The bipartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal 2006 budget will reach $10 billion per month for an extra $120 billion for the year. As of mid 2006, the wars' total costs exceed $400 billion. Depending on which end of the political spectrum you inhabit, the total bill for the Middle East expedition will be from $1 to $2 trillion. Both estimates are an order of magnitude larger than the Charlatan's regime will admit. Current military spending consumes 19% of total fiscal 2007 federal budget according to the DOD. That figure climbs to as much as 51% if other relevant factors are considered such as supplemental appropriations for the wars (the wars' costs are not included in the budget), interest on previous deficit spending for military purposes, veterans benefits, whether Social Security trust funds are excluded from calculation and the military portion of other departments' spending such the Department of Energy's nuclear warhead program. The U.S. military budget is the world's largest, more than six times as large as the budget of its nearest competitor, Russia. The cost of our military establishment puts us in a class of our own.
Since before Eisenhower warned of the "grave implications" of the "military-industrial complex" for our society, the United States has been traveling the fiscal road of military Keynesianism. That was the same road traveled by the German Reich after the Weimar Republic collapsed beneath piles of worthless Reichmarks. Hyperinflation was so bad that Germans actually burned paper money in the their stoves because firewood was too expensive. Hitler did not undertake a program of rearmament and expansion solely for economic reasons, but increased government spending on arms made him more acceptable to German industrialists who might otherwise have opposed his destabilizing plans for leibenstraum. Expansion of the army also absorbed many young males with few skills and little education while placating the Prussian officer corps fuming over the perceived humiliation of Versailles. Many abroad applauded his German economic miracle.
Traditional Keynesian economic policy prescribes deficit government spending in bad times--the proverbial pump priming--balanced by debt repayment in good times. Military Keynesianism is unstable because there is no political check on deficit spending for armaments. One of the side effects of continuous war preparation is, inevitably, war or at least a warlike political environment. The supposedly co-equal branches of government have ceded power to the executive during the post WWII era in which there have been four major wars and several minor military actions. The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the reaction to Vietnam and intended to limit the president's ability to wage war without an act of Congress, had been ignored or violated before the Charlatan was installed in office. Few government leaders, except the rigidly authoritarian Vice President, think the executive branch has lost power in the last thirty years. The regime never misses an opportunity to justify its actions on a state of war replacing the Cold War, called "the Global War on Terror". It has spent its last six years in power seeking to expand presidential authority to a level never before experienced in America under the rubric of Commander in Chief. The Chief candidly admits that this will be a long war that may never be finally over.
While the United States continues to incur debt for a permanent war, its trade deficit soared to an all-time high in 2005 of $782.7 billion, the fourth consecutive year of record trade deficits. This massive amount of debt is financed by two major creditors, Japan ($850 billion) and China ($854 billion). Of course, these countries continue to lend to our treasury because America is a vast market for their consumer goods. But they do so only because of a competitive advantage. American demand for their goods provides employment. How long they will be willing to be paid for their products in devalued American dollars is any body's guess. Investors like Warren Buffet are aware of the weakening dollar as they move into foreign currencies to hedge. This foreign underwriting of our military economy explains in part why the huge U.S. debt burden has not yet triggered a severe domestic economic contraction, as predicted by traditional analysis. Pump priming works only so long as the bills are eventually paid.
The U.S. appears unwilling to give up its expensive military hegemony, choosing instead the bad example of Rome. That empire maintained its republican facade while clinging to its provinces by dictatorial force until it collapsed from within. National bankruptcy did not mean the literal end of Germany in 1923 or the end of Argentina in 2001. However, learning to exist with much lower living standards, an authoritarian national government, and the reemergence of countervailing powers in the world will be difficult for Americans accustomed to having it their way.
Weekend Update: The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has released figures showing that in the last six years of the Bush regime, the national debt has increased by $2.3 trillion including $633 billion in interest payments. Foreign investors financed 78% of the deficit. The trade deficit for 2006 is projected to be a record $750 billion. Trade deficits have exceeded 5% of the GDP since 2004, a condition most economists consider unsustainable in the long term. Most of the growth in the imbalance is caused by foreign oil imports. I wonder how much gas mileage an Abrams tank gives?
Just so you know its not only me, here is a quote from Chris Hedges, Harvard Divinity graduate and former Pulitzer Prize winning journalist:
There has been, along with the creation of an American oligarchy, the steady Weimarization of the American working class. The top one percent of American households have more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. This figure alone should terrify all who care about our democracy.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saturday, December 30, 2006
A Nation's Values
Readers of this blog will remember that I wrote last year about the disputed Sarasota, Florida congressional election. The Republican won by 369 votes, yet the ES&S (Electronic Systems and Software) direct record machines (iVotronic touch screen) registered 18,000 uses with no vote for either candidate. By historical standards that is a very large undervote for a prominent race.
In the latest development, a Florida judge has rejected the Democrat's request to examine the electronic voting machines' "innards". Of course state election officials, the vast majority of whom are Republican, claim that the machines were operating properly. The Omaha, Nebraska company claims tests showed they were working properly. But the undeniable fact is that there is no independent way of determining if the machines were operating correctly at the time of the election. This is so because the machines do not create a real time record of vote tallies that can be audited. An examination of the machine's electronic circuits could reveal an executable program embedded in the hardware and not detectable without such an examination. Predictably the judge ruled that the possibility of lost votes did not warrant disclosure of the company's trade secrets. However, there should be no question that a system of voting that does not allow an independent means of verifying accuracy is appropriate for use in a democracy that fundamentally depends upon transparency and accountability in elections.
We now know that in Florida a corporation's bottom line is more important than a fair election. The Democrat has appealed the court ruling and also contested the election in the House of Representatives. But the new Democratic leadership has decided that the putative winner will be seated as the representative of Florida's 13 district pending a decision on the challenge. If the U.S. House does not act to invalidate the 13th District election, we will know that the nation's values are the same as Florida's: Democracy is for sale.
In the latest development, a Florida judge has rejected the Democrat's request to examine the electronic voting machines' "innards". Of course state election officials, the vast majority of whom are Republican, claim that the machines were operating properly. The Omaha, Nebraska company claims tests showed they were working properly. But the undeniable fact is that there is no independent way of determining if the machines were operating correctly at the time of the election. This is so because the machines do not create a real time record of vote tallies that can be audited. An examination of the machine's electronic circuits could reveal an executable program embedded in the hardware and not detectable without such an examination. Predictably the judge ruled that the possibility of lost votes did not warrant disclosure of the company's trade secrets. However, there should be no question that a system of voting that does not allow an independent means of verifying accuracy is appropriate for use in a democracy that fundamentally depends upon transparency and accountability in elections.
We now know that in Florida a corporation's bottom line is more important than a fair election. The Democrat has appealed the court ruling and also contested the election in the House of Representatives. But the new Democratic leadership has decided that the putative winner will be seated as the representative of Florida's 13 district pending a decision on the challenge. If the U.S. House does not act to invalidate the 13th District election, we will know that the nation's values are the same as Florida's: Democracy is for sale.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Gerald R. Ford 1913-2006
Truth is our only client here....
Representative Gerald R. Ford while a member of the Warren Commission
I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans...the law... is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality.
President Gerald R. Ford announcing his pardon of former President Richard M. Nixon
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
Iraq, the Middle East and Manifest Destiny
With the new Secretary of Defense and former CIA Director sounding the same party line about staying the course (with more troops) perhaps the perspective of history will help us evaluate the validity of his dire predictions of falling dominos and calamity in the Middle East.
Those of you familiar with the writings of Richard Hofstadter may recognize the title of this post as derived from his essay about American imperial expansion at the time of the Spanish War, "Cuba, the Philippines and Manifest Destiny". In that essay Hofstadter posits that economic imperialism could not be the sole explanation for the annexation of the Philippines at the close of hostilities with Spain in 1898. The Philippines were not a wildly profitable colony and within a generation of their occupation American political leaders--even that icon of American imperialism Theodore Roosevelt-- were calling for the islands' independence. The compelling parallels of zeitgeist warrant serious consideration by our nation's political leaders as they ponder an escape from the foreign policy morass of Iraq.
Hofstadter considered the momentous and unprecedented decision to acquire an overseas possession as the nation's bipolar reaction to a "psychic crisis". Certainly the newspapers, especially the yellow press of the time, did much to whip up jingoism among the public, but something in their collective psyche made them susceptible to war propaganda. The crisis was the acute economic depression of 1893. For the first time in American history an economic event had help create a mass movement large enough to capture one of the major parties. Populism represented the possibility, or threat depending on one's status, of fundamental social change. It was a crusade for the soul of America carried forward with religious zeal. The Populist & Free Silver movement's defeat at the polls after a disruptive campaign created a significant amount of frustration among the disadvantaged. Huge business trusts were eclipsing the scope of individual economic opportunity. Organized labor was locked in a violent struggle with capitalists to win recognition. The closing of the frontier, expressed by Jackson Turner, was another powerful symbol of diminishing expectations. The nation was clearly at a watershed in history and the future was viewed as problematic.
Public reaction to the crisis expressed itself in two opposite moods. One was social empathy expressed in humanitarian protest and social reform; the other was aggressive self-assertion expressed in national power and expansion. The events of the nineties had brought frustration and anxiety to civic minded Americans. The need to be reassured of the nation's strength existed alongside the capacity for sympathy. Therefore, the war against Spain could be viewed by the public simultaneously as a democratic struggle to save Cuba from the colonial oppression of Spain, and the righteous assertion of American power abroad in a world being divided up by predatory European powers. This was manifest destiny applied on a global, not just a continental or even hemispheric, extent.
There was an elite circle of politicians and editors that saw the economic and military potential of a colony in the Orient. Their motivation to annex the Philippines is properly described as imperialist. They were inspired by the naval theories of Alfred Mahan and the practical example of Anglo-Saxon hegemony. At the center of that circle was the extremely manly Teddy Roosevelt. He considered the war against Spain an opportunity to test the metal of American youth while building a proper army and navy befitting an emerging world power. The anti-imperialists were disorganized in comparison. They did not control a major party as did the Republican expansionists. They were politically diverse, elderly, and led by the once defeated William Jennings Bryan whose compromising approach in the face of the public's support for the war undermined anti-imperialist efforts.
America's first steps into the Philippines were presented as defensive. It was assumed that Spanish ships in the Pacific could attack the U.S. west coast. Commodore Dewey was sent to engage them. His ships destroyed the decrepit Spanish Eastern Fleet at anchor in Manila Bay without loosing a man. The spectacular victory was seen as Providential. Understandably, it then gave impetus to the desire to protect the heroic US squadron by occupying Manila with troops. They were dispatched in July, 1898. The capture of Manila was carried out with the cooperation of the Spanish and to the exclusion of indigenous freedom fighters led by Aguinaldo. The protocol ending hostilities called for the occupation of the city pending a final peace settlement.
The America public and Congress were thus presented with a fait accompli by war supporters. To speak against continuing the occupation would be deemed unpatriotic. They argued to leave the Philippines precipitously would expose it to being overrun by other powers and possibly start a war over their possession. The U.S., having defeated the dictatorial colonial power, had a moral obligation to Filipinos who were considered congenitally incapable of self government. England was encouraging American occupation as opposed to one of its European rivals taking control of the strategic archipelago. An all-or-none policy was suggested by the dynamics of the situation. An equivocal President McKinley finally decided on a long term annexation of the entire chain after five months. The joke ran, "How is McKinley's mind like a bed? You have to make it up for him to use it." When it became clear to Filipino patriots after December, 1898 that American intentions did not include returning the islands that American forces were ordered to fully occupy, a fierce and bitter insurgency erupted. The insurgency lasted until 1903 by which time its leaders were either captured or killed. Amazingly, in the process of subduing resistance in the islands using unorthodox methods referred to as 'Injun fighting', U.S. troops (mostly state militia volunteers) resorted to the waterboard torture technique to extract information from prisoners. The "benevolent assimilation" of the Philippines cost a quarter million Filipinos their lives mostly due to malnutrition and disease.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 caused a psychic crisis in America. A successful attack against the U.S. mainland had not occurred since 1812. The fact that the attack was made covertly by a small group of individuals instead of a uniformed foreign army heightened the trauma. The spectacular toppling of the twin Trade Towers profoundly shattered Americans' sense of personal safety and their confidence in government's ability to protect them. Americans' faith in the validity of their democracy was shakened by the disputed Presidential election of 2000. A popular notion of moral decay seemed confirmed when the previous President was impeached and nearly removed from office for lying about an extra-marital sexual encounter. Many middle class Americans had experienced a deterioration in their economic security causing them grave doubts about their status in the new century. The events of the decade leading to the millennium had brought frustration and anxiety to America's body politic.
This modern psychic crisis made the public particularly susceptible to a sophisticated propaganda campaign urging a foreign war. The war would satisfy a strong desire for retaliation and would promise to regain America's righteous role in the world. America would resume its perceived new manifest destiny of destroying tyranny everywhere and leading the world to universal democracy. The administration's slogans would be tinged with religiosity and fundamental certitude. An elite circle of influential policy experts and journalists adhering to a radical school of political philosophy known as neoconservatism would aid the calculated effort to convince a supine Congress to authorize an invasion. Where there were no objective facts to support the claims of imminent danger, war supporters would resort to using unreliable reports and discredited claims. In short, the justifications for war were fraudulent.
After a brief and remarkably successful military campaign defeating a dictatorial regime that was no real threat to American security, the public and Congress is presented with another fait accompli. We face a determined resistance whose will to fight has been stiffened by extreme U.S. methods and egregious strategic errors. We are told by the Administration that to leave Iraq now is to admit defeat, endanger our army and invite regional chaos. They claim we have a moral obligation to Iraqis who are incapable of providing for their own security. They admonish that only victory by force of arms is an acceptable outcome for a world power whose prestige and credibility hang in the balance.
Their arguments for "staying the course" are distressingly identical to those used by American imperialists of a century ago. However, there is one essential difference in Realpolitik between the Philippines of 1898 and Iraq of 2003. The potential protectorate of Iraq has oil, making it a much more valuable prize for those powerful business interests who wish to profit from a new colony in the midst of the oil zone.
Those of you familiar with the writings of Richard Hofstadter may recognize the title of this post as derived from his essay about American imperial expansion at the time of the Spanish War, "Cuba, the Philippines and Manifest Destiny". In that essay Hofstadter posits that economic imperialism could not be the sole explanation for the annexation of the Philippines at the close of hostilities with Spain in 1898. The Philippines were not a wildly profitable colony and within a generation of their occupation American political leaders--even that icon of American imperialism Theodore Roosevelt-- were calling for the islands' independence. The compelling parallels of zeitgeist warrant serious consideration by our nation's political leaders as they ponder an escape from the foreign policy morass of Iraq.
Hofstadter considered the momentous and unprecedented decision to acquire an overseas possession as the nation's bipolar reaction to a "psychic crisis". Certainly the newspapers, especially the yellow press of the time, did much to whip up jingoism among the public, but something in their collective psyche made them susceptible to war propaganda. The crisis was the acute economic depression of 1893. For the first time in American history an economic event had help create a mass movement large enough to capture one of the major parties. Populism represented the possibility, or threat depending on one's status, of fundamental social change. It was a crusade for the soul of America carried forward with religious zeal. The Populist & Free Silver movement's defeat at the polls after a disruptive campaign created a significant amount of frustration among the disadvantaged. Huge business trusts were eclipsing the scope of individual economic opportunity. Organized labor was locked in a violent struggle with capitalists to win recognition. The closing of the frontier, expressed by Jackson Turner, was another powerful symbol of diminishing expectations. The nation was clearly at a watershed in history and the future was viewed as problematic.
Public reaction to the crisis expressed itself in two opposite moods. One was social empathy expressed in humanitarian protest and social reform; the other was aggressive self-assertion expressed in national power and expansion. The events of the nineties had brought frustration and anxiety to civic minded Americans. The need to be reassured of the nation's strength existed alongside the capacity for sympathy. Therefore, the war against Spain could be viewed by the public simultaneously as a democratic struggle to save Cuba from the colonial oppression of Spain, and the righteous assertion of American power abroad in a world being divided up by predatory European powers. This was manifest destiny applied on a global, not just a continental or even hemispheric, extent.
There was an elite circle of politicians and editors that saw the economic and military potential of a colony in the Orient. Their motivation to annex the Philippines is properly described as imperialist. They were inspired by the naval theories of Alfred Mahan and the practical example of Anglo-Saxon hegemony. At the center of that circle was the extremely manly Teddy Roosevelt. He considered the war against Spain an opportunity to test the metal of American youth while building a proper army and navy befitting an emerging world power. The anti-imperialists were disorganized in comparison. They did not control a major party as did the Republican expansionists. They were politically diverse, elderly, and led by the once defeated William Jennings Bryan whose compromising approach in the face of the public's support for the war undermined anti-imperialist efforts.
America's first steps into the Philippines were presented as defensive. It was assumed that Spanish ships in the Pacific could attack the U.S. west coast. Commodore Dewey was sent to engage them. His ships destroyed the decrepit Spanish Eastern Fleet at anchor in Manila Bay without loosing a man. The spectacular victory was seen as Providential. Understandably, it then gave impetus to the desire to protect the heroic US squadron by occupying Manila with troops. They were dispatched in July, 1898. The capture of Manila was carried out with the cooperation of the Spanish and to the exclusion of indigenous freedom fighters led by Aguinaldo. The protocol ending hostilities called for the occupation of the city pending a final peace settlement.
The America public and Congress were thus presented with a fait accompli by war supporters. To speak against continuing the occupation would be deemed unpatriotic. They argued to leave the Philippines precipitously would expose it to being overrun by other powers and possibly start a war over their possession. The U.S., having defeated the dictatorial colonial power, had a moral obligation to Filipinos who were considered congenitally incapable of self government. England was encouraging American occupation as opposed to one of its European rivals taking control of the strategic archipelago. An all-or-none policy was suggested by the dynamics of the situation. An equivocal President McKinley finally decided on a long term annexation of the entire chain after five months. The joke ran, "How is McKinley's mind like a bed? You have to make it up for him to use it." When it became clear to Filipino patriots after December, 1898 that American intentions did not include returning the islands that American forces were ordered to fully occupy, a fierce and bitter insurgency erupted. The insurgency lasted until 1903 by which time its leaders were either captured or killed. Amazingly, in the process of subduing resistance in the islands using unorthodox methods referred to as 'Injun fighting', U.S. troops (mostly state militia volunteers) resorted to the waterboard torture technique to extract information from prisoners. The "benevolent assimilation" of the Philippines cost a quarter million Filipinos their lives mostly due to malnutrition and disease.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 caused a psychic crisis in America. A successful attack against the U.S. mainland had not occurred since 1812. The fact that the attack was made covertly by a small group of individuals instead of a uniformed foreign army heightened the trauma. The spectacular toppling of the twin Trade Towers profoundly shattered Americans' sense of personal safety and their confidence in government's ability to protect them. Americans' faith in the validity of their democracy was shakened by the disputed Presidential election of 2000. A popular notion of moral decay seemed confirmed when the previous President was impeached and nearly removed from office for lying about an extra-marital sexual encounter. Many middle class Americans had experienced a deterioration in their economic security causing them grave doubts about their status in the new century. The events of the decade leading to the millennium had brought frustration and anxiety to America's body politic.
This modern psychic crisis made the public particularly susceptible to a sophisticated propaganda campaign urging a foreign war. The war would satisfy a strong desire for retaliation and would promise to regain America's righteous role in the world. America would resume its perceived new manifest destiny of destroying tyranny everywhere and leading the world to universal democracy. The administration's slogans would be tinged with religiosity and fundamental certitude. An elite circle of influential policy experts and journalists adhering to a radical school of political philosophy known as neoconservatism would aid the calculated effort to convince a supine Congress to authorize an invasion. Where there were no objective facts to support the claims of imminent danger, war supporters would resort to using unreliable reports and discredited claims. In short, the justifications for war were fraudulent.
After a brief and remarkably successful military campaign defeating a dictatorial regime that was no real threat to American security, the public and Congress is presented with another fait accompli. We face a determined resistance whose will to fight has been stiffened by extreme U.S. methods and egregious strategic errors. We are told by the Administration that to leave Iraq now is to admit defeat, endanger our army and invite regional chaos. They claim we have a moral obligation to Iraqis who are incapable of providing for their own security. They admonish that only victory by force of arms is an acceptable outcome for a world power whose prestige and credibility hang in the balance.
Their arguments for "staying the course" are distressingly identical to those used by American imperialists of a century ago. However, there is one essential difference in Realpolitik between the Philippines of 1898 and Iraq of 2003. The potential protectorate of Iraq has oil, making it a much more valuable prize for those powerful business interests who wish to profit from a new colony in the midst of the oil zone.
Oregon's Dirty Little Secret
Imagine the consternation when upscale yuppies in Portland's downtown Pearl District gulped their first caffeine hit of the day and read in the morning paper that their air is contaminated with benzene, a carcinogenic hydrocarbon. The cause is gasoline that contains twice the national average of benzene and three times California's levels. Les bourgeoisie move to Portland because of its green reputation. But the fact is that Oregon has some of the dirtiest gasoline in the nation because its supplies come from Alaskan crude which contains 10 times the amout of benzene than crude from other sources. Northwestern refiners were exempted from Clean Air Act regulations for benzene because when the regulations were made the region had some of the cleanest air in the nation. No more.
The Oregon DEQ measured ambient benzene levels in downtown Portland at forty times the level considered safe for longterm exposure in 1999. The risk for cancer due to benzene exposure in metropolitan Multnomah County is twice the national average. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) is threatening to hold confirmation of the EPA's general counsel nominee hostage, if the agency does not correct the situation. Its current rule proposal allows refiners to trade credits for benzene levels in cleaner product without removing the contaminant from dirty fuel. The scheme also prohibits state regulators from requiring the removal of benzene from gas sold in their state. EPA calculates it would only cost one tenth of a penny per gallon to remove benzene from gas. Corporate bottom line is that trendy folks continue breathing bad air.
Thanks to Onward Oregon for the statistics.
The Oregon DEQ measured ambient benzene levels in downtown Portland at forty times the level considered safe for longterm exposure in 1999. The risk for cancer due to benzene exposure in metropolitan Multnomah County is twice the national average. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) is threatening to hold confirmation of the EPA's general counsel nominee hostage, if the agency does not correct the situation. Its current rule proposal allows refiners to trade credits for benzene levels in cleaner product without removing the contaminant from dirty fuel. The scheme also prohibits state regulators from requiring the removal of benzene from gas sold in their state. EPA calculates it would only cost one tenth of a penny per gallon to remove benzene from gas. Corporate bottom line is that trendy folks continue breathing bad air.
Thanks to Onward Oregon for the statistics.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Winter Holiday Break
US PERSON is taking a break for the holiday season. Visit in 2007 to read more high impact blog at Persona Non Grata.
Merry Chirstmas and Happy New Year.
Merry Chirstmas and Happy New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)