by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, July 21
, 2011.
As the nation watched the grueling battle last week over the deficit and the debt ceiling, I became convinced of a troubling transformation. I believe we have witnessed, over the last few years, the slow demise of the democratic process in our federal government.
The structure and balance of the United States’ governing mechanism is based on compromise that facilitates the representation of its citizens. We have watched as this productive compromise has given way to power brokering and political posturing.
We have come to mistrust Washington and expect that partisan politics will trump policies that benefit real people. Accepting this fact is depressing enough. However, my fear is that the problem isn’t Washington’s culture. I fear that radio personality Rush Limbaugh is right when he insists that the American people (or at least those who voted for Tea Party Republican candidates in 2010) don’t want to see compromise among our political leaders.
Has every day’s congressional session become like the Super Bowl? Are we all just picking our side to win at any cost? When we watch a sporting event, none of us is rooting for a tie. In fact we have organized our athletic contests in such a way that a tie or draw is impossible, or at least implausible. We want to see a clean-cut victory.
But governing is not a team sport. Yes, we have a two-party system that has become a perpetual election cycle. The Republicans and the Democrats in office are constantly seeking political cover and appealing to the public for approval. Yes, like fans of the Dallas Cowboys or the New England Patriots, the average person identifies with their chosen political party. Indeed, many people proudly wear their affiliation as part of their identity, declaring “I’m a Democrat” (or Republican) as naturally as announcing “I’m a Christian” (or Muslim, or Jew). The problem is that unlike team sports, governing is vital to our existence as a republic. Cuts to safety net programs will have real consequences to real people. Defaulting on our financial obligations will have real consequences — not just for Americans but on a global scale. Failing to address 9.2 percent unemployment will slow the recovery of our economy and prolong the pain felt by the majority of the working class and poor.
Still the game continues in Washington.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made his position clear long ago when he stated his top priority was making Barack Obama a one-term president. Any doubt that politics still outweighs policy for this man was put to rest this week as he scrambled to lay down cover for the Republicans. He even proposed allowing Obama to raise the debt ceiling independent of congressional approval in order to placate the Tea Party base while avoiding a default that could be devastating to the economy. Apparently, McConnell realizes that as the fallout of inaction impacts every American it will be obvious that stonewalling by Republicans puts them squarely to blame.
McConnell warned Republicans that default would make the GOP co-owners of a bad economy and would help Obama win reelection in 2012. Of course, this political cover only works if the American people ignore the fact that a Republican administration ushered in the bad economy the U.S. is currently struggling with. We also have to ignore that although Republican House Speaker John Boehner came to power calling for job creation, the Republicans have not introduced a single bill that would create domestic jobs. Who can blame them? It’s hard to run on economic recovery in 2012 if the unemployment rate starts falling and people begin to see that they are, in fact, better off than they were four years ago.
It is also clear to me that the White House and Congress are unlikely to reach a deal that would accomplish anything meaningful. The president has put programs like Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block (against the will of his Democratic base) to secure a deal that includes revenue increases. Unfortunately, Republicans bound to a Grover Norquist pledge to avoid tax increases refuse to consider rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy (from 36 percent to the Clinton-era level of 39 percent). They also turned down the repeal of a tax break for owners of private jets on the same principals. To be fair, Mr. Norquist doesn’t deserve all the credit. The greed of wealth and Corporate America still traps both parties in a stranglehold that leaves them impotent to enact policy that benefits any but their benefactors.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope that President Obama is right when he insists that the majority of the American people (Republicans included) want to see a balanced approach to our economic woes. I hope that the average citizen cares more about the consequences of partisan politics than about seeing their team win a battle of power. I hope that democratic representation returns to our republic’s governing bodies. I hope that “We the People” start to again matter to our representatives as more than mere votes in the next election.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
I agree with Obama
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, July 21
, 2011.
If one were to read Keith’s column without a clear knowledge of history, one would have to conclude that the era of partisan politics began in the fall of 2008 when the American Electoral College declared Barack Hussein Obama the President of the United States of America. Many, like Keith, believe the Republican party has been having a hissy fit since then. They see the GOP acting as petulant adolescents, opposing everything Obama proposes merely for the sake of opposition.
I suppose Keith, and others who believe as he does, would prefer a nation where one party rules and the other just sits back and nods in agreement. Perhaps that would make for a peaceful news hour, where rhetoric and politics would melt away and choruses of Kumbaya could be heard from the House floor, but I contend it would make for terrible policy. If you doubt me, just think of other nations who have that “peaceful” air of one-party rule, where none dare to utter a word in opposition, where dissent is met with handcuffs and a one-way ticket to a re-education camp.
I would remind Keith, and others who believe as he does, that our nation was born in a spirit of passionate debate. Our founders recognized the fact that truth and progress usually lie somewhere between two polar opposites. In fact, most of the greatest accomplishments and reforms in our nation’s history have come only after many hours of rancorous debate.
However, in the spirit of spreading some goodwill and compromise in this current battle over extending our nation’s debt limit, I am hereby proclaiming my agreement with a Democratic senator. When I read this man’s words, I immediately concurred with his points. Knowing that words can sometimes be taken out of context, I actually did the due diligence of searching the Congressional Record and read the actual transcript. The following are his words copied and pasted from the Congressional Record of the 109th Congress, dated March 16, 2006 on pages S2238 and S2239:
“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
I said “Amen, brother, preach it!” He went on to add even more:
“…the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans – a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”
Another “Amen!” from me. Then he went even further: “Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
Of course, that senator’s name was Barack Obama – but that was the Obama of 2006 – not the Obama of 2011, just as the Obama of 2008 opposed the surge of Iraq, until the Obama of 2009 ordered the surge of Afghanistan, but I digress.
Keith followed the party line of the Democrats and the tired class warfare tactic of blaming owners of corporate private jets for taking advantage of a tax deduction that was signed into the stimulus package contrived by President Obama and Geithner. The tax deduction merely allows accelerated depreciation for new jet purchases and its repeal would have diminished our deficit by a whopping $3 Billion over ten years! In other words, it is 0.075% of the deficit spending this year alone! Yeah, baby, let’s get that tax deduction repealed even though it has been credited with increasing sales of domestic aircraft by 43% and has pumped $2 Billion into the economy and saved American jobs.
It has often been the tactic of the Democrats to portray the Republicans as favoring the rich, the corporations and the military, while they themselves come across as compassionate and caring for the middle and lower classes. This latest battle over the debt limit merely perpetuates both myths.
The facts are clearly stated in the above quote from Barack Obama of 2006: raising the debt limit without reducing spending is irresponsible “…it is a failure of leadership, and it is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
I couldn’t have said it better.
From Broader View Weekly, July 21
, 2011.
If one were to read Keith’s column without a clear knowledge of history, one would have to conclude that the era of partisan politics began in the fall of 2008 when the American Electoral College declared Barack Hussein Obama the President of the United States of America. Many, like Keith, believe the Republican party has been having a hissy fit since then. They see the GOP acting as petulant adolescents, opposing everything Obama proposes merely for the sake of opposition.
I suppose Keith, and others who believe as he does, would prefer a nation where one party rules and the other just sits back and nods in agreement. Perhaps that would make for a peaceful news hour, where rhetoric and politics would melt away and choruses of Kumbaya could be heard from the House floor, but I contend it would make for terrible policy. If you doubt me, just think of other nations who have that “peaceful” air of one-party rule, where none dare to utter a word in opposition, where dissent is met with handcuffs and a one-way ticket to a re-education camp.
I would remind Keith, and others who believe as he does, that our nation was born in a spirit of passionate debate. Our founders recognized the fact that truth and progress usually lie somewhere between two polar opposites. In fact, most of the greatest accomplishments and reforms in our nation’s history have come only after many hours of rancorous debate.
However, in the spirit of spreading some goodwill and compromise in this current battle over extending our nation’s debt limit, I am hereby proclaiming my agreement with a Democratic senator. When I read this man’s words, I immediately concurred with his points. Knowing that words can sometimes be taken out of context, I actually did the due diligence of searching the Congressional Record and read the actual transcript. The following are his words copied and pasted from the Congressional Record of the 109th Congress, dated March 16, 2006 on pages S2238 and S2239:
“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
I said “Amen, brother, preach it!” He went on to add even more:
“…the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans – a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”
Another “Amen!” from me. Then he went even further: “Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
Of course, that senator’s name was Barack Obama – but that was the Obama of 2006 – not the Obama of 2011, just as the Obama of 2008 opposed the surge of Iraq, until the Obama of 2009 ordered the surge of Afghanistan, but I digress.
Keith followed the party line of the Democrats and the tired class warfare tactic of blaming owners of corporate private jets for taking advantage of a tax deduction that was signed into the stimulus package contrived by President Obama and Geithner. The tax deduction merely allows accelerated depreciation for new jet purchases and its repeal would have diminished our deficit by a whopping $3 Billion over ten years! In other words, it is 0.075% of the deficit spending this year alone! Yeah, baby, let’s get that tax deduction repealed even though it has been credited with increasing sales of domestic aircraft by 43% and has pumped $2 Billion into the economy and saved American jobs.
It has often been the tactic of the Democrats to portray the Republicans as favoring the rich, the corporations and the military, while they themselves come across as compassionate and caring for the middle and lower classes. This latest battle over the debt limit merely perpetuates both myths.
The facts are clearly stated in the above quote from Barack Obama of 2006: raising the debt limit without reducing spending is irresponsible “…it is a failure of leadership, and it is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
I couldn’t have said it better.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Why Libya? Why not Syria? Why Yemen?
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, July 7, 2011.
As I watched our president’s latest press conference, I was intrigued by his response to a question from a reporter who asked him about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. I will not go as far as Mark Halperin went in his description of President Obama’s demeanor (for the story on his comment, follow this link: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/msnbc-suspends-mark-halperin-obama-remark-145819640.html), but I will say that he was less-than-congenial and that he was very defensive of his position. He claimed that the War Powers Act did not apply to the situation in Libya (our drones are dropping bombs, our planes are flying sorties, our military personnel are involved in strategy and our warships are sending rocket attacks toward a specified target and we have declared a mission that involves the removal of a foreign leader), does not rise to definition of war, therefore he does not need to answer the question about the constitutionality of the legislation that every other president since Nixon has had to deal with.
According to President Obama, war is not war unless our soldiers are “in harm’s way”. (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/169043-obama-dismisses-libya-fuss-congress-as-political-game-playing). Right. And according to Bill Clinton, sex was not sex unless…but I digress.
As we examine the reasons for our “involvement” in Libya and our reluctance to get involved in similar uprisings and reprisals in Syria, Yemen and the Saudi peninsula, we have to ask our leaders the right questions. Why Libya? Why not Syria? Why Yemen? Why not the Sudan?
The answers to those questions are important and the American people deserve a better answer than President Obama gave in his press conference.
If our mission in Libya is to protect citizens from a despotic and malicious ruler who is brutally murdering civilians simply because they are protesting his policies, then we must also send missiles and drones into Syria, where, according to the latest reports from the Associated Press, more than 1,400 rights activists have been slaughtered by government forces under the direction of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Why have we basically ignored the situation there?
In Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, where poverty and unemployment rates both top 50%, protesters have been marching in the capital city of Sanaa since January, demanding jobs, education and social services. Their demands have been met with gunfire directed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh, killing hundreds of civilians. What has our State Department done in that situation? Did they rush in with humanitarian aid and missile strikes against Saleh’s palaces as we did in Libya?
The answer to the above question is yes and no. Yes, we sent Predator drones, missiles and rockets into Yemen. And yes, we have CIA operatives and Special Forces on the ground there. However, it is not quite the way you think.
You see, in Yemen, the Obama administration has decided to back the Saleh regime in this civil conflict. We have been carrying on military operations in another foreign nation, plotting assassinations, identifying targets and killing civilians – and all of this without congressional consultation or approval or the knowledge of the American people. Meanwhile, our news media finds the Casey Anthony trial worthy of 24-7 coverage! So much for the Fourth Estate!
Please read the following quote from author, Niall Green, writing for World Socialist Web Site, on June 17, 2011 (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/yeme-j17.shtml).
Though Washington has been secretive about the extent of its operations, there are reports in the US and Arab media of an increased use of US air strikes in southern Yemen, with six alleged Al Qaeda militants killed in such attacks over the past month.
One such air strike led to the killing of an alleged mid-level Al Qaeda militant in the country last week. The Obama administration is also attempting to assassinate US citizen Anwar Awlaki, a Muslim cleric believed to be living in Yemen, accused of playing a leading role in the group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
There are reports of US Special Forces troops on the ground in Yemen providing intelligence for air strikes and carrying out assassinations of alleged Islamist militants. The Obama administration has denied that any US troops are involved in active operations in the country, but has acknowledged that some armed forces personnel are engaged in providing weapons, advice and training to Yemeni counterterrorism forces.
I agree that this source should be verified with additional sources, but the overall point is clear:
Our foreign policy is a muddled mess of conflicting signals and inconsistencies. We have troops and ongoing military operations in several Arab nations. Our “limited kinetic operation” (as Obama calls it) is looking much like an incremental war as France has begun supplying weapons to the rebels, which, if Khaddafi succeeds in overthrowing them – unless we step up our efforts with “boots on the ground” – will undoubtedly be used against us and our European allies when Khaddafi retaliates, as he has recently vowed to do.
I believe we should re-evaluate all of our missions. If there is no direct threat to our national security, we should not be involved. Our military is not a humanitarian agency – it is a killing machine. Most of these Arab nations have been fighting tribal conflicts since biblical times. We cannot pick and choose sides and expect to foster democracy in an area where loyalty to sects is more powerful than the urge for freedom.
I know Keith will accuse me of changing my stripes and of being inconsistent. Perhaps I am guilty of those charges, but apparently I have company in the White House when we consider the inconsistency of the man who once thought one war was too many; now, he seems to think three are not enough.
From Broader View Weekly, July 7, 2011.
As I watched our president’s latest press conference, I was intrigued by his response to a question from a reporter who asked him about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. I will not go as far as Mark Halperin went in his description of President Obama’s demeanor (for the story on his comment, follow this link: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/msnbc-suspends-mark-halperin-obama-remark-145819640.html), but I will say that he was less-than-congenial and that he was very defensive of his position. He claimed that the War Powers Act did not apply to the situation in Libya (our drones are dropping bombs, our planes are flying sorties, our military personnel are involved in strategy and our warships are sending rocket attacks toward a specified target and we have declared a mission that involves the removal of a foreign leader), does not rise to definition of war, therefore he does not need to answer the question about the constitutionality of the legislation that every other president since Nixon has had to deal with.
According to President Obama, war is not war unless our soldiers are “in harm’s way”. (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/169043-obama-dismisses-libya-fuss-congress-as-political-game-playing). Right. And according to Bill Clinton, sex was not sex unless…but I digress.
As we examine the reasons for our “involvement” in Libya and our reluctance to get involved in similar uprisings and reprisals in Syria, Yemen and the Saudi peninsula, we have to ask our leaders the right questions. Why Libya? Why not Syria? Why Yemen? Why not the Sudan?
The answers to those questions are important and the American people deserve a better answer than President Obama gave in his press conference.
If our mission in Libya is to protect citizens from a despotic and malicious ruler who is brutally murdering civilians simply because they are protesting his policies, then we must also send missiles and drones into Syria, where, according to the latest reports from the Associated Press, more than 1,400 rights activists have been slaughtered by government forces under the direction of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Why have we basically ignored the situation there?
In Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, where poverty and unemployment rates both top 50%, protesters have been marching in the capital city of Sanaa since January, demanding jobs, education and social services. Their demands have been met with gunfire directed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh, killing hundreds of civilians. What has our State Department done in that situation? Did they rush in with humanitarian aid and missile strikes against Saleh’s palaces as we did in Libya?
The answer to the above question is yes and no. Yes, we sent Predator drones, missiles and rockets into Yemen. And yes, we have CIA operatives and Special Forces on the ground there. However, it is not quite the way you think.
You see, in Yemen, the Obama administration has decided to back the Saleh regime in this civil conflict. We have been carrying on military operations in another foreign nation, plotting assassinations, identifying targets and killing civilians – and all of this without congressional consultation or approval or the knowledge of the American people. Meanwhile, our news media finds the Casey Anthony trial worthy of 24-7 coverage! So much for the Fourth Estate!
Please read the following quote from author, Niall Green, writing for World Socialist Web Site, on June 17, 2011 (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/yeme-j17.shtml).
Though Washington has been secretive about the extent of its operations, there are reports in the US and Arab media of an increased use of US air strikes in southern Yemen, with six alleged Al Qaeda militants killed in such attacks over the past month.
One such air strike led to the killing of an alleged mid-level Al Qaeda militant in the country last week. The Obama administration is also attempting to assassinate US citizen Anwar Awlaki, a Muslim cleric believed to be living in Yemen, accused of playing a leading role in the group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
There are reports of US Special Forces troops on the ground in Yemen providing intelligence for air strikes and carrying out assassinations of alleged Islamist militants. The Obama administration has denied that any US troops are involved in active operations in the country, but has acknowledged that some armed forces personnel are engaged in providing weapons, advice and training to Yemeni counterterrorism forces.
I agree that this source should be verified with additional sources, but the overall point is clear:
Our foreign policy is a muddled mess of conflicting signals and inconsistencies. We have troops and ongoing military operations in several Arab nations. Our “limited kinetic operation” (as Obama calls it) is looking much like an incremental war as France has begun supplying weapons to the rebels, which, if Khaddafi succeeds in overthrowing them – unless we step up our efforts with “boots on the ground” – will undoubtedly be used against us and our European allies when Khaddafi retaliates, as he has recently vowed to do.
I believe we should re-evaluate all of our missions. If there is no direct threat to our national security, we should not be involved. Our military is not a humanitarian agency – it is a killing machine. Most of these Arab nations have been fighting tribal conflicts since biblical times. We cannot pick and choose sides and expect to foster democracy in an area where loyalty to sects is more powerful than the urge for freedom.
I know Keith will accuse me of changing my stripes and of being inconsistent. Perhaps I am guilty of those charges, but apparently I have company in the White House when we consider the inconsistency of the man who once thought one war was too many; now, he seems to think three are not enough.
A Consistent Foreign Policy
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, July 7, 2011.
My brother Gordon and I agree on one point in his column. I do see the views he expressed as a change of stripes and inconsistent with his past views. If he keeps those isolationist views – opposing military action for ethical reasons – when a Republican occupies the White House, I’ll withdraw my criticism and welcome him to the world occupied heretofore by my liberal colleagues and myself. I suspect that there will be a shift, though, back to the familiar trappings of Bush doctrine preemptive war to further American interests with little concern for issues of human rights, justice or international law.
Gordon isn’t alone, though, in departures of this type since a Democrat was elected as the leader of the free world. Conservatives who used to characterize those who would criticize the policies of George W. Bush as unpatriotic, are spewing personal vitriol on a daily basis at Barack Obama. A Democratic Congressman would have been crucified for the disrespect of shouting “you lie” as Bush addressed a joint session. A political pundit would not have been so cavalier as to hurl a derogatory term at the President of United States on national television; a term more likely to be reserved for conversation at a local bar. That has been the transformation from civility and I can only hope it returns once the power shifts to a party of favor.
Of course there is blatant hypocrisy. Gordon was never critical of Bush’s combative tone when dealing with a Democratic Congress. I never heard him judge the casual attitude with which Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration discussed the deployment of America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way. I’m glad to see new concern for the expense of life and treasure we invest in military intervention around the globe. I just hope it is genuine and not a knee-jerk reaction to the policies of the “other” team.
I did advocate the United States’ involvement in the NATO operation in Libya. From everything I could see, the danger of a dictator mowing down his own citizens was a destabilizing element in the region. I am concerned about the political consequences of skirting the War Powers Act and the fallout that might bring. However, there has been considerable legal coverage and Obama has been meeting with a legal team for months before and after the 90-day deadline to ensure he was on firm ground. Do I believe that settles the debate over the constitutionality of the action? No. Do I believe that there will be those who will use the lack of formal approval as ammunition? I do.
Gordon’s reference to a socialist blog that discusses specific clandestine missions in the region, at the same time he claims that Obama is reluctant to get involved in similar situations to Libya’s, is really irrelevant. The United States military and the arms of its intelligence organizations have historically and continually engaged in covert missions. These missions by their very definition are secret and have a close circle of officials who are privy to that information. These operations are often reviewed by congressional committees charged with security, defense and intelligence, but they are not brought to Congress for its approval.
I have been concerned with our recent and frequent use of drones and other unmanned weaponry that allows us to execute brutal warfare with precision, and also with the comfort and relative coldness of distance. We had been engaging terrorists and assassinating key personnel constantly during the Bush administration, and are continuing through Obama’s. The CIA operations on the ground in Pakistan were instrumental in the execution of the Osama bin Laden Navy Seal mission. I have severe reservations about much of this and do not support many of the missions in which our men and women engage, but it is consistent with United States military policy.
There were differences in the circumstances of Libya that made action to prevent further killing of protesting civilians a viable solution, when similar action elsewhere was not. The NATO operation had the support of the United Nations, and Arab nations in the region were giving it a nod. A strong coalition of nations signed on to help impose and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. There were both international and U.S. interests at stake.
Also, despite the implication by my fellow columnist that the Obama administration rejected the interests of Israel (June 9, 2011, Broader View Weekly), Obama respected Israel’s wishes by not acting in Syria. The chaos of regime change in Syria could destabilize Lebanon and threaten Israel. Therefore Israel has been urging caution. For better or worse (more often worse, I fear) the United States and Israel have their wagons hitched together.
I think we need to reevaluate our military involvements. I think we should view each mission through lenses that account for ethical concerns as well as those of justice and international law. Our policies should be consistent, which would also be comforting to other nations who share our interests, and not bend to the winds of party politics.
From Broader View Weekly, July 7, 2011.
My brother Gordon and I agree on one point in his column. I do see the views he expressed as a change of stripes and inconsistent with his past views. If he keeps those isolationist views – opposing military action for ethical reasons – when a Republican occupies the White House, I’ll withdraw my criticism and welcome him to the world occupied heretofore by my liberal colleagues and myself. I suspect that there will be a shift, though, back to the familiar trappings of Bush doctrine preemptive war to further American interests with little concern for issues of human rights, justice or international law.
Gordon isn’t alone, though, in departures of this type since a Democrat was elected as the leader of the free world. Conservatives who used to characterize those who would criticize the policies of George W. Bush as unpatriotic, are spewing personal vitriol on a daily basis at Barack Obama. A Democratic Congressman would have been crucified for the disrespect of shouting “you lie” as Bush addressed a joint session. A political pundit would not have been so cavalier as to hurl a derogatory term at the President of United States on national television; a term more likely to be reserved for conversation at a local bar. That has been the transformation from civility and I can only hope it returns once the power shifts to a party of favor.
Of course there is blatant hypocrisy. Gordon was never critical of Bush’s combative tone when dealing with a Democratic Congress. I never heard him judge the casual attitude with which Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration discussed the deployment of America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way. I’m glad to see new concern for the expense of life and treasure we invest in military intervention around the globe. I just hope it is genuine and not a knee-jerk reaction to the policies of the “other” team.
I did advocate the United States’ involvement in the NATO operation in Libya. From everything I could see, the danger of a dictator mowing down his own citizens was a destabilizing element in the region. I am concerned about the political consequences of skirting the War Powers Act and the fallout that might bring. However, there has been considerable legal coverage and Obama has been meeting with a legal team for months before and after the 90-day deadline to ensure he was on firm ground. Do I believe that settles the debate over the constitutionality of the action? No. Do I believe that there will be those who will use the lack of formal approval as ammunition? I do.
Gordon’s reference to a socialist blog that discusses specific clandestine missions in the region, at the same time he claims that Obama is reluctant to get involved in similar situations to Libya’s, is really irrelevant. The United States military and the arms of its intelligence organizations have historically and continually engaged in covert missions. These missions by their very definition are secret and have a close circle of officials who are privy to that information. These operations are often reviewed by congressional committees charged with security, defense and intelligence, but they are not brought to Congress for its approval.
I have been concerned with our recent and frequent use of drones and other unmanned weaponry that allows us to execute brutal warfare with precision, and also with the comfort and relative coldness of distance. We had been engaging terrorists and assassinating key personnel constantly during the Bush administration, and are continuing through Obama’s. The CIA operations on the ground in Pakistan were instrumental in the execution of the Osama bin Laden Navy Seal mission. I have severe reservations about much of this and do not support many of the missions in which our men and women engage, but it is consistent with United States military policy.
There were differences in the circumstances of Libya that made action to prevent further killing of protesting civilians a viable solution, when similar action elsewhere was not. The NATO operation had the support of the United Nations, and Arab nations in the region were giving it a nod. A strong coalition of nations signed on to help impose and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. There were both international and U.S. interests at stake.
Also, despite the implication by my fellow columnist that the Obama administration rejected the interests of Israel (June 9, 2011, Broader View Weekly), Obama respected Israel’s wishes by not acting in Syria. The chaos of regime change in Syria could destabilize Lebanon and threaten Israel. Therefore Israel has been urging caution. For better or worse (more often worse, I fear) the United States and Israel have their wagons hitched together.
I think we need to reevaluate our military involvements. I think we should view each mission through lenses that account for ethical concerns as well as those of justice and international law. Our policies should be consistent, which would also be comforting to other nations who share our interests, and not bend to the winds of party politics.
The Real Reasons for Slow Recovery
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 23, 2011.
Last week former GOP House Speaker and apparent 2012 Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich referred to the current economic downturn as the “Obama Depression”. It was an effective sound bite and popular with the conservative media and with the rabid right of the Republican base. Tea Partiers and disgruntled conservatives, angry at Obama and seeking any justification for their visceral disdain ate it up. Radio personalities Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh used identical talking-point phrases to imply that the U.S. is headed for a “double dip recession – some say ‘depression’”.
But few people other than those with an agenda tied to economic failure under President Barack Obama’s auspice believe that a second wave of recession is likely. And no one paying attention to the economic indicators is taking the word “depression” seriously. Even the right’s exalted Wall Street Journal discounted reports of a potential relapse. In the article “What it Would Take to Do a Double Dip”, Justin Lahart made the case that it would “take a significant shock to knock the economy off course”.
In all the talk of economic recovery – especially in the conservative media and blogosphere – it is easy to lose sight of the economic facts surrounding the issue. It is true that unemployment remains at nine percent and recovery is moving slower than expected or desired. But blaming Obama for the slow growth ignores factors outside his policies.
One important consideration is that this is not Obama’s recession. The collapse of the financial market, bursting of the housing bubble and decline of industry are the results of decades of failed economic policy, spanning the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations, and culminating in the deepest recession in years.
Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Washington’s lopsided policies have benefited the nation’s corporate and elite wealthy, while shortchanging the working poor and the middle class. Through subsidies, deregulation, tax breaks and other legislation the government has feathered the nests of Corporate America at the expense of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren – without demanding a return on that investment in the form of job and industry growth.
A recent report illustrates the fact that George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy “have exacerbated the trend of widening income inequality, accompanied the worst economic expansion since World War II, and turned budget surpluses into deficits.” The Economic Policy Institute released a June 1 report titled “Tenth Anniversary of The Bush-Era Tax Cuts: A decade later, the Bush tax cuts remain expensive, ineffective, and unfair”, in which Andrew Fieldhouse and Ethan Pollack listed how the breaks disproportionately benefited the wealthy, while failing to trickle down to the working class and failing to stimulate economic growth. But, even during Bush’s administration, the lack of stimulus was evident as the country hemorrhaged jobs at a rate of 700,000 per month at the end of his presidency.
Of course, my brother Gordon will claim that Obama continued the Bush tax cuts under the advisement of many economists. It is true that he publicly admitted that some economists did recommend extending the tax breaks for the wealthy, but there is little reason to assume he favored the decision. In fact, Democrats and the president were blackmailed into acting against their will by Republicans who were holding the working poor and unemployed hostage at the end of last year.
Despite the insistence that these policies would allow the “job creators” to boost the economy, Corporate Wealth chose instead to invest overseas, outsourcing jobs and devastating industry. Until we begin investing in real job creators – education, tomorrow’s technology, employment opportunities that pay substantive wages, infrastructure that yields long-term benefits – the United States will fall behind other competing nations and the economy will fail to grow.
There are some who believe that Corporate America is conspiring against Democrats and working to stifle economic prosperity for political reasons. It is true that Republicans have a reputation for catering to the corporate agenda, and blaming Democrats for a faltering economy will certainly help the GOP in next year’s elections. It is also true that despite the fact that profits are rising, job creation has remained relatively stagnant. It is conceivable that big business is holding the working poor for ransom in the form of political power.
One need only look at the power that corporate lobbyists have over legislators of both parties to see the immense power they already exert. Instead of bringing forth legislation aimed at creating jobs, Congress remains mired in fights over repealing the health care reform designed to provide coverage for the neediest Americans, and reinstating the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act – bickering that does not benefit those struggling in a weakened economy.
Congress is also preoccupied in a debate over the national debt and the deficit. In the Wall Street Journal article mentioned earlier, Lahart admits that this protracted battle is debilitating to economic growth. Experts feel that the uncertainty of foreign debt, the impact on credit and the potential of default is creating instability in the market.
The Republicans’ emphasis on the budget deficit (when the primary concern of most Americans is the job deficit) is damaging consumer confidence, which in turn slows economic growth.
All of this, of course, plays favorably into the GOP strategy. A weak economy heading into 2012 will only benefit opposition candidates as they seek to present themselves as a positive change. They may need to propose a viable solution to the ails of the current economy, but in the current climate of public opinion the collateral of political rhetoric outweighs hard facts – bumper-sticker slogans trump real legitimate ideas.
At any rate, don’t look for legislation aimed at creating jobs and growing the economy within the next year-and-a-half. Republicans will be hard at work attacking the Democrats for the deficit George Bush worked hard to create, and obstructing any policy designed to aid real hard-working Americans. Democrats will be busy caving to the whims of a Tea Party minority that imposes its will as if it were the majority voice.
We must either eliminate the current two-party system in which both sides are beholden to corporate interests – and which places political ideology ahead of public service – or we must hold our leaders’ feet to the fire and demand adequate representation. The status quo is unsustainable if we ever again wish to compete in the global economy. I fear, however, corporate-driven policy and partisan politics will continue to hinder our weakened economic system.
From Broader View Weekly, June 23, 2011.
Last week former GOP House Speaker and apparent 2012 Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich referred to the current economic downturn as the “Obama Depression”. It was an effective sound bite and popular with the conservative media and with the rabid right of the Republican base. Tea Partiers and disgruntled conservatives, angry at Obama and seeking any justification for their visceral disdain ate it up. Radio personalities Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh used identical talking-point phrases to imply that the U.S. is headed for a “double dip recession – some say ‘depression’”.
But few people other than those with an agenda tied to economic failure under President Barack Obama’s auspice believe that a second wave of recession is likely. And no one paying attention to the economic indicators is taking the word “depression” seriously. Even the right’s exalted Wall Street Journal discounted reports of a potential relapse. In the article “What it Would Take to Do a Double Dip”, Justin Lahart made the case that it would “take a significant shock to knock the economy off course”.
In all the talk of economic recovery – especially in the conservative media and blogosphere – it is easy to lose sight of the economic facts surrounding the issue. It is true that unemployment remains at nine percent and recovery is moving slower than expected or desired. But blaming Obama for the slow growth ignores factors outside his policies.
One important consideration is that this is not Obama’s recession. The collapse of the financial market, bursting of the housing bubble and decline of industry are the results of decades of failed economic policy, spanning the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations, and culminating in the deepest recession in years.
Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Washington’s lopsided policies have benefited the nation’s corporate and elite wealthy, while shortchanging the working poor and the middle class. Through subsidies, deregulation, tax breaks and other legislation the government has feathered the nests of Corporate America at the expense of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren – without demanding a return on that investment in the form of job and industry growth.
A recent report illustrates the fact that George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy “have exacerbated the trend of widening income inequality, accompanied the worst economic expansion since World War II, and turned budget surpluses into deficits.” The Economic Policy Institute released a June 1 report titled “Tenth Anniversary of The Bush-Era Tax Cuts: A decade later, the Bush tax cuts remain expensive, ineffective, and unfair”, in which Andrew Fieldhouse and Ethan Pollack listed how the breaks disproportionately benefited the wealthy, while failing to trickle down to the working class and failing to stimulate economic growth. But, even during Bush’s administration, the lack of stimulus was evident as the country hemorrhaged jobs at a rate of 700,000 per month at the end of his presidency.
Of course, my brother Gordon will claim that Obama continued the Bush tax cuts under the advisement of many economists. It is true that he publicly admitted that some economists did recommend extending the tax breaks for the wealthy, but there is little reason to assume he favored the decision. In fact, Democrats and the president were blackmailed into acting against their will by Republicans who were holding the working poor and unemployed hostage at the end of last year.
Despite the insistence that these policies would allow the “job creators” to boost the economy, Corporate Wealth chose instead to invest overseas, outsourcing jobs and devastating industry. Until we begin investing in real job creators – education, tomorrow’s technology, employment opportunities that pay substantive wages, infrastructure that yields long-term benefits – the United States will fall behind other competing nations and the economy will fail to grow.
There are some who believe that Corporate America is conspiring against Democrats and working to stifle economic prosperity for political reasons. It is true that Republicans have a reputation for catering to the corporate agenda, and blaming Democrats for a faltering economy will certainly help the GOP in next year’s elections. It is also true that despite the fact that profits are rising, job creation has remained relatively stagnant. It is conceivable that big business is holding the working poor for ransom in the form of political power.
One need only look at the power that corporate lobbyists have over legislators of both parties to see the immense power they already exert. Instead of bringing forth legislation aimed at creating jobs, Congress remains mired in fights over repealing the health care reform designed to provide coverage for the neediest Americans, and reinstating the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act – bickering that does not benefit those struggling in a weakened economy.
Congress is also preoccupied in a debate over the national debt and the deficit. In the Wall Street Journal article mentioned earlier, Lahart admits that this protracted battle is debilitating to economic growth. Experts feel that the uncertainty of foreign debt, the impact on credit and the potential of default is creating instability in the market.
The Republicans’ emphasis on the budget deficit (when the primary concern of most Americans is the job deficit) is damaging consumer confidence, which in turn slows economic growth.
All of this, of course, plays favorably into the GOP strategy. A weak economy heading into 2012 will only benefit opposition candidates as they seek to present themselves as a positive change. They may need to propose a viable solution to the ails of the current economy, but in the current climate of public opinion the collateral of political rhetoric outweighs hard facts – bumper-sticker slogans trump real legitimate ideas.
At any rate, don’t look for legislation aimed at creating jobs and growing the economy within the next year-and-a-half. Republicans will be hard at work attacking the Democrats for the deficit George Bush worked hard to create, and obstructing any policy designed to aid real hard-working Americans. Democrats will be busy caving to the whims of a Tea Party minority that imposes its will as if it were the majority voice.
We must either eliminate the current two-party system in which both sides are beholden to corporate interests – and which places political ideology ahead of public service – or we must hold our leaders’ feet to the fire and demand adequate representation. The status quo is unsustainable if we ever again wish to compete in the global economy. I fear, however, corporate-driven policy and partisan politics will continue to hinder our weakened economic system.
“There you go again…”
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 23, 2011.
After reading Keith’s column, I was reminded of the above quote spoken by Ronald Reagan during the final presidential debate in the election of 1980. Reagan was responding to President Carter’s repeated fallacious attacks upon Reagan’s Medicare proposals. It was seen as a pivotal point in the debate when Reagan showed that Carter was being misleading in his accusations, and it was used again four years later when President Reagan defended himself against Walter Mondale’s equally false charges that Reagan would have to raise taxes the following year. I humbly use it now to reply to my fellow columnist:
Keith, there you go again.
Now normally I would just grin and shake my head when I encounter misstatements and obfuscations in the press or on TV, however, I feel it is my duty to respond to what Keith sees as the “real reasons for slow recovery”.
First of all, Keith claims the economy (and the current longest recession in history) doesn’t really belong to Obama. Keith should get in touch with Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson Debbie Wassermann-Schultz and White House Spokesman Jay Carney, because they both claimed ownership of the economy this week.
Jay Carney said: “We all own the economy. We all work together in Washington to devise policies to improve the economic situation.” And “We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery,” – Wasserman-Shulz http://www.commentsonnationalamnesia.com/2011/06/19/democrats-economy-fault/
Second point – if, as Keith claims, the “failed economic policies” of the past decades are to blame for the current malaise, then why haven’t the promised results from Obama’s (successful?) policies brought relief? How many years should we wait for the turnaround?
Apparently, the majority of Americans do not follow Keith’s assessment either. Those polled recently (NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43308329/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/) see the current direction as “on the wrong track” (62%); 54% disapprove of the way President Obama is handling the economy, and over 82% see his policies as “somewhat”, “mainly”, or “solely” responsible for the condition of the economy.
Keith then brought up the reference to Reagan’s presidency as the beginning of the policies which have “feathered the nests of Corporate America at the expense of our children…”. Well, Keith, since you mentioned it, let’s look back at those policies and compare Reagan’s record against Obama’s.
To begin with, Obama inherited a much better economy than did Ronald Reagan. When Carter finished his term, he handed off a 10.8% unemployment rate; inflation was also in double digits as were the interest rates. Poverty was also on the increase – during Carter’s final two years alone, it rose from 11.4 to over 15.2%. Median family income was decreasing and the Dow Jones Industrial Average had lost 70% of its value.
Reagan’s policies initiated an immediate effect upon the economy. In the first 16 months of Reagan’s presidency, unemployment fell from over 10.8% to less than 7.5%, while in the same time frame of Obama’s experimental presidency, unemployment has actually increased. Reagan’s economy created over four million jobs (comparable to six million jobs in our population statistics), and also averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters; the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%.
Need I go on?
Keith continues to blame the Bush tax cuts for the woes of our jobless numbers and budget deficits, and he was right to predict that I would call him out on that, but instead of using the words of Obama (which Keith seems to think were not truly indicative of his real beliefs, hmmm… so does that mean Obama was being disingenuous?) I will use the words of his economic advisor, Peter Orszag, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, who wrote in a New York Times editorial, dated September 6, 2010: “…No one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned. Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html)
It is also disingenuous of Keith to blame this mysterious entity called “Corporate America” as the sole source of our nation’s ills, capable of “conspiring against Democrats and working to stifle economic prosperity for political reasons” – as if all these corporations with competing interests for labor, market share and consumer goodwill could or would somehow join together in a smoke-filled chamber somewhere and construct a nefarious plan to cut their own livelihood and profit margins for the sake of putting a Republican in the White House. Yeah, right, it makes perfect sense to me.
A better answer seems to be that “Corporate America” (whoever or whatever that is in Keith’s eyes) is, like the rest of us, waiting and wishing for an economic plan that will work. You know, like the one that worked in 1981.
From Broader View Weekly, June 23, 2011.
After reading Keith’s column, I was reminded of the above quote spoken by Ronald Reagan during the final presidential debate in the election of 1980. Reagan was responding to President Carter’s repeated fallacious attacks upon Reagan’s Medicare proposals. It was seen as a pivotal point in the debate when Reagan showed that Carter was being misleading in his accusations, and it was used again four years later when President Reagan defended himself against Walter Mondale’s equally false charges that Reagan would have to raise taxes the following year. I humbly use it now to reply to my fellow columnist:
Keith, there you go again.
Now normally I would just grin and shake my head when I encounter misstatements and obfuscations in the press or on TV, however, I feel it is my duty to respond to what Keith sees as the “real reasons for slow recovery”.
First of all, Keith claims the economy (and the current longest recession in history) doesn’t really belong to Obama. Keith should get in touch with Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson Debbie Wassermann-Schultz and White House Spokesman Jay Carney, because they both claimed ownership of the economy this week.
Jay Carney said: “We all own the economy. We all work together in Washington to devise policies to improve the economic situation.” And “We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery,” – Wasserman-Shulz http://www.commentsonnationalamnesia.com/2011/06/19/democrats-economy-fault/
Second point – if, as Keith claims, the “failed economic policies” of the past decades are to blame for the current malaise, then why haven’t the promised results from Obama’s (successful?) policies brought relief? How many years should we wait for the turnaround?
Apparently, the majority of Americans do not follow Keith’s assessment either. Those polled recently (NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43308329/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/) see the current direction as “on the wrong track” (62%); 54% disapprove of the way President Obama is handling the economy, and over 82% see his policies as “somewhat”, “mainly”, or “solely” responsible for the condition of the economy.
Keith then brought up the reference to Reagan’s presidency as the beginning of the policies which have “feathered the nests of Corporate America at the expense of our children…”. Well, Keith, since you mentioned it, let’s look back at those policies and compare Reagan’s record against Obama’s.
To begin with, Obama inherited a much better economy than did Ronald Reagan. When Carter finished his term, he handed off a 10.8% unemployment rate; inflation was also in double digits as were the interest rates. Poverty was also on the increase – during Carter’s final two years alone, it rose from 11.4 to over 15.2%. Median family income was decreasing and the Dow Jones Industrial Average had lost 70% of its value.
Reagan’s policies initiated an immediate effect upon the economy. In the first 16 months of Reagan’s presidency, unemployment fell from over 10.8% to less than 7.5%, while in the same time frame of Obama’s experimental presidency, unemployment has actually increased. Reagan’s economy created over four million jobs (comparable to six million jobs in our population statistics), and also averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters; the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%.
Need I go on?
Keith continues to blame the Bush tax cuts for the woes of our jobless numbers and budget deficits, and he was right to predict that I would call him out on that, but instead of using the words of Obama (which Keith seems to think were not truly indicative of his real beliefs, hmmm… so does that mean Obama was being disingenuous?) I will use the words of his economic advisor, Peter Orszag, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, who wrote in a New York Times editorial, dated September 6, 2010: “…No one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned. Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html)
It is also disingenuous of Keith to blame this mysterious entity called “Corporate America” as the sole source of our nation’s ills, capable of “conspiring against Democrats and working to stifle economic prosperity for political reasons” – as if all these corporations with competing interests for labor, market share and consumer goodwill could or would somehow join together in a smoke-filled chamber somewhere and construct a nefarious plan to cut their own livelihood and profit margins for the sake of putting a Republican in the White House. Yeah, right, it makes perfect sense to me.
A better answer seems to be that “Corporate America” (whoever or whatever that is in Keith’s eyes) is, like the rest of us, waiting and wishing for an economic plan that will work. You know, like the one that worked in 1981.
Monday, June 20, 2011
History Lessons from the Middle East
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 9,
2011When a smoldering ember is infused with a fresh breath of oxygen, it usually results in bright flame that can spread to a full-fledged fire if the source of that oxygen remains. It is one of the paradoxical qualities of fire, that it can be a force of warmth, comfort, beauty and useful for preparing food and/or other vital products, and it can also become a scorching, fearsome destructive force that can take lives and wreak havoc.
When President Obama said the “pre-1967 borders” between Israel and Palestine should be considered, when discussing the possibility of peace in that region, he blew a fresh breath of proverbial oxygen onto a smoldering ember of hatred and resentment toward the Jewish state. This simple remark – juxtaposed as it was on the eve of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to our Capital and the White House – ignited a flame that, if not quenched by more reasoned words, could potentially lead to a very destructive conflagration.
When one hears of the “pre-1967” borders, one should look into what exactly those borders were and determine the cause of why those borders changed.
The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, literally, goes back to Old Testament book of Genesis and the prophetic statement made by Yahweh; that the family feud between Isaac’s offspring (Israel) and the offspring of Ishmael (Arab nations) – both sons of Abraham – would continue forever (Genesis chapters 22 – 25). I do not intend to go back that far but I do believe we should at least go back as far as 1967 and revisit the events that led to the alteration of the political landscape that summer.
Egyptian forces were encamped along Israel’s southern borders, Jordanian troops were also poised for attack from the west and north, Syrian forces accompanied by Pakistani aircraft were ready and joined the Egyptians as willing partners, along with the freshly formed and virulently hateful Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The aim of this coalition of Arab nations was total annihilation of the infant state of Israel.
When Egypt’s Nassar shut down the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping in the last week of May, 1967, it was, in essence, an act of war. Israel responded with a pre-emptive strike and an historic military campaign that stands alone in world history as one of the most brilliant and well-conducted operations ever mounted in a nation’s self defense against hostile forces. Within six days (June 5 – June 10) Israel had captured all of the Sinai Peninsula and extended her borders into Jordan, Palestine and Syria.
Most of the lands and territories captured during those days in early June of 1967 have since been relinquished by the Israelis in exchange for promises of peaceful coexistence. However, the aim of those in Palestine who are, to this day, still sending rockets and sniper fire into Israel, continues to be the annihilation of – not the peaceful coexistence with – the nation of Israel.
The PLO and Hamas (the terrorist organization recognized as a legitimate political party in Palestine) still refuse to recognize the statehood of Israel and until that recognition is established, it matters little what President Obama says or how eloquently he says it. Peace will not come to that area, even if Israel reverts back to pre-1948 borders.
We should bear in mind that this conflict is not about territories or settlements. It is about the right to exist without fear of sniper bullets or suicide bombers or rocket fire. Israel faces these fears each and every day. Many Arabs live and move freely within the borders of Israel. No acts of hatred and violence threaten their commerce or sleep. However, very few Jews dare to risk their lives by moving into Palestine.
President Obama was right to say: “For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa)
However, he was wrong – or misled – when he said, in the same speech: “I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past.” (ibid)
Current events (the evidence of Iranian support for Hamas’ continued terrorist activity aimed at Israel) and the fact that Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas has made several public statements that he does not recognize the state of Israel as legitimate, prove that the majority of Palestinians are indeed looking to the past. “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land,” Abbas declared in a recent interview. Israel is home to a sizable proportion of Arab citizens, who have the vote and are represented by Arab parties in the Knesset. (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-another-palestinian-precondition_30.html)
President Obama should know the Palestinian authorities are not merely looking back to 1967, they seek to return to 1947, when there was no official state of Israel.
From Broader View Weekly, June 9,
2011When a smoldering ember is infused with a fresh breath of oxygen, it usually results in bright flame that can spread to a full-fledged fire if the source of that oxygen remains. It is one of the paradoxical qualities of fire, that it can be a force of warmth, comfort, beauty and useful for preparing food and/or other vital products, and it can also become a scorching, fearsome destructive force that can take lives and wreak havoc.
When President Obama said the “pre-1967 borders” between Israel and Palestine should be considered, when discussing the possibility of peace in that region, he blew a fresh breath of proverbial oxygen onto a smoldering ember of hatred and resentment toward the Jewish state. This simple remark – juxtaposed as it was on the eve of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to our Capital and the White House – ignited a flame that, if not quenched by more reasoned words, could potentially lead to a very destructive conflagration.
When one hears of the “pre-1967” borders, one should look into what exactly those borders were and determine the cause of why those borders changed.
The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, literally, goes back to Old Testament book of Genesis and the prophetic statement made by Yahweh; that the family feud between Isaac’s offspring (Israel) and the offspring of Ishmael (Arab nations) – both sons of Abraham – would continue forever (Genesis chapters 22 – 25). I do not intend to go back that far but I do believe we should at least go back as far as 1967 and revisit the events that led to the alteration of the political landscape that summer.
Egyptian forces were encamped along Israel’s southern borders, Jordanian troops were also poised for attack from the west and north, Syrian forces accompanied by Pakistani aircraft were ready and joined the Egyptians as willing partners, along with the freshly formed and virulently hateful Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The aim of this coalition of Arab nations was total annihilation of the infant state of Israel.
When Egypt’s Nassar shut down the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping in the last week of May, 1967, it was, in essence, an act of war. Israel responded with a pre-emptive strike and an historic military campaign that stands alone in world history as one of the most brilliant and well-conducted operations ever mounted in a nation’s self defense against hostile forces. Within six days (June 5 – June 10) Israel had captured all of the Sinai Peninsula and extended her borders into Jordan, Palestine and Syria.
Most of the lands and territories captured during those days in early June of 1967 have since been relinquished by the Israelis in exchange for promises of peaceful coexistence. However, the aim of those in Palestine who are, to this day, still sending rockets and sniper fire into Israel, continues to be the annihilation of – not the peaceful coexistence with – the nation of Israel.
The PLO and Hamas (the terrorist organization recognized as a legitimate political party in Palestine) still refuse to recognize the statehood of Israel and until that recognition is established, it matters little what President Obama says or how eloquently he says it. Peace will not come to that area, even if Israel reverts back to pre-1948 borders.
We should bear in mind that this conflict is not about territories or settlements. It is about the right to exist without fear of sniper bullets or suicide bombers or rocket fire. Israel faces these fears each and every day. Many Arabs live and move freely within the borders of Israel. No acts of hatred and violence threaten their commerce or sleep. However, very few Jews dare to risk their lives by moving into Palestine.
President Obama was right to say: “For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa)
However, he was wrong – or misled – when he said, in the same speech: “I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past.” (ibid)
Current events (the evidence of Iranian support for Hamas’ continued terrorist activity aimed at Israel) and the fact that Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas has made several public statements that he does not recognize the state of Israel as legitimate, prove that the majority of Palestinians are indeed looking to the past. “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land,” Abbas declared in a recent interview. Israel is home to a sizable proportion of Arab citizens, who have the vote and are represented by Arab parties in the Knesset. (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-another-palestinian-precondition_30.html)
President Obama should know the Palestinian authorities are not merely looking back to 1967, they seek to return to 1947, when there was no official state of Israel.
Perspective is Everything
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 9, 2011
When judging President Barack Obama’s policy toward the continuing unrest between Israel and Palestine, it is important to approach the situation with an honest perspective. It’s true that a historical context is helpful, but it is dangerous to focus on biblical prophecy, especially when two Abrahamic religions claim the same territorial birthright. It is also dangerous to view Israel as an innocent victim of Palestinian aggression.
Furthermore, it is counterproductive to mischaracterize Obama’s speech as a betrayal of an ally while ignoring important points.
The president chastised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for attempting to persuade the United Nations to recognize Palestine while delegitimizing Israel. He said “symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.” Still, the right-wing of conservative punditry called the speech a slap in Israel’s face and a giveaway to Palestine.
The right also treated Obama’s two-state solution as an unprecedented stance. The fact of the matter is that it was not a ground-breaking departure from U.S. policy with regards to the region. In fact, the Washington Institute think tank has already published maps outlining swaps in an effort to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Oddly enough, Obama’s predecessor had proposed similar concessions years before. In a speech in June of 2002 Bush said, “Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.”
To me that sounds an awful lot like Obama’s statement: “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
It may be true that religious hostility is at the core of the conflict. However, resigning to a prophetic impasse is not only an impediment to viable solutions, it reinforces a mindset that continues to mire the Middle East in the perils of jihad and holy war. And, since certain Christian fundamentalist sects believe that a sovereign nation of Israel is a prerequisite for end-times events, a large number of Americans (including many in military and governmental leadership positions) have an unrealistic perspective of the conflict.
History doesn’t show Israel as an innocent victim of Arab aggression, seeking only its self-defense. The timeline is peppered with pre-emptive strikes on Arab states, denial of rights and humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, and violence. Indeed, last month over a dozen Palestinian protestors (commemorating the war of 1967) were gunned down, and another handful were killed in demonstrations last weekend. Scores more were wounded in the incidents. Ignoring Israel’s aggressions and painting Palestinians as wholly responsible for the unrest is dangerous.
These recent protests illustrate the urgency of the situation, and provide important context for Obama’s treatment of the conflict in his Middle East speech. The Arab spring which is waxing into the Arab summer has changed the dynamic in the region. Israelis and Palestinians find themselves in the center of a swelling thirst for liberty and freedom. My brother Gordon has implied that Obama is fanning the flames of resentment, but other risks are certain. As the fire of self-determination sends sparks scattering across the desert plains, a sense of futility about the prospect of peace and resolution can be incendiary.
Obama brought this perspective into his speech. “At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever,” he said, adding “…The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just one or two leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.”
Resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict is vital to any hope of peace in the Middle East. I have always been critical of the dysfunctional alliance the U.S. and Israel enjoy, but I fully recognize that the United States can be an agent to facilitate resolution. However, our perspective of the situation must be grounded in honest reality, along with the historical context.
From Broader View Weekly, June 9, 2011
When judging President Barack Obama’s policy toward the continuing unrest between Israel and Palestine, it is important to approach the situation with an honest perspective. It’s true that a historical context is helpful, but it is dangerous to focus on biblical prophecy, especially when two Abrahamic religions claim the same territorial birthright. It is also dangerous to view Israel as an innocent victim of Palestinian aggression.
Furthermore, it is counterproductive to mischaracterize Obama’s speech as a betrayal of an ally while ignoring important points.
The president chastised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for attempting to persuade the United Nations to recognize Palestine while delegitimizing Israel. He said “symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.” Still, the right-wing of conservative punditry called the speech a slap in Israel’s face and a giveaway to Palestine.
The right also treated Obama’s two-state solution as an unprecedented stance. The fact of the matter is that it was not a ground-breaking departure from U.S. policy with regards to the region. In fact, the Washington Institute think tank has already published maps outlining swaps in an effort to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Oddly enough, Obama’s predecessor had proposed similar concessions years before. In a speech in June of 2002 Bush said, “Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.”
To me that sounds an awful lot like Obama’s statement: “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
It may be true that religious hostility is at the core of the conflict. However, resigning to a prophetic impasse is not only an impediment to viable solutions, it reinforces a mindset that continues to mire the Middle East in the perils of jihad and holy war. And, since certain Christian fundamentalist sects believe that a sovereign nation of Israel is a prerequisite for end-times events, a large number of Americans (including many in military and governmental leadership positions) have an unrealistic perspective of the conflict.
History doesn’t show Israel as an innocent victim of Arab aggression, seeking only its self-defense. The timeline is peppered with pre-emptive strikes on Arab states, denial of rights and humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, and violence. Indeed, last month over a dozen Palestinian protestors (commemorating the war of 1967) were gunned down, and another handful were killed in demonstrations last weekend. Scores more were wounded in the incidents. Ignoring Israel’s aggressions and painting Palestinians as wholly responsible for the unrest is dangerous.
These recent protests illustrate the urgency of the situation, and provide important context for Obama’s treatment of the conflict in his Middle East speech. The Arab spring which is waxing into the Arab summer has changed the dynamic in the region. Israelis and Palestinians find themselves in the center of a swelling thirst for liberty and freedom. My brother Gordon has implied that Obama is fanning the flames of resentment, but other risks are certain. As the fire of self-determination sends sparks scattering across the desert plains, a sense of futility about the prospect of peace and resolution can be incendiary.
Obama brought this perspective into his speech. “At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever,” he said, adding “…The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just one or two leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.”
Resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict is vital to any hope of peace in the Middle East. I have always been critical of the dysfunctional alliance the U.S. and Israel enjoy, but I fully recognize that the United States can be an agent to facilitate resolution. However, our perspective of the situation must be grounded in honest reality, along with the historical context.
Socialism for Corporate Wealth?
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 26, 2011
Last week, the Senate voted down a bill that would dramatically reduce the federal subsidies that oil corporations receive. This followed a hearing the week before in which CEOs from the big five U.S. oil corporations testified about being treated unfairly and pressured Congress to keep the tax breaks in place.
The subsidies would add about $2 billion to the insane profits big oil has been earning over the past few years. The oil execs claimed to have little effect over gas prices, but the rising prices at the pump have been very good for the oil industry. The industry’s profits in the last decade totaled more than $902 billion. Exxon-Mobil alone has seen profits of $10.7 billion in the first quarter of 2011 (their share of $32 billion industry wide).
There is nothing wrong with earning a profit in the American model of capitalism. However, when we commit federal funds and tax revenue to any industry we should do so responsibly, especially at a time when the focus is on national debt and budget deficits. Not only are Democrats in Congress saying these subsidies are not needed, but oil industry leaders have echoed the sentiment in the past. In February, former president of Shell Oil John Hofmeister said in light of gas prices it was clear that the industry didn’t need incentives in the form of subsidies. Conoco-Phillips CEO Jim Mulva testified specifically in 2005 that with respect to oil and gas production “we do not need incentives.” Of course, Mr. Mulva changed his tune a bit a couple of weeks ago. His company may not need incentives to drill, but it sure wants the added income.
The fact of the matter is that oil companies will explore and drill where the oil supply is. This is as it always has been and always will be. The same is true of all energy-related industry. Locally, we see state and municipal officials pushing for subsidies and provisions for natural gas exploration even as it is clear that the companies are coming. They will explore and drill and hydrofracture where the supply is, regardless of incentives. So if the net result is the same without the subsidies as with them, then the lost revenue is merely a government handout to companies that can do just fine without it.
This type of big government federal spending is abhorrent to conservatives when it benefits the poor or the working class. Entitlements meant to help those struggling day-to-day in a depressed economy that has left many financially strapped or downsized out of a job is seen as socialism. Interestingly, the corporate wealthy who are riding high on a wave of prosperity brought about by high gas prices are seen as needy by those same conservatives.
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has wrongly accused President Barack Obama and his administration of being socialist and anti-business (look at Obama’s record regarding corporate America, as well as his pick of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head his council on Jobs and Competitiveness), has defended oil subsidies. When the bill to end the handouts was introduced, Limbaugh danced verbally around the subject trying to make the case that since the oil industry had to spend billions of dollars in investments in exploration and preparation before drilling and production can begin, the subsidies were merely a way to recoup that cost. Every corporation in every industry has such expenditure in research and development of method, process or operation. These operation costs are not offset by federal handouts and shouldn’t be offset for the oil industry either.
The flip-flop on big oil is a remarkable contrast to Limbaugh’s sentiment regarding corporate stimulus and measures intended to ease the financial crisis, or the impact of the recession on the automobile industry. Limbaugh still calls General Motors a government-owned entity (despite its recent public stock offerings) and ignores the relative success GM has seen over the last couple of years. At least the stimulus funds are being repaid to the government and can be applied to the deficit.
Rush is not alone in contradiction to conservative values. Tea Party candidates who ran on reducing government spending and the national debt seem to be happy to give away the farm to the oil industry. It is becoming increasingly clear that the concerns of the working class, grass roots movement that propelled these candidates in the elections of 2010 take a back seat to the concerns of corporate America and the wealthiest two percent (who have seen their tax breaks protected regardless of budget shortfalls).
Paying $4 per gallon at the gas station is painful enough for most of us. When we see the giants of the oil industry profiting from our misery, it inspires rage against those powerful companies. But that’s not the reason why subsidies must end.
A pragmatic approach to the situation reveals that eliminating those subsidies will have little impact on gas prices. Market speculation, industry collusion and price control will continue to be the factors that set pump prices. However, the elimination of subsidies will not impact the drilling and production of oil in the United States. If we espouse free market values as part of our capitalist model we must be consistent to those values.
From Broader View Weekly, May 26, 2011
Last week, the Senate voted down a bill that would dramatically reduce the federal subsidies that oil corporations receive. This followed a hearing the week before in which CEOs from the big five U.S. oil corporations testified about being treated unfairly and pressured Congress to keep the tax breaks in place.
The subsidies would add about $2 billion to the insane profits big oil has been earning over the past few years. The oil execs claimed to have little effect over gas prices, but the rising prices at the pump have been very good for the oil industry. The industry’s profits in the last decade totaled more than $902 billion. Exxon-Mobil alone has seen profits of $10.7 billion in the first quarter of 2011 (their share of $32 billion industry wide).
There is nothing wrong with earning a profit in the American model of capitalism. However, when we commit federal funds and tax revenue to any industry we should do so responsibly, especially at a time when the focus is on national debt and budget deficits. Not only are Democrats in Congress saying these subsidies are not needed, but oil industry leaders have echoed the sentiment in the past. In February, former president of Shell Oil John Hofmeister said in light of gas prices it was clear that the industry didn’t need incentives in the form of subsidies. Conoco-Phillips CEO Jim Mulva testified specifically in 2005 that with respect to oil and gas production “we do not need incentives.” Of course, Mr. Mulva changed his tune a bit a couple of weeks ago. His company may not need incentives to drill, but it sure wants the added income.
The fact of the matter is that oil companies will explore and drill where the oil supply is. This is as it always has been and always will be. The same is true of all energy-related industry. Locally, we see state and municipal officials pushing for subsidies and provisions for natural gas exploration even as it is clear that the companies are coming. They will explore and drill and hydrofracture where the supply is, regardless of incentives. So if the net result is the same without the subsidies as with them, then the lost revenue is merely a government handout to companies that can do just fine without it.
This type of big government federal spending is abhorrent to conservatives when it benefits the poor or the working class. Entitlements meant to help those struggling day-to-day in a depressed economy that has left many financially strapped or downsized out of a job is seen as socialism. Interestingly, the corporate wealthy who are riding high on a wave of prosperity brought about by high gas prices are seen as needy by those same conservatives.
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has wrongly accused President Barack Obama and his administration of being socialist and anti-business (look at Obama’s record regarding corporate America, as well as his pick of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head his council on Jobs and Competitiveness), has defended oil subsidies. When the bill to end the handouts was introduced, Limbaugh danced verbally around the subject trying to make the case that since the oil industry had to spend billions of dollars in investments in exploration and preparation before drilling and production can begin, the subsidies were merely a way to recoup that cost. Every corporation in every industry has such expenditure in research and development of method, process or operation. These operation costs are not offset by federal handouts and shouldn’t be offset for the oil industry either.
The flip-flop on big oil is a remarkable contrast to Limbaugh’s sentiment regarding corporate stimulus and measures intended to ease the financial crisis, or the impact of the recession on the automobile industry. Limbaugh still calls General Motors a government-owned entity (despite its recent public stock offerings) and ignores the relative success GM has seen over the last couple of years. At least the stimulus funds are being repaid to the government and can be applied to the deficit.
Rush is not alone in contradiction to conservative values. Tea Party candidates who ran on reducing government spending and the national debt seem to be happy to give away the farm to the oil industry. It is becoming increasingly clear that the concerns of the working class, grass roots movement that propelled these candidates in the elections of 2010 take a back seat to the concerns of corporate America and the wealthiest two percent (who have seen their tax breaks protected regardless of budget shortfalls).
Paying $4 per gallon at the gas station is painful enough for most of us. When we see the giants of the oil industry profiting from our misery, it inspires rage against those powerful companies. But that’s not the reason why subsidies must end.
A pragmatic approach to the situation reveals that eliminating those subsidies will have little impact on gas prices. Market speculation, industry collusion and price control will continue to be the factors that set pump prices. However, the elimination of subsidies will not impact the drilling and production of oil in the United States. If we espouse free market values as part of our capitalist model we must be consistent to those values.
What are the facts about those oil “subsidies”?
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 26, 2011
It is always interesting to me when I see inconsistencies in a person’s philosophy and selective outrage in their responses to certain issues. Apparently my fellow columnist finds inconsistencies just as interesting. However, a more careful reading of Keith’s column would reveal that the “inconsistencies” in the conservative ranks as it regards the issue of subsidies to the oil industry are not inconsistent at all and are, in fact, aligned with the overall tenets of free market capitalism as Keith suggests we should be in his final sentence.
Before I address Keith’s final sentence, I believe I should address some facts that are not being clearly reported by our media (surprise?) in the coverage of government subsidies in general and the oil industry in particular.
First of all, the bill produced by the Senate, which the sponsors knew would be nothing more than a political exercise to cast a shiny lure toward a fish-brained public who seem too eager to swallow any half-truth about the current bogeyman of the left, was never intended to limit government spending or to lower the price of gas at the pumps. Even some of their own party members realized the bill would have been counterproductive to growing our economy.
“Why are we harming an industry — five large oil and gas companies that work internationally, that employ 9.2 million people in the United States directly?” asked Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “Why are we doing it?” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/politics/18congress.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
The narrow application – it was only aimed at the big five oil companies, namely: BP, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips – would have amounted to singling out one specific industry for elimination of tax deductions (they are not really subsidies) that all other manufacturers and industries enjoy.
For example, the bill would have taken away the Domestic Manufacturing Tax Deduction – something every industry receives in an effort to keep factories and jobs in the US. It would have also eliminated the Foreign Tax Credit – again, a tax credit every other company –and individual – receives when they pay taxes to foreign countries, in essence, it would be paying taxes on taxes.
These and the other tax deductions would have only netted $21 Billion to the Federal budget over TEN YEARS – essentially less than the $2 Billion/year President Obama is willing to loan to another oil company to SUBSIDIZE OFFSHORE DRILLING. Yes, that is correct! Obama is proposing that taxpayers subsidize (truly) the oil exploration and drilling off the coast of…BRAZIL! By sending money to a state-owned oil company – Petrobras in Brazil - we see a true subsidy and a true inconsistency!
Now, while we are dealing with facts, I believe it is worthwhile to expose a few forgotten or underreported realities about the oil industry in particular and free market economics in general.
I have long held the opinion that the use of government subsidies – not merely offering tax deductions or tax credits – is a clumsy and inefficient means to regulate the economy. By its very makeup – it must try to portray itself as objective and equitable in its assistance - the government is forced to create a bureaucratic monstrosity and convoluted pathway that sucks the life out of every dollar it distributes, making it a weakened - and sometimes even a diseased - source of revenue for the recipient.
Another reason to oppose subsidies is that industries, like people, will become dependent upon the artificial source of income and once dependent, like the animals in a zoo, they will become incapable of procuring necessary nutrition on their own. We have seen this in agricultural subsidies, educational subsidies and other price and/or market controls.
When we pull up to the gas pumps and watch those dollars fly by a rate four times faster than the gallons it is easy to aim our anger toward the name of the big oil company on the sign. So, what should we do about it?
Well, I suppose we could start our own oil company. Of course, that would take a lot of money. Just to get the permits and weave our way through the jungle of environmental regulations would require a team of lawyers and engineers working around the clock, then we would have equipment costs and research and development and I suppose we would eventually have to hire employees and supply them with incentives such as health care and after all that we would need to spend some money on advertising and then we would finally have to pay more than our fair share of corporate taxes - oil companies pay an average (as a share of net income before taxes) of 41.1% compared to 26.5% for other S&P industries – and then we would have to pay royalties and lease payments to the federal government or private landowners – oil companies have paid more than $100 Billion to the federal government since 2000, or over $85 Million/day!
Or we could just pay the $4.00/gallon and be thankful we have a free market system (for now) that keeps us away from the price paid by drivers in London or Germany (well over $8/gallon) where the governments try to manipulate more people to depend on the public transportation treadmill and take away consumer choice.
From Broader View Weekly, May 26, 2011
It is always interesting to me when I see inconsistencies in a person’s philosophy and selective outrage in their responses to certain issues. Apparently my fellow columnist finds inconsistencies just as interesting. However, a more careful reading of Keith’s column would reveal that the “inconsistencies” in the conservative ranks as it regards the issue of subsidies to the oil industry are not inconsistent at all and are, in fact, aligned with the overall tenets of free market capitalism as Keith suggests we should be in his final sentence.
Before I address Keith’s final sentence, I believe I should address some facts that are not being clearly reported by our media (surprise?) in the coverage of government subsidies in general and the oil industry in particular.
First of all, the bill produced by the Senate, which the sponsors knew would be nothing more than a political exercise to cast a shiny lure toward a fish-brained public who seem too eager to swallow any half-truth about the current bogeyman of the left, was never intended to limit government spending or to lower the price of gas at the pumps. Even some of their own party members realized the bill would have been counterproductive to growing our economy.
“Why are we harming an industry — five large oil and gas companies that work internationally, that employ 9.2 million people in the United States directly?” asked Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “Why are we doing it?” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/politics/18congress.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
The narrow application – it was only aimed at the big five oil companies, namely: BP, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips – would have amounted to singling out one specific industry for elimination of tax deductions (they are not really subsidies) that all other manufacturers and industries enjoy.
For example, the bill would have taken away the Domestic Manufacturing Tax Deduction – something every industry receives in an effort to keep factories and jobs in the US. It would have also eliminated the Foreign Tax Credit – again, a tax credit every other company –and individual – receives when they pay taxes to foreign countries, in essence, it would be paying taxes on taxes.
These and the other tax deductions would have only netted $21 Billion to the Federal budget over TEN YEARS – essentially less than the $2 Billion/year President Obama is willing to loan to another oil company to SUBSIDIZE OFFSHORE DRILLING. Yes, that is correct! Obama is proposing that taxpayers subsidize (truly) the oil exploration and drilling off the coast of…BRAZIL! By sending money to a state-owned oil company – Petrobras in Brazil - we see a true subsidy and a true inconsistency!
Now, while we are dealing with facts, I believe it is worthwhile to expose a few forgotten or underreported realities about the oil industry in particular and free market economics in general.
I have long held the opinion that the use of government subsidies – not merely offering tax deductions or tax credits – is a clumsy and inefficient means to regulate the economy. By its very makeup – it must try to portray itself as objective and equitable in its assistance - the government is forced to create a bureaucratic monstrosity and convoluted pathway that sucks the life out of every dollar it distributes, making it a weakened - and sometimes even a diseased - source of revenue for the recipient.
Another reason to oppose subsidies is that industries, like people, will become dependent upon the artificial source of income and once dependent, like the animals in a zoo, they will become incapable of procuring necessary nutrition on their own. We have seen this in agricultural subsidies, educational subsidies and other price and/or market controls.
When we pull up to the gas pumps and watch those dollars fly by a rate four times faster than the gallons it is easy to aim our anger toward the name of the big oil company on the sign. So, what should we do about it?
Well, I suppose we could start our own oil company. Of course, that would take a lot of money. Just to get the permits and weave our way through the jungle of environmental regulations would require a team of lawyers and engineers working around the clock, then we would have equipment costs and research and development and I suppose we would eventually have to hire employees and supply them with incentives such as health care and after all that we would need to spend some money on advertising and then we would finally have to pay more than our fair share of corporate taxes - oil companies pay an average (as a share of net income before taxes) of 41.1% compared to 26.5% for other S&P industries – and then we would have to pay royalties and lease payments to the federal government or private landowners – oil companies have paid more than $100 Billion to the federal government since 2000, or over $85 Million/day!
Or we could just pay the $4.00/gallon and be thankful we have a free market system (for now) that keeps us away from the price paid by drivers in London or Germany (well over $8/gallon) where the governments try to manipulate more people to depend on the public transportation treadmill and take away consumer choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
