counter-argument is that the Americans live in a little America, watching American TV, listening to American rap and heavy metal, and eating American fast food.
Military bases, by their very nature, discharge toxic waste into local ecosystems. Two examples of this pollution are the 19 superfund sites created in Guam and the exploded or unexploded ordinance and other residue from live-bombing practice conducted in Puerto Rico's Visques region for 180 days a year until 2003.
The magnitude of crimes U.S. troops commit in overseas assignments is best illustrated by the 52,000 crimes that Korean activists claim U.S. troops committed in South Korea from 1967 to 2002.
The information above is taken from an article by Hugh Gusterson, writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
A 2009 Proposal that President Obama Should Resurrect
Rep. David Price introduced the Interrogation and Detention Act three years ago, which would have repealed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and endorsed the existing military and civilian justice systems as the most appropriate venues for prosecuting terrorists. At the time of introduction, the military commissions system had achieved only three convictions in terrorism cases since 9/11, while civilian courts had convicted over 145 terrorists in the same time span, although we too easily accept the definition of who is a terrorist. The legislation would have closed the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities and established uni\form, government-wide standards for interrogation that prohibit torture.
Price's bill would have enacted forward-looking proposals designed to strengthen intelligence collection, including the creation of a center of excellence training and research, as recommended by the Intelligence Science Board, and the development of an expert cadre of career military interrogators.
Campaign Finance Percentages
The following percentages are distilled from the January/February 2012 issue of Mother Jones.
Campaign spending by the finance, insurance and real estate sectors has grown about eight-fold since 1990 and reached $500 million for the 2008 election. Ninety percent of the outside money spent without disclosure in 2010 was from conservative groups.
Forty-six percent of the outside groups active during the 2010 election did not disclose information about their funding.
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Myth of Voter Fraud and the Reality of Voter Suppression
Using voter fraud as a cover, Republican governors and legislators, rejuvenated by success in the 2010 elections, have devised a number of tactics to block voting by those who are least likely to vote Republican.There are seven specific tactics being used to restrict access to the polling place.
One: Tougher Voter ID Requirements
A year ago, only Georgia and Indiana required photo IDs. Since then, 34 states have introduced photo ID laws. Five enacted them; governors vetoed five; and other states are considering them. 17 states require a non-photo ID.
A 2006 Brennan Center for Justice study found nearly one in five citizens over age 65 -- eight million -- lack a current, government-issued photo ID. Some over 65 were born before recording births was standard practice. 3.2 million voters in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin would find voting more difficult with a photo ID requirement.
Two: Create Hurdles to Get Required ID
Some states are even charging for it.
Three: Intimidate Voter Registration Groups
Seven states tried to add restrictions on voter registration groups and such laws passed in Florida and Texas. Florida has a rigorous schedule for turning in applications and errors result in fines.
Four: Try to Eliminate Same-Day Registration
The citizens of Maine shot down such an action. An Ohio law is up on a referendum.
Five: Curtail Early Voting
This is being done mostly by reducing the number of days.
Six: Ban Felons From Voting
Florida is notorious for erroneous lists. Iowa has recently joined the ban-the-felons crowd. Across the nation, some 5.3 million released felons are denied the right to vote.
Seven: Bleed Election Administration Budgets
Texas, Tennessee and Wisconsin have limited the operating hours or closed state offices where residents can get photo IDs. In the three listed states, there are a total of 34 counties with no Department of Public Safety offices, including four where the Hispanic population is more than 75 percent.
Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin have passed laws in the past year to allow voters without the required ID to cast provisional ballots but come back with required ID for their ballots to count. Indiana and Georgia already had such laws.
Justin Levitt, author of The Truth About Voter Fraud, written for the Brennan Canter for Justice, investigated 250 cases of alleged election fraud and found only nine instances of improper voting. Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott investigated what he called "an epidemic" of voter fraud but reviews of Abbott's investigation done two years later yielded no cases of voter impersonation fraud. After a five-year hunt for voter fraud, the Bush Justice Department came up with little actual fraud.
In New Mexico, the state in which I live, the secretary of state elected in November 2010, saw voter fraud as rampant. After an investigation turned up a relative handful of improper voting cases, the secretary told the media that even one case was too many.
Civil rights leaders and voter protection groups see the new state laws as equivalent to poll taxes and literacy tests.
Given the importance of voting to our representative form of government, these calculated attempts to close off the polling booths to millions of U.S. citizens should have drawn the impassioned opposition of President Barack Obama.
One: Tougher Voter ID Requirements
A year ago, only Georgia and Indiana required photo IDs. Since then, 34 states have introduced photo ID laws. Five enacted them; governors vetoed five; and other states are considering them. 17 states require a non-photo ID.
A 2006 Brennan Center for Justice study found nearly one in five citizens over age 65 -- eight million -- lack a current, government-issued photo ID. Some over 65 were born before recording births was standard practice. 3.2 million voters in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin would find voting more difficult with a photo ID requirement.
Two: Create Hurdles to Get Required ID
Some states are even charging for it.
Three: Intimidate Voter Registration Groups
Seven states tried to add restrictions on voter registration groups and such laws passed in Florida and Texas. Florida has a rigorous schedule for turning in applications and errors result in fines.
Four: Try to Eliminate Same-Day Registration
The citizens of Maine shot down such an action. An Ohio law is up on a referendum.
Five: Curtail Early Voting
This is being done mostly by reducing the number of days.
Six: Ban Felons From Voting
Florida is notorious for erroneous lists. Iowa has recently joined the ban-the-felons crowd. Across the nation, some 5.3 million released felons are denied the right to vote.
Seven: Bleed Election Administration Budgets
Texas, Tennessee and Wisconsin have limited the operating hours or closed state offices where residents can get photo IDs. In the three listed states, there are a total of 34 counties with no Department of Public Safety offices, including four where the Hispanic population is more than 75 percent.
Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin have passed laws in the past year to allow voters without the required ID to cast provisional ballots but come back with required ID for their ballots to count. Indiana and Georgia already had such laws.
Justin Levitt, author of The Truth About Voter Fraud, written for the Brennan Canter for Justice, investigated 250 cases of alleged election fraud and found only nine instances of improper voting. Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott investigated what he called "an epidemic" of voter fraud but reviews of Abbott's investigation done two years later yielded no cases of voter impersonation fraud. After a five-year hunt for voter fraud, the Bush Justice Department came up with little actual fraud.
In New Mexico, the state in which I live, the secretary of state elected in November 2010, saw voter fraud as rampant. After an investigation turned up a relative handful of improper voting cases, the secretary told the media that even one case was too many.
Civil rights leaders and voter protection groups see the new state laws as equivalent to poll taxes and literacy tests.
Given the importance of voting to our representative form of government, these calculated attempts to close off the polling booths to millions of U.S. citizens should have drawn the impassioned opposition of President Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)