It has become an article of faith among Republicans that President Obama's polices caused the deficit to soar. As a result, they claim we need to cut federal programs that assist low and middle income families because it is immoral to leave these bills to our children.
The problem is that it is just not true that the Recovery Act is responsible for the nation's projected deficits.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery Act and even TARP (the bank bail-out) are not responsible for projected deficits. That is because these policies are short term.
It's long term policies, like the high income Bush tax cuts, that stay in the system and remain unpaid for, that drive deficits.
The Great Recession played a major role by reducing tax revenues and triggering automatic stabilizers, existing counter cyclical laws, like unemployment compensation and food stamps, that automatically increase federal spending during a downturn and then decrease spending during a recovery. Check out the chart by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) that illustrates that absent the Bush era tax cuts, the wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan and the downturn, there would be virtually no deficit.
 |
Showing posts with label War in Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War in Iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, October 13, 2012
What caused the deficit?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
U.S.troops out of sight and out of mind
We are sending another 30,000 troops into combat, young men and women who are our husbands, wives, sons and daughters.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert notes:
The air is filled with obsessive self-satisfied rhetoric about supporting the troops, giving them everything they need and not letting them down. But that rhetoric is as hollow as a jazzman’s drum because the overwhelming majority of Americans have no desire at all to share in the sacrifices that the service members and their families are making. Most Americans do not want to serve in the wars, do not want to give up their precious time to do volunteer work that would aid the nation’s warriors and their families, do not even want to fork over the taxes that are needed to pay for the wars.
To say that this is a national disgrace is to wallow in the shallowest understatement. The nation will always give lip-service to support for the troops, but for the most part Americans do not really care about the men and women we so blithely ship off to war, and the families they leave behind. ..
The reason it is so easy for the U.S. to declare wars, and to continue fighting year after year after year, is because so few Americans feel the actual pain of those wars. We’ve been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than we fought in World Wars I and II combined. If voters had to choose right now between instituting a draft or exiting Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops would be out of those two countries in a heartbeat.
I don’t think our current way of waging war, which is pretty easy-breezy for most citizens, is what the architects of America had in mind. Here’s George Washington’s view, for example: “It must be laid down as a primary position and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal service to the defense of it.”
What we are doing is indefensible and will ultimately exact a fearful price, and there will be absolutely no way for the U.S. to avoid paying it.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert notes:
The air is filled with obsessive self-satisfied rhetoric about supporting the troops, giving them everything they need and not letting them down. But that rhetoric is as hollow as a jazzman’s drum because the overwhelming majority of Americans have no desire at all to share in the sacrifices that the service members and their families are making. Most Americans do not want to serve in the wars, do not want to give up their precious time to do volunteer work that would aid the nation’s warriors and their families, do not even want to fork over the taxes that are needed to pay for the wars.
To say that this is a national disgrace is to wallow in the shallowest understatement. The nation will always give lip-service to support for the troops, but for the most part Americans do not really care about the men and women we so blithely ship off to war, and the families they leave behind. ..
The reason it is so easy for the U.S. to declare wars, and to continue fighting year after year after year, is because so few Americans feel the actual pain of those wars. We’ve been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than we fought in World Wars I and II combined. If voters had to choose right now between instituting a draft or exiting Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops would be out of those two countries in a heartbeat.
I don’t think our current way of waging war, which is pretty easy-breezy for most citizens, is what the architects of America had in mind. Here’s George Washington’s view, for example: “It must be laid down as a primary position and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal service to the defense of it.”
What we are doing is indefensible and will ultimately exact a fearful price, and there will be absolutely no way for the U.S. to avoid paying it.
The column is linked.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
World unemployment greatest threat to U.S. security
The New York times reports that unemployment is soaring worldwide.
- Worldwide job losses could hit 50 million by the end of 2009
- Even highly skilled, white collar workers are being laid off
- The International Monetary Fund expects global economic growth to reach its lowest point since the Great Depression
- High unemployment rates have already led to protests in Latvia, Chile, Greece, Bulgaria and Finland and strikes in Britain and France.
- The United States Director of Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, informed Congress that the instability caused by the global recession has become the nation's biggest security threat, outpacing terrorism.
It's hard to take the Republicans' new found fiscal conservatism seriously since the 2001 tax cuts they enacted cost $1.3 trillion and the preemptive war they unanimously supported is projected to cost $3 trillion, significantly more the stimulus package.
In 2003 anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq was accused of being unpatriotic.What does this say about those who voted against the stimulus package now that the greatest threat to U.S. security is rising unemployment?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
McCain was wrong about the war in Iraq!
Republican operatives have been desperately trying to undermine the public's support for Barack Obama by insisting he was wrong about the "surge."
This desperate approach could only work if the public is afflicted with historic amnesia since as
Frank Rich notes the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has been wrong about the entire war and occupation!:
It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, they’re still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American “bloodletting” and “be paid for by the Iraqis.”
Rich also notes that Germany's enthusiastic reception of Obama had less to do with what he said than that his candidacy represents a clear break with the Bush's failed unilateralism in foreign policy.
"We have one president at a time,” Mr. Obama is careful to say. True, but the sitting president, a lame duck despised by voters and shunned by his own party’s candidates, now has all the gravitas of Mr. Cellophane in “Chicago.” The opening for a successor arrived prematurely, and the vacuum had been waiting to be filled. What was most striking about the Obama speech in Berlin was not anything he said so much as the alternative reality it fostered: many American children have never before seen huge crowds turn out abroad to wave American flags instead of burn them.
The entire column is linked.
This desperate approach could only work if the public is afflicted with historic amnesia since as
Frank Rich notes the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has been wrong about the entire war and occupation!:
It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, they’re still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American “bloodletting” and “be paid for by the Iraqis.”
Rich also notes that Germany's enthusiastic reception of Obama had less to do with what he said than that his candidacy represents a clear break with the Bush's failed unilateralism in foreign policy.
"We have one president at a time,” Mr. Obama is careful to say. True, but the sitting president, a lame duck despised by voters and shunned by his own party’s candidates, now has all the gravitas of Mr. Cellophane in “Chicago.” The opening for a successor arrived prematurely, and the vacuum had been waiting to be filled. What was most striking about the Obama speech in Berlin was not anything he said so much as the alternative reality it fostered: many American children have never before seen huge crowds turn out abroad to wave American flags instead of burn them.
The entire column is linked.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Military industrial complex sells war in iraq
In a speech before he retired as President, Former General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the nation about the danger posed by the emerging military industrial complex:
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
The New York Times' David Barstow, in a lengthy expose, examines how the Bush administration has enlisted former high ranking military officers, many serving on the boards of defense contractors, to promote the war in Iraq as military experts.
These former officers, in turn, have used the information and access provided by the Pentagon to secure lucrative deals for their firms. And the Pentagon has used these contracts to silence potential dissidents
The Times characterizes this cynical manipulation of the news as "a Pentagon information apparatus," noting that the Bush White House has frequently manipulated the media through paying columnists to write favorably about the administration and by producing fake news segments with fawning accounts of the administration's accomplishments.
Barstow concludes that this symbiotic relationship has obliterated the usual dividing lines between government and journalism:
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance...
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men ...represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
...the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access...
The article is long, but worth the read.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
The New York Times' David Barstow, in a lengthy expose, examines how the Bush administration has enlisted former high ranking military officers, many serving on the boards of defense contractors, to promote the war in Iraq as military experts.
These former officers, in turn, have used the information and access provided by the Pentagon to secure lucrative deals for their firms. And the Pentagon has used these contracts to silence potential dissidents
The Times characterizes this cynical manipulation of the news as "a Pentagon information apparatus," noting that the Bush White House has frequently manipulated the media through paying columnists to write favorably about the administration and by producing fake news segments with fawning accounts of the administration's accomplishments.
Barstow concludes that this symbiotic relationship has obliterated the usual dividing lines between government and journalism:
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance...
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men ...represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
...the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access...
The article is long, but worth the read.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Milwaukee Journal proscribes wrong deficit reduction medicine
A Milwaukee Journal editorial recently opined that "A Republican Congress abandoned its principles and left the country ill-prepared to meet long-term obligations." "Fiscal discipline is needed" it concluded.
The piece criticised the $190 billion 2002 Farm Bill, 70% of which went to the richest 10% of farmers. It also targeted the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Both could charitably be described as socialism for the rich-U.S. agribusiness, insurance and pharmaceuticals companies!
While they are poorly designed public policy, neither is at the heart of the deficit problem.
By failing to identify how the Bush administration has squandered a projected $5.2 trillion surplus, the Journal is fueling the erroneous perception that out of control social spending and entitlements are to blame.
Nothing could be further from the truth
The two main causes of the Bush era deficits are its high end tax cuts and the War in Iraq.
Congressional Budget Office data show that Bush's tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits. Legislation enacted since 2001 has added almost $2.3 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2006, with half of the deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and only a sixth to increases in domestic spending).
56.5% of these tax cuts went to the richest 10% of wage earners, those averaging $256,000. Only 14.7% went to the bottom 60% who average $44,000.
Unlike in previous wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending."It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."
And the bill is growing!
Just last week President Bush requested an additional $42.3 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If passed, the 2008 war bill will be almost $190 billion, the same as the 10 year Farm Bill increase the Journal singled out for criticism and the largest single-year total for these wars. It is an increase of 15 percent from 2007.
It will bring the year end total for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since Sept. 11, 2001 to $800 billion, still less than half the $2 trillion total projected cost.
As Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen once said about the Defense budget, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money"-money that could buy a lot of healthcare, infrastructure, early childhood education or deficit reduction!
What it hasn't bought is protective equipment for our soldiers and their vehicles, the capture of Osama Bin Laden or adequate medical care for our vets!
And remember this $42 billion military increase is off-the-books, "emergency" funding, an addition to the original 2008 spending request, made before the President announced his so-called “new strategy” of partial withdrawal.
Iraq alone has cost the United States more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the Gulf War and the Korean War and will soon pass the Vietnam War.
This for a war that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld promised would cost under $50 billion while his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, predicted Iraqi oil revenues would largely pay for Iraq’s reconstruction.
The $42 billion emergency funding increase is more than the bipartisan, fully funded $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that President Bush has promised to veto.
Since Iraq costs the country $333 million a day, we can't afford to expand SCHIP which costs $19 million a day!
The $42 billion is also almost twice as much as the $23 billion in improvements for waterways and water systems in every state that Bush is threatening to veto as too costly.
Mr Bush took office in 2001, the last time the Government produced a budget surplus. Every year after that the Government has been in the red. In 2004 the deficit swelled to a record $US413 billion ($494 billion).
The Journal is right when it suggests that Mr Bush is mortgaging the country's future. But it is wrong to suggest that entitlements and social spending are to blame.
High end tax cuts and Mr Bush's war of choice in Iraq are the real culprits!
Friday, May 25, 2007
Olbermann: The Government Has Failed US
In November the American people overwhelmingly registered their opposition to the War in Iraq by throwing out Republican Congressmen who led us to war and returning the United States' Congress to Democratic control.
Support for the War has fallen to its lowest level ever. President Bush's approval rating is approaching an all-time low.
Still, our young soldiers and Marines, not to mention innocent Iraqi citziens, continue to die, sacrificed on the alter of President Bush's delusions and vanity.
This week, many of the very Democrats who rode the anti-war wave to victory caved in to the Bush administration and voted to continue to fund the war with no timetable for withdrawal. Watch and listen to Keith Olbermann's response: "The Government has failed us."
Support for the War has fallen to its lowest level ever. President Bush's approval rating is approaching an all-time low.
Still, our young soldiers and Marines, not to mention innocent Iraqi citziens, continue to die, sacrificed on the alter of President Bush's delusions and vanity.
This week, many of the very Democrats who rode the anti-war wave to victory caved in to the Bush administration and voted to continue to fund the war with no timetable for withdrawal. Watch and listen to Keith Olbermann's response: "The Government has failed us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)