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.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)