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.
Monday, June 20, 2011
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.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Deliver us from Evil: Justice to Bin Laden
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 12, 2011
History is filled with examples of very evil men who have acquired power and then used it for malevolent purposes. These same men have used their powerful positions to shield themselves from the normal means of justice. But justice eventually comes to even the most shielded.
We have, in the past few years, seen the rightful demise of several evil characters. The image of a scraggly, humiliated Saddam Hussein being pulled from a filthy pit by our Marines is still fresh in my mind. We have just recently seen Hosni Mubarak ousted from his former position of glory and excess, by his former subjects, and a comparable fate awaits Qaddafi in Libya. We can look a little further back in time and recall similar scenes, as Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Mao Tse -Tung, Pol Pot and others rose to great heights of depravity and then fell in dramatic fashion.
Now we can see another vivid example of an evil man’s breath being extinguished from our planet. When the news of Osama bin Laden’s execution was broadcast to the world by President Obama, some people felt compelled to celebrate with flag waving and patriotic chants. I can understand their jubilation even though it seems a bit morbid and unbecoming of a civilized and moral people; we must recognize the truth of Obama’s statement that the world is indeed a safer place with certain evil persons removed from it.
That being said, I think it is important to look at this event in a broader context and to see what lessons we can learn.
First of all, I think we should realize that while the world is safer, it is not now nor will it ever be completely safe from evil. Evil will be with us always because as long as men rule other men the corrupting influence of power will inevitably lead to evil actions. Despite the best efforts of legislators or leagues of nations, someone will rise to take the place of bin Laden, Mubarak, Saddam, Hitler, etc. So then, what should we do? Should we just drop our hands, sigh a sigh of resignation and accept it as fate? I say NO. We should redouble our efforts to seek out the dens and lairs of these evil men and use every available means to frustrate their plots of mayhem. As we have seen, good does triumph over evil in the end, because good people carry a sense of justice and duty that evil men shun.
Furthermore, we should realize that killing a killer is not only justified by rules of war, it is actually an ethical and moral duty. Men like bin Laden cannot be rehabilitated or reasoned with, nor can they be appeased with acts of conciliation. They must be eliminated. Evil men who have gleefully and with forethought (months, years and millions of dollars spent in forethought) plotted and carried out the destruction of civilians have polluted their souls to the point beyond which laws can reach or cleanse. It is a sad fact but a fact nonetheless.
Which brings us back to that ticklish (I know, poor choice of words there) topic of “enhanced interrogation methods”. This topic was covered almost two years ago (May 19, 2009) in my column in which I stated that Pelosi and company (including Attorney General Eric Holder and other members of the Obama cabinet) sought legal action against the members of the Bush administration who ordered these tactics against the captured terrorists in Gitmo.
My point then, as now, is that these tactics do not diminish us as a nation of laws and moral rules of conduct. As stated above, I believe it is ethical and moral to administer pain and suffering and loss of civil rights to a few guilty individuals if it prevents further pain and suffering and loss of life to a greater majority. The charge to our leaders is to protect their citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to carry out that charge it is sometimes necessary to use covert intelligence gathering, deliberate and sustained interrogation of captives in secret locations and sometimes to even infiltrate the sovereign soil of another nation without their invitation or assistance for the purpose of eliminating a threat to our national security.
The ironic point about the taking of bin Laden being done on President Obama’s command is so stark as to be almost comical. If you believe in Divine Providence (as I do) and if you believe that He has protected our nation and heeded our prayers to “deliver us from evil”, you have to wonder if He didn’t plan to deliver us during the presidency of the man who campaigned against the very practices that made this deliverance a possibility.
Think about it and smile. The evil one is vanquished. Our citizens have been spared. More information has been received. Our morals and ethics have survived because we have done the greater good.
From Broader View Weekly, May 12, 2011
History is filled with examples of very evil men who have acquired power and then used it for malevolent purposes. These same men have used their powerful positions to shield themselves from the normal means of justice. But justice eventually comes to even the most shielded.
We have, in the past few years, seen the rightful demise of several evil characters. The image of a scraggly, humiliated Saddam Hussein being pulled from a filthy pit by our Marines is still fresh in my mind. We have just recently seen Hosni Mubarak ousted from his former position of glory and excess, by his former subjects, and a comparable fate awaits Qaddafi in Libya. We can look a little further back in time and recall similar scenes, as Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Mao Tse -Tung, Pol Pot and others rose to great heights of depravity and then fell in dramatic fashion.
Now we can see another vivid example of an evil man’s breath being extinguished from our planet. When the news of Osama bin Laden’s execution was broadcast to the world by President Obama, some people felt compelled to celebrate with flag waving and patriotic chants. I can understand their jubilation even though it seems a bit morbid and unbecoming of a civilized and moral people; we must recognize the truth of Obama’s statement that the world is indeed a safer place with certain evil persons removed from it.
That being said, I think it is important to look at this event in a broader context and to see what lessons we can learn.
First of all, I think we should realize that while the world is safer, it is not now nor will it ever be completely safe from evil. Evil will be with us always because as long as men rule other men the corrupting influence of power will inevitably lead to evil actions. Despite the best efforts of legislators or leagues of nations, someone will rise to take the place of bin Laden, Mubarak, Saddam, Hitler, etc. So then, what should we do? Should we just drop our hands, sigh a sigh of resignation and accept it as fate? I say NO. We should redouble our efforts to seek out the dens and lairs of these evil men and use every available means to frustrate their plots of mayhem. As we have seen, good does triumph over evil in the end, because good people carry a sense of justice and duty that evil men shun.
Furthermore, we should realize that killing a killer is not only justified by rules of war, it is actually an ethical and moral duty. Men like bin Laden cannot be rehabilitated or reasoned with, nor can they be appeased with acts of conciliation. They must be eliminated. Evil men who have gleefully and with forethought (months, years and millions of dollars spent in forethought) plotted and carried out the destruction of civilians have polluted their souls to the point beyond which laws can reach or cleanse. It is a sad fact but a fact nonetheless.
Which brings us back to that ticklish (I know, poor choice of words there) topic of “enhanced interrogation methods”. This topic was covered almost two years ago (May 19, 2009) in my column in which I stated that Pelosi and company (including Attorney General Eric Holder and other members of the Obama cabinet) sought legal action against the members of the Bush administration who ordered these tactics against the captured terrorists in Gitmo.
My point then, as now, is that these tactics do not diminish us as a nation of laws and moral rules of conduct. As stated above, I believe it is ethical and moral to administer pain and suffering and loss of civil rights to a few guilty individuals if it prevents further pain and suffering and loss of life to a greater majority. The charge to our leaders is to protect their citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to carry out that charge it is sometimes necessary to use covert intelligence gathering, deliberate and sustained interrogation of captives in secret locations and sometimes to even infiltrate the sovereign soil of another nation without their invitation or assistance for the purpose of eliminating a threat to our national security.
The ironic point about the taking of bin Laden being done on President Obama’s command is so stark as to be almost comical. If you believe in Divine Providence (as I do) and if you believe that He has protected our nation and heeded our prayers to “deliver us from evil”, you have to wonder if He didn’t plan to deliver us during the presidency of the man who campaigned against the very practices that made this deliverance a possibility.
Think about it and smile. The evil one is vanquished. Our citizens have been spared. More information has been received. Our morals and ethics have survived because we have done the greater good.
Credit Where Credit is Due
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 12, 2011
My brother and I disagree about many issues. Unless one has avoided any medium with any bias or editorial slant (which lately would require a complete boycott of television, radio, print and Internet), it is no surprise that a far-left liberal like myself and a right-wing conservative like Gordon would have vastly different opinions about the recent killing of Osama bin Laden. Although there is some common ground there are several points on which we stand at odds. I’ll discuss only a few.
The word “evil” is an emotionally charged term, which makes for effective rhetoric. Former President George W. Bush’s classification of an “Axis of Evil” was used to manipulate the fear and rage upon which much of his administration’s foreign policy was based. Calling his hit list of terror suspects “evildoers” helped him sway public opinion toward unconventional tactics in much the same way as fans of the television show “24” are programmed to support Jack Bauer’s extreme techniques.
But the word “evil” falls short of telling the full story. It eliminates the factors of motivation and justification, which are elements of the human psyche. The nuances are far too complex to cover in the limited space of editorial content, but the implications are important to note. We must realize that as heinous as bin Laden’s crimes are, he didn’t characterize them as evil. Just as madmen before him and those currently plotting and committing atrocities, bin Laden justified his actions as beneficial to a greater good.
Now, I do believe that justice was done on Sunday, May 1, when bin Laden’s countless victims were vindicated at the hands of brave Navy Seals. He willfully murdered thousands and sought to orchestrate the deaths of many more. His trial has been held publicly over the past 15 years and his confessions and other damning evidence is incontrovertible. However, merely labeling him “evil” oversimplifies the issue.
Ignoring motivation and justification is dangerous, most of all, in judging our own actions. When we accept “any means” of warfare or interrogation by speaking in terms of ourselves as the “good” guys versus the “evil” others, we tread on perilous ground. In a heated battle we can see the benefit of using chemical or biological warfare in order to save lives or even protect our shores. Even if the use of such extreme measures were proven reliable and efficient, their use is immoral (as well as illegal by international standards). But the U.S. holds itself to an even higher ethical standard that precludes such actions. That is why, throughout our history, we have eschewed the use of torture. Even if it were proven to produce good actionable intelligence, our collective soul would be tarnished by a violation of our own ethical standards. Or so it was, until the Bush administration, when we sanitized extreme tactics in terms of “enhanced techniques” and began to ask intelligence officers and soldiers to torture captives in our name. Those responsible for taking us down that slippery slope should be investigated, and held accountable.
There is still much to learn about the path to bin Laden, but so far there is little evidence to show that torture techniques led to the courier and then to his end. In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was tortured extensively, downplayed the significance of the courier and gave information that would have set the CIA on a wild goose chase. So we shouldn’t be so quick to use bin Laden as a case for dropping an investigation. It’s a weak argument, regardless of what Fox News says.
I understand why Gordon failed to give President Obama the credit for the decision to move on Osama bin Laden. With 2012 looming large on the horizon, the last thing Republicans want to admit is that a Democrat is anything but weak on foreign policy. It’s a tired and tattered banner, but one that has been waved proudly for decades. And it has worked fairly well in the past. But seeing it trotted out on stage at the Republican mock debate last week was kind of pathetic in light of the news splashed over the entirety of media.
I’d even heard Bush receiving the credit, which is ironic since he admitted that he didn’t really “spend that much time” thinking about bin Laden. That was obvious when, early in his second term, he closed the bin Laden intelligence unit at the CIA. Two missed opportunities in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan had even military and administration officials scratching their heads, and many thinking “conspiracy”. Osama bin Laden did make an excellent bogeyman all these years.
I have to admit, though, that my fellow columnist’s approach was the most interesting I’d heard. He attributed the deliverance of bin Laden to the benevolent hand of God. I would smile wider if that hand had stayed the terrors of 9/11, and the tragic loss of life in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
From Broader View Weekly, May 12, 2011
My brother and I disagree about many issues. Unless one has avoided any medium with any bias or editorial slant (which lately would require a complete boycott of television, radio, print and Internet), it is no surprise that a far-left liberal like myself and a right-wing conservative like Gordon would have vastly different opinions about the recent killing of Osama bin Laden. Although there is some common ground there are several points on which we stand at odds. I’ll discuss only a few.
The word “evil” is an emotionally charged term, which makes for effective rhetoric. Former President George W. Bush’s classification of an “Axis of Evil” was used to manipulate the fear and rage upon which much of his administration’s foreign policy was based. Calling his hit list of terror suspects “evildoers” helped him sway public opinion toward unconventional tactics in much the same way as fans of the television show “24” are programmed to support Jack Bauer’s extreme techniques.
But the word “evil” falls short of telling the full story. It eliminates the factors of motivation and justification, which are elements of the human psyche. The nuances are far too complex to cover in the limited space of editorial content, but the implications are important to note. We must realize that as heinous as bin Laden’s crimes are, he didn’t characterize them as evil. Just as madmen before him and those currently plotting and committing atrocities, bin Laden justified his actions as beneficial to a greater good.
Now, I do believe that justice was done on Sunday, May 1, when bin Laden’s countless victims were vindicated at the hands of brave Navy Seals. He willfully murdered thousands and sought to orchestrate the deaths of many more. His trial has been held publicly over the past 15 years and his confessions and other damning evidence is incontrovertible. However, merely labeling him “evil” oversimplifies the issue.
Ignoring motivation and justification is dangerous, most of all, in judging our own actions. When we accept “any means” of warfare or interrogation by speaking in terms of ourselves as the “good” guys versus the “evil” others, we tread on perilous ground. In a heated battle we can see the benefit of using chemical or biological warfare in order to save lives or even protect our shores. Even if the use of such extreme measures were proven reliable and efficient, their use is immoral (as well as illegal by international standards). But the U.S. holds itself to an even higher ethical standard that precludes such actions. That is why, throughout our history, we have eschewed the use of torture. Even if it were proven to produce good actionable intelligence, our collective soul would be tarnished by a violation of our own ethical standards. Or so it was, until the Bush administration, when we sanitized extreme tactics in terms of “enhanced techniques” and began to ask intelligence officers and soldiers to torture captives in our name. Those responsible for taking us down that slippery slope should be investigated, and held accountable.
There is still much to learn about the path to bin Laden, but so far there is little evidence to show that torture techniques led to the courier and then to his end. In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was tortured extensively, downplayed the significance of the courier and gave information that would have set the CIA on a wild goose chase. So we shouldn’t be so quick to use bin Laden as a case for dropping an investigation. It’s a weak argument, regardless of what Fox News says.
I understand why Gordon failed to give President Obama the credit for the decision to move on Osama bin Laden. With 2012 looming large on the horizon, the last thing Republicans want to admit is that a Democrat is anything but weak on foreign policy. It’s a tired and tattered banner, but one that has been waved proudly for decades. And it has worked fairly well in the past. But seeing it trotted out on stage at the Republican mock debate last week was kind of pathetic in light of the news splashed over the entirety of media.
I’d even heard Bush receiving the credit, which is ironic since he admitted that he didn’t really “spend that much time” thinking about bin Laden. That was obvious when, early in his second term, he closed the bin Laden intelligence unit at the CIA. Two missed opportunities in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan had even military and administration officials scratching their heads, and many thinking “conspiracy”. Osama bin Laden did make an excellent bogeyman all these years.
I have to admit, though, that my fellow columnist’s approach was the most interesting I’d heard. He attributed the deliverance of bin Laden to the benevolent hand of God. I would smile wider if that hand had stayed the terrors of 9/11, and the tragic loss of life in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Class Warfare
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 28, 2011
A couple of weeks ago, my brother Gordon sent me an email that asked a specific question. The headline read “How high should we tax the rich?” In the message he implied that I saw all wealthy as “evil” and sought to punish them for their prosperity. That is an unfair characterization of me and of the large plurality of Americans who poll in favor of requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share.
Gordon’s premise was that no matter how high we set the tax rate for the rich, the increased revenue would fall short of addressing the deficit and national debt. His claim was that it would only meet 10 percent of the federal deficit. Well, his math is a bit skewed because it uses IRS “earnings” figures, which fail to allow for all the sources of wealth the wealthy enjoy. It also wasn’t the first time that I had come across this particular mathematical argument. It has been making the talk radio rounds for the past few weeks as conservatives are attacking President Obama and calling speeches defending his budgetary strategy a “Soak the Rich” tour. Rush Limbaugh laid out the scenario that even if you “confiscated” 100% of the wealthy’s income (a one-time deal, in his mind, because then it’s gone), it would fall short of resolving the deficit of the current year. Well, nobody is proposing a 100% tax rate for the wealthy, but all of this detracts from the real forces at play here.
At the core of our nation’s economic problems (at least for the 99 percent of Americans profoundly impacted by the recession), is a class war that has been going on for decades, nearly unchecked by those in power (regardless of their political party affiliation). There is a systemic agenda to distribute wealth from the bottom to the top, which is intended to maintain and grow an enormous gap between the wealthiest among us and the poor. Through legislative policy, tax codes and funding for services like education and job creation the middle class has been shrunk to near extinction and the poor have been devastated.
Corporate influence in Washington (and even at the state and local levels) has gotten so out of control that every politician from the freshman congressman, to the senior senator, to the President of the United States is beholden to corporate interests. During the debate, which resulted in the current crippled health care plan, conservatives adamantly opposed the proposal out of selfish motivation (“I’m not paying for your coverage”). However, an enemy just as big was the fact that health care represents a third of the U.S. economy. Private insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and other health industry powers exerted enormous influence over the process and the imperfect product that emerged. Of course, conservatives and Tea Partiers are intent on repealing the law and stripping from it any benefits that still exist.
I am not interested in punishing the wealthy with taxation. I don’t even demonize CEOs and executives who receive obscene bonuses and salaries at a time when the rest of us are struggling to put food on our tables and gas in our cars. But I absolutely don’t subscribe to the theory that tax cuts at the top stimulate the economy in a way that benefits everyone. The trickle-down lie upon which Reaganomics was based is still doing its damages to our economy (except to the economic growth of the top earners who have had positive growth even in the midst of deep recession). If we could somehow tie tax breaks as an incentive to create jobs, I would lend my support. But no one from either major party is “seriously” pursuing this.
What I believe is ridiculous is the conservative claim that the deficit is chief among the nation’s problems. If Paul Ryan and the Republicans in Congress were really serious about addressing deficit spending, why are they still fighting for the tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent? And why is Congressman Ryan seeking even greater tax giveaways to the wealthy while asking the middle class and the poor to make sacrifices? The answer is clearer than it appears. Corporate corruption of the democratic process in the United States feeds itself.
Budgets are increasingly being used to feed the rich and starve the poor. Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare (among other dastardly provisions of his “Path to Prosperity” – for the prosperous) will benefit private insurance on the backs of seniors and others who will end up paying out-of-pocket money they can’t afford for substandard coverage. State budgets across the country are being used to wage war on public workers and other working class individuals, while refusing to even ask corporations to share sacrifice.
Voucher programs like the Ryan Medicare proposal have been used for years to dress cuts in programs in seemingly innocuous terms. Vouchers for education have been used to drain money from public school systems and funnel it into the private sector. As education is increasingly under fire, vouchers, charter schools and funding cuts will be commonly used as tools to bankrupt public education and further disadvantage the poor. All of this is part of the systemic shift currently building the abysmal U.S. wealth gap.
There is no attack on the nation’s rich, but there is undeniably an attack on the working poor. One only need listen to conservative punditry to get a sense of the disdain the conservative movement holds for the poor. Limbaugh, last week, expressed his extreme dismay that 47% of Americans pay no taxes. The premise of that show’s bloviation was that the nanny state had created half a nation of lazy citizens, happy to rest on their laurels and have the wealthy pay their way. The sneering tone was nauseating, but not nearly as sickening as his disregard for the corporate bias and systemic corruption that has created the ranks of poor who don’t earn enough to pay taxes.
I am not interested in punishing the “evil” rich, but I will stand proudly in defense of the middle class and poor against an unfair vilification and despicable attack.
From Broader View Weekly, April 28, 2011
A couple of weeks ago, my brother Gordon sent me an email that asked a specific question. The headline read “How high should we tax the rich?” In the message he implied that I saw all wealthy as “evil” and sought to punish them for their prosperity. That is an unfair characterization of me and of the large plurality of Americans who poll in favor of requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share.
Gordon’s premise was that no matter how high we set the tax rate for the rich, the increased revenue would fall short of addressing the deficit and national debt. His claim was that it would only meet 10 percent of the federal deficit. Well, his math is a bit skewed because it uses IRS “earnings” figures, which fail to allow for all the sources of wealth the wealthy enjoy. It also wasn’t the first time that I had come across this particular mathematical argument. It has been making the talk radio rounds for the past few weeks as conservatives are attacking President Obama and calling speeches defending his budgetary strategy a “Soak the Rich” tour. Rush Limbaugh laid out the scenario that even if you “confiscated” 100% of the wealthy’s income (a one-time deal, in his mind, because then it’s gone), it would fall short of resolving the deficit of the current year. Well, nobody is proposing a 100% tax rate for the wealthy, but all of this detracts from the real forces at play here.
At the core of our nation’s economic problems (at least for the 99 percent of Americans profoundly impacted by the recession), is a class war that has been going on for decades, nearly unchecked by those in power (regardless of their political party affiliation). There is a systemic agenda to distribute wealth from the bottom to the top, which is intended to maintain and grow an enormous gap between the wealthiest among us and the poor. Through legislative policy, tax codes and funding for services like education and job creation the middle class has been shrunk to near extinction and the poor have been devastated.
Corporate influence in Washington (and even at the state and local levels) has gotten so out of control that every politician from the freshman congressman, to the senior senator, to the President of the United States is beholden to corporate interests. During the debate, which resulted in the current crippled health care plan, conservatives adamantly opposed the proposal out of selfish motivation (“I’m not paying for your coverage”). However, an enemy just as big was the fact that health care represents a third of the U.S. economy. Private insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and other health industry powers exerted enormous influence over the process and the imperfect product that emerged. Of course, conservatives and Tea Partiers are intent on repealing the law and stripping from it any benefits that still exist.
I am not interested in punishing the wealthy with taxation. I don’t even demonize CEOs and executives who receive obscene bonuses and salaries at a time when the rest of us are struggling to put food on our tables and gas in our cars. But I absolutely don’t subscribe to the theory that tax cuts at the top stimulate the economy in a way that benefits everyone. The trickle-down lie upon which Reaganomics was based is still doing its damages to our economy (except to the economic growth of the top earners who have had positive growth even in the midst of deep recession). If we could somehow tie tax breaks as an incentive to create jobs, I would lend my support. But no one from either major party is “seriously” pursuing this.
What I believe is ridiculous is the conservative claim that the deficit is chief among the nation’s problems. If Paul Ryan and the Republicans in Congress were really serious about addressing deficit spending, why are they still fighting for the tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent? And why is Congressman Ryan seeking even greater tax giveaways to the wealthy while asking the middle class and the poor to make sacrifices? The answer is clearer than it appears. Corporate corruption of the democratic process in the United States feeds itself.
Budgets are increasingly being used to feed the rich and starve the poor. Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare (among other dastardly provisions of his “Path to Prosperity” – for the prosperous) will benefit private insurance on the backs of seniors and others who will end up paying out-of-pocket money they can’t afford for substandard coverage. State budgets across the country are being used to wage war on public workers and other working class individuals, while refusing to even ask corporations to share sacrifice.
Voucher programs like the Ryan Medicare proposal have been used for years to dress cuts in programs in seemingly innocuous terms. Vouchers for education have been used to drain money from public school systems and funnel it into the private sector. As education is increasingly under fire, vouchers, charter schools and funding cuts will be commonly used as tools to bankrupt public education and further disadvantage the poor. All of this is part of the systemic shift currently building the abysmal U.S. wealth gap.
There is no attack on the nation’s rich, but there is undeniably an attack on the working poor. One only need listen to conservative punditry to get a sense of the disdain the conservative movement holds for the poor. Limbaugh, last week, expressed his extreme dismay that 47% of Americans pay no taxes. The premise of that show’s bloviation was that the nanny state had created half a nation of lazy citizens, happy to rest on their laurels and have the wealthy pay their way. The sneering tone was nauseating, but not nearly as sickening as his disregard for the corporate bias and systemic corruption that has created the ranks of poor who don’t earn enough to pay taxes.
I am not interested in punishing the “evil” rich, but I will stand proudly in defense of the middle class and poor against an unfair vilification and despicable attack.
We’re all in this together
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 28, 2011
It is a curious thing to behold when one follows the current debate being waged in Washington over the 2012 budget and the need to address the ballooning U.S. debt and our ever-increasing deficit spending. It is no surprise that we have differing views about how we should meet this challenge. After all, our system of two-party representative government assures that we will have disparate views on economic policies and almost every other topic. It is also no surprise that neither side will admit or disclose weaknesses or fallacies within their respective position.
The most curious aspect about the debate centers around certain words and ideologies that have been co-opted and/or misappropriated.
For example, if you listen carefully or read carefully, you will notice certain words are almost always grouped together. Take the words “fair share” and “wealthy” – it seems the common misconception being presented here is that the wealthy take a disproportionate amount of government services and return a less than equitable amount back into the treasury. This is the policy being promoted in the current presidential campaign by Barack Obama. He suggests that if we confiscated just a bit more from the top earners in our nation, we could bring down the debt and lower the deficit.
The idea of increasing taxes will not fulfill the purpose of lowering the deficit – even if we could take 100% of all earnings from the top 1% of earners, we would only garner the cost of last year’s health care legislation cost ($968 Billion). Despite what Keith says to the contrary in his article, the figures used represented the net worth of the top 1% and are legitimate. Therefore we must look elsewhere if we really want to stimulate the economy and lower our deficit – and the debt and deficit is a serious inhibitory influence upon our economy, as well as a threat to the future security of our nation’s sovereignty.
At the risk of losing some readers who find statistics and studies to be too much like going to class, I feel I must spend some time explaining why tax cuts will do more to enhance our economic growth and lower our dependence on foreign investors (China) for our operating capital.
There is valid proof that lowering tax rates for all taxpayers does more to stimulate the economy than raising taxes.
First of all, all we have to do is look at the recent news story about how GE (you know, that tiny, multi-national corporation that is run by Obama’s Jobs Czar and buddy, Jeffrey Immelt) paid no corporate taxes this year on its profits of over $14 billion – $5.1 billion from U.S. operations – because they were able to, with the help of over 975 tax experts (cheats) in their tax evasion department, find enough loopholes to squeeze all their profits through the tax code and into the pockets of executives and shareholders. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1)
We see here that increasing tax rates serve to stimulate the economy of the lobbyists and tax lawyers while doing very little to stimulate the general economy,
Conversely, there is much evidence that lowering tax rates across the board – while also sewing up those leaky loopholes (hmmm…sounds like that Paul Ryan “Path to Prosperity”, doesn’t it?) does indeed stimulate the national economy and raise the standard of living for the general populace.
For example, an article written by Alan Reynolds on The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, cites a book, Economic Growth by Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (MIT Press) which demonstrates how decreasing the marginal tax rates has stimulated the economies of several nations including Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Botswana, Thailand, Ireland, Malayasia, Portugal, Mauritius, and Indonesia. All these countries either had low marginal tax rates to begin with (Hong Kong) or cut their highest marginal tax rates in half between 1979 and 2002. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html)
Now, we have two clear choices before us as this debate goes forward and the 2012 presidential campaign begins in earnest. We can either choose the status quo, represented by President Obama’s rehashing of failed policies (raise taxes and maintain or increase spending levels) or we can “man up”, face the adult facts of life – like the fact that we cannot sustain an economy in which over 41 cents of every government dollar spent goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security – and make serious reforms in the system.
In conclusion, listen carefully and skeptically to those who try to separate us into camps according to the Adjusted Gross Income on our 1040’s. In other words, a person’s private property is still private property whether it is measured in hundreds or hundreds of millions. We should realize that we are all Americans and we all benefit from a healthy economy and likewise, we all suffer from a poor economy. History proves that a higher tax rate stifles and inhibits an economy while a lower tax rate puts more capital into the system.
From Broader View Weekly, April 28, 2011
It is a curious thing to behold when one follows the current debate being waged in Washington over the 2012 budget and the need to address the ballooning U.S. debt and our ever-increasing deficit spending. It is no surprise that we have differing views about how we should meet this challenge. After all, our system of two-party representative government assures that we will have disparate views on economic policies and almost every other topic. It is also no surprise that neither side will admit or disclose weaknesses or fallacies within their respective position.
The most curious aspect about the debate centers around certain words and ideologies that have been co-opted and/or misappropriated.
For example, if you listen carefully or read carefully, you will notice certain words are almost always grouped together. Take the words “fair share” and “wealthy” – it seems the common misconception being presented here is that the wealthy take a disproportionate amount of government services and return a less than equitable amount back into the treasury. This is the policy being promoted in the current presidential campaign by Barack Obama. He suggests that if we confiscated just a bit more from the top earners in our nation, we could bring down the debt and lower the deficit.
The idea of increasing taxes will not fulfill the purpose of lowering the deficit – even if we could take 100% of all earnings from the top 1% of earners, we would only garner the cost of last year’s health care legislation cost ($968 Billion). Despite what Keith says to the contrary in his article, the figures used represented the net worth of the top 1% and are legitimate. Therefore we must look elsewhere if we really want to stimulate the economy and lower our deficit – and the debt and deficit is a serious inhibitory influence upon our economy, as well as a threat to the future security of our nation’s sovereignty.
At the risk of losing some readers who find statistics and studies to be too much like going to class, I feel I must spend some time explaining why tax cuts will do more to enhance our economic growth and lower our dependence on foreign investors (China) for our operating capital.
There is valid proof that lowering tax rates for all taxpayers does more to stimulate the economy than raising taxes.
First of all, all we have to do is look at the recent news story about how GE (you know, that tiny, multi-national corporation that is run by Obama’s Jobs Czar and buddy, Jeffrey Immelt) paid no corporate taxes this year on its profits of over $14 billion – $5.1 billion from U.S. operations – because they were able to, with the help of over 975 tax experts (cheats) in their tax evasion department, find enough loopholes to squeeze all their profits through the tax code and into the pockets of executives and shareholders. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1)
We see here that increasing tax rates serve to stimulate the economy of the lobbyists and tax lawyers while doing very little to stimulate the general economy,
Conversely, there is much evidence that lowering tax rates across the board – while also sewing up those leaky loopholes (hmmm…sounds like that Paul Ryan “Path to Prosperity”, doesn’t it?) does indeed stimulate the national economy and raise the standard of living for the general populace.
For example, an article written by Alan Reynolds on The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, cites a book, Economic Growth by Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (MIT Press) which demonstrates how decreasing the marginal tax rates has stimulated the economies of several nations including Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Botswana, Thailand, Ireland, Malayasia, Portugal, Mauritius, and Indonesia. All these countries either had low marginal tax rates to begin with (Hong Kong) or cut their highest marginal tax rates in half between 1979 and 2002. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html)
Now, we have two clear choices before us as this debate goes forward and the 2012 presidential campaign begins in earnest. We can either choose the status quo, represented by President Obama’s rehashing of failed policies (raise taxes and maintain or increase spending levels) or we can “man up”, face the adult facts of life – like the fact that we cannot sustain an economy in which over 41 cents of every government dollar spent goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security – and make serious reforms in the system.
In conclusion, listen carefully and skeptically to those who try to separate us into camps according to the Adjusted Gross Income on our 1040’s. In other words, a person’s private property is still private property whether it is measured in hundreds or hundreds of millions. We should realize that we are all Americans and we all benefit from a healthy economy and likewise, we all suffer from a poor economy. History proves that a higher tax rate stifles and inhibits an economy while a lower tax rate puts more capital into the system.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Notes from the Battlefield
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011
In spite of my opposition to the overuse of militaristic terms to describe things that have no real comparison to the bloody, noisy, messy, pain-filled, stink-of-death reality of genuine warfare, I hope you will indulge me this time as I try to put a perspective on the current debate centered around our federal budget.
It was 150 years ago this week (April 12, 1861) that shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. As we all know (or should know) those shots were followed by many fierce battles that left thousands of bodies of fellow citizens strewn across farm fields and family lawns for four long, brutal years.
As we look back upon that terrible and divisive time we can gain some lessons about what took place recently in our nation’s capital. As with the Civil War, first shots do not determine the final outcome and advances and retreats must be made by each side before victory or defeat is finally registered.
I believe the deal struck between Messrs. Reid, Obama and Boehner late Friday night represents the first shots fired in what will definitely be a long, brutal conflict between two ideological encampments.
On the one side we see those who seem reluctant to acknowledge the danger faced by stifling debts and deficit spending. On the other side we see those who feel compelled to limit the reach of government and to bring spending under control.
The agreement reached late Friday evening represents a historical shift in fiscal direction. For once we are talking about cutting spending rather than increasing spending. The final agreement set the budget of the 2011 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, at $1.049 trillion. That is $39 billion less than was budgeted for 2010 and $79 billion less than President Obama had requested. These figures are less than what I would want in an ideal world, but I recognize the advantage of gaining objectives by incremental steps and I can see larger and more significant battlefields ahead.
It should go without saying that our national debt is a serious threat to our national security and the continued deficit spending cannot be sustained, but if one were to listen to many of the critics of Boehner and his proposal, one would think the lesson needs to be taught over and over again. Any serious attempt to cut back on spending is met with howls of protest from those who somehow believe the problem can be shoved down the road to future generations.
That is why I believe the real budget battles lie ahead as Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity is introduced as the model for the 2012 fiscal year. The serious spending cuts and revolutionary reforms contained in that document may not all make it to the light of day, but at the very least it will spur open debate and any progress it makes toward lowering our deficit will be worthwhile.
While time and space do not allow me to go into detail about his plan, some of the highlights are the following:
_ The plan would cut spending over the next decade by $6.2 trillion from Obama’s budget. This would return Washington’s slice of the economy to its historical average, below 20 percent, rather than Obama’s 23 percent spending floor.
_ Ryan would also eliminate $2.3 trillion in tax hikes, including $800 billion avoided by repealing the unpopular healthcare bill.
_ The “Path to Prosperity” would also combine hundreds of overlapping programs, scrap others, and reform some, such as Medicare. While leaving beneficiaries over age 55 untouched, Ryan’s plan would give future retirees funds to help them purchase their choice of health coverage, rather than one Washington-dictated plan. Similarly, instead of a single federal Medicaid model, governors and state legislators would use federal block grants to serve the diverse needs of poor people in, say, Arizona and Vermont.
“The U.S. government is not running sustained deficits because Americans are taxed too little. The government is running deficits because it spends too much,” Ryan’s plan continues. It adds, “Over the past 40 years, government revenue has averaged between 18 percent and 19 percent of GDP. This level has generally been compatible with prosperity, even though there is broad agreement that the structure of the tax code should be simplified and made more conducive to economic growth, high wages, and entrepreneurship.”
Hence, the Path closes deductions and loopholes and lowers top individual and corporate taxes to 25 percent. This outright tax relief would end America’s 35 percent business levy, the industrial world’s highest. (http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf)
In conclusion, do not be quick to claim victory or defeat for either side at this point. The consequences of last November’s “shellacking” of President Obama and his policies will be forthcoming in several minor skirmishes and we can only hope our nation will come out the better for it just like she came out the better for going through that long, bitter conflict 150 years ago this week.
From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011
In spite of my opposition to the overuse of militaristic terms to describe things that have no real comparison to the bloody, noisy, messy, pain-filled, stink-of-death reality of genuine warfare, I hope you will indulge me this time as I try to put a perspective on the current debate centered around our federal budget.
It was 150 years ago this week (April 12, 1861) that shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. As we all know (or should know) those shots were followed by many fierce battles that left thousands of bodies of fellow citizens strewn across farm fields and family lawns for four long, brutal years.
As we look back upon that terrible and divisive time we can gain some lessons about what took place recently in our nation’s capital. As with the Civil War, first shots do not determine the final outcome and advances and retreats must be made by each side before victory or defeat is finally registered.
I believe the deal struck between Messrs. Reid, Obama and Boehner late Friday night represents the first shots fired in what will definitely be a long, brutal conflict between two ideological encampments.
On the one side we see those who seem reluctant to acknowledge the danger faced by stifling debts and deficit spending. On the other side we see those who feel compelled to limit the reach of government and to bring spending under control.
The agreement reached late Friday evening represents a historical shift in fiscal direction. For once we are talking about cutting spending rather than increasing spending. The final agreement set the budget of the 2011 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, at $1.049 trillion. That is $39 billion less than was budgeted for 2010 and $79 billion less than President Obama had requested. These figures are less than what I would want in an ideal world, but I recognize the advantage of gaining objectives by incremental steps and I can see larger and more significant battlefields ahead.
It should go without saying that our national debt is a serious threat to our national security and the continued deficit spending cannot be sustained, but if one were to listen to many of the critics of Boehner and his proposal, one would think the lesson needs to be taught over and over again. Any serious attempt to cut back on spending is met with howls of protest from those who somehow believe the problem can be shoved down the road to future generations.
That is why I believe the real budget battles lie ahead as Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity is introduced as the model for the 2012 fiscal year. The serious spending cuts and revolutionary reforms contained in that document may not all make it to the light of day, but at the very least it will spur open debate and any progress it makes toward lowering our deficit will be worthwhile.
While time and space do not allow me to go into detail about his plan, some of the highlights are the following:
_ The plan would cut spending over the next decade by $6.2 trillion from Obama’s budget. This would return Washington’s slice of the economy to its historical average, below 20 percent, rather than Obama’s 23 percent spending floor.
_ Ryan would also eliminate $2.3 trillion in tax hikes, including $800 billion avoided by repealing the unpopular healthcare bill.
_ The “Path to Prosperity” would also combine hundreds of overlapping programs, scrap others, and reform some, such as Medicare. While leaving beneficiaries over age 55 untouched, Ryan’s plan would give future retirees funds to help them purchase their choice of health coverage, rather than one Washington-dictated plan. Similarly, instead of a single federal Medicaid model, governors and state legislators would use federal block grants to serve the diverse needs of poor people in, say, Arizona and Vermont.
“The U.S. government is not running sustained deficits because Americans are taxed too little. The government is running deficits because it spends too much,” Ryan’s plan continues. It adds, “Over the past 40 years, government revenue has averaged between 18 percent and 19 percent of GDP. This level has generally been compatible with prosperity, even though there is broad agreement that the structure of the tax code should be simplified and made more conducive to economic growth, high wages, and entrepreneurship.”
Hence, the Path closes deductions and loopholes and lowers top individual and corporate taxes to 25 percent. This outright tax relief would end America’s 35 percent business levy, the industrial world’s highest. (http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf)
In conclusion, do not be quick to claim victory or defeat for either side at this point. The consequences of last November’s “shellacking” of President Obama and his policies will be forthcoming in several minor skirmishes and we can only hope our nation will come out the better for it just like she came out the better for going through that long, bitter conflict 150 years ago this week.
The Casualties of the Budget Battle
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011
I agree with my brother Gordon that the fight that ended with a last minute agreement on the April 8th deadline is just the beginning of a long struggle that will only get nastier and more politically charged as the process goes forward.
Even as time and the funding of the government was running out last week; even as the threat of a shutdown that would be most painful for those least able to withstand its effect loomed ominously, negotiations were hijacked by politicians pushing ideological issues like abortion, and climate change. And after the shutdown was averted, Republicans in Congress beholden to conservative Tea Partiers still vowed to withdraw their support for the budget (even though the amount of cuts won through negotiation exceeded the amount originally sought by the GOP).
As the wrangling dragged on and the Republicans held the nation hostage (acting as if they had won both Houses of Congress and the White House in November), it became clearer that the debate over the budget was not about the national debt or reducing the deficit. It was all about posturing for 2012. Not the 2012 Fiscal Year Budget that Paul Ryan’s joke of a plan would make a pretense to address, but the 2012 Presidential election that began last week with Obama’s official campaign kickoff.
The Republican line-up of serious candidates is a bleak showing indeed. One need only note that Donald Trump, whose outrageous “birther” platform is decried by his own party, is second on the 2012 GOP leader board to judge the lackluster pack of presidential hopefuls on the Republican side. The party’s only hope against Obama (who is still scoring high on polls, despite a drop in approval rating) is to rally the existing base without alienating the swing-voters who often decide elections.
More problematic is the fact that Republicans are facing the inevitability of raising the debt ceiling. The Tea Party has already expressed its extreme displeasure at this likelihood. The reality of economics and processes of governing are not likely to appease the disgruntled masses.
Another complication facing Paul Ryan, and those conservatives currently worshiping him with puppydog drooling and heaping praise on him, is the fact that he must now defend the details of his plan.
I have completely lost count of the scores of times that I have heard the Ryan proposal characterized as “serious”. But how can anyone take a deficit reduction plan seriously when it refuses to rein in the tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans? Not only does Ryan’s plan fail to do that, it heaps even more tax cuts on those who least need them, while forcing painful cuts on the poorest among us. It’s little wonder that Republicans are seen as lacking compassion.
There are some serious aspects of the proposed Path to Prosperity (for those already prospering). There are serious flaws in the numbers that Ryan presents in his proposal. Apparently, he turned to the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation for some fuzzy math, that turned out to be funny math. Part of Ryan’s figures rely on an unprecedented and unsubstantiated 2.8 percent unemployment rate. After Ryan had already presented his plan, the Foundation adjusted its figures on unemployment. Among other math errors currently being disputed are tax revenues and housing numbers.
The plan also poses serious impacts to the livelihoods of many Americans. The voucher system that is part of the plan to privatize Medicare would limit the benefits available to seniors as well as threaten them with dramatic reductions in coverage over time that would put strain especially on those with limited fixed incomes. Fixed maximum dollar amounts for coverage of procedures for Medicaid members will prevent many patients from receiving much-needed treatments.
As I look at current and future budget debates in Washington and around the country I am alarmed. I see the casualties that will fall as a result of the brutal battling of politicians seeking public favor above favorable public policy. I see the stark adjectives of human toil reduced to cold numbers as real consequences are discounted. And I see the tangled discourse dwarf all other important news and issues.
In a time when the nation is continuing its long struggle toward economic recovery, the focus is misplaced on the deficit. Of course, we should strive to be fiscally responsible and limit the generational impact of our national debt. But the dearth of jobs nationwide and the trends that continue to exchange good jobs for Walmart jobs is a dire prospect worthy of our attention.
The attack on the middle class is lost in the nightly news graphics of all-caps “SHUTDOWN” and “SHOWDOWN”. One of the most appalling stories last week that registered merely a blip on the media radar was the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice election. This race, between union-busting Governor Scott Walker’s man David Prosser and Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg, smacks of election fraud. The late-Thursday night announcement that enough votes to reverse Kloppenburg’s declared Tuesday win smelled like corruption. While the tomfoolery evident in this case is a threat to the democratic process, it was overshadowed by the coverage of Boehner, Reid and Obama negotiations.
Debate and discourse is vital to democracy, but it should not overpower real issues.
From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011
I agree with my brother Gordon that the fight that ended with a last minute agreement on the April 8th deadline is just the beginning of a long struggle that will only get nastier and more politically charged as the process goes forward.
Even as time and the funding of the government was running out last week; even as the threat of a shutdown that would be most painful for those least able to withstand its effect loomed ominously, negotiations were hijacked by politicians pushing ideological issues like abortion, and climate change. And after the shutdown was averted, Republicans in Congress beholden to conservative Tea Partiers still vowed to withdraw their support for the budget (even though the amount of cuts won through negotiation exceeded the amount originally sought by the GOP).
As the wrangling dragged on and the Republicans held the nation hostage (acting as if they had won both Houses of Congress and the White House in November), it became clearer that the debate over the budget was not about the national debt or reducing the deficit. It was all about posturing for 2012. Not the 2012 Fiscal Year Budget that Paul Ryan’s joke of a plan would make a pretense to address, but the 2012 Presidential election that began last week with Obama’s official campaign kickoff.
The Republican line-up of serious candidates is a bleak showing indeed. One need only note that Donald Trump, whose outrageous “birther” platform is decried by his own party, is second on the 2012 GOP leader board to judge the lackluster pack of presidential hopefuls on the Republican side. The party’s only hope against Obama (who is still scoring high on polls, despite a drop in approval rating) is to rally the existing base without alienating the swing-voters who often decide elections.
More problematic is the fact that Republicans are facing the inevitability of raising the debt ceiling. The Tea Party has already expressed its extreme displeasure at this likelihood. The reality of economics and processes of governing are not likely to appease the disgruntled masses.
Another complication facing Paul Ryan, and those conservatives currently worshiping him with puppydog drooling and heaping praise on him, is the fact that he must now defend the details of his plan.
I have completely lost count of the scores of times that I have heard the Ryan proposal characterized as “serious”. But how can anyone take a deficit reduction plan seriously when it refuses to rein in the tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans? Not only does Ryan’s plan fail to do that, it heaps even more tax cuts on those who least need them, while forcing painful cuts on the poorest among us. It’s little wonder that Republicans are seen as lacking compassion.
There are some serious aspects of the proposed Path to Prosperity (for those already prospering). There are serious flaws in the numbers that Ryan presents in his proposal. Apparently, he turned to the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation for some fuzzy math, that turned out to be funny math. Part of Ryan’s figures rely on an unprecedented and unsubstantiated 2.8 percent unemployment rate. After Ryan had already presented his plan, the Foundation adjusted its figures on unemployment. Among other math errors currently being disputed are tax revenues and housing numbers.
The plan also poses serious impacts to the livelihoods of many Americans. The voucher system that is part of the plan to privatize Medicare would limit the benefits available to seniors as well as threaten them with dramatic reductions in coverage over time that would put strain especially on those with limited fixed incomes. Fixed maximum dollar amounts for coverage of procedures for Medicaid members will prevent many patients from receiving much-needed treatments.
As I look at current and future budget debates in Washington and around the country I am alarmed. I see the casualties that will fall as a result of the brutal battling of politicians seeking public favor above favorable public policy. I see the stark adjectives of human toil reduced to cold numbers as real consequences are discounted. And I see the tangled discourse dwarf all other important news and issues.
In a time when the nation is continuing its long struggle toward economic recovery, the focus is misplaced on the deficit. Of course, we should strive to be fiscally responsible and limit the generational impact of our national debt. But the dearth of jobs nationwide and the trends that continue to exchange good jobs for Walmart jobs is a dire prospect worthy of our attention.
The attack on the middle class is lost in the nightly news graphics of all-caps “SHUTDOWN” and “SHOWDOWN”. One of the most appalling stories last week that registered merely a blip on the media radar was the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice election. This race, between union-busting Governor Scott Walker’s man David Prosser and Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg, smacks of election fraud. The late-Thursday night announcement that enough votes to reverse Kloppenburg’s declared Tuesday win smelled like corruption. While the tomfoolery evident in this case is a threat to the democratic process, it was overshadowed by the coverage of Boehner, Reid and Obama negotiations.
Debate and discourse is vital to democracy, but it should not overpower real issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
