Monday, August 16, 2010

Jobless Millions Signal Death of the American Dream for Many

(See, the American Dream is just that: a dream. Our future is bleak at best because few of us are willing to consider that the trashing of the economy, endless wars, exploitation of the 3rd world, and massive unemployment are all done on purpose with a not-so-pleasant end-result in mind.--jef)

***

by Paul Harris | Sunday, August 15, 2010 by The Guardian/UK

Richard Gaines is one of the best-known faces on Camden's Haddon Avenue. It is a rough-and-tumble street, lined with cheap businesses and boarded-up houses, and is prey to drug gangs. Gaines, 50, runs a barbershop, a hair salon and a fitness business. He works hard and is committed to his community. But Haddon Avenue is not an easy place to make a living in the best of times. And these are far from the best of times.

Just how badly the great recession has struck this fragile New Jersey city, which is currently the poorest in America, was recently spelled out to Gaines. In happier times – whatever that might mean for a city as destitute as Camden – local businesses on Haddon Avenue could at least rely on a bit of trade from those who made their money on the street.

Young men bought flashy clothes and got sharp haircuts and always paid in cash. But no longer. The economy is now so bad in Camden that even the criminals are struggling and going short. "Even the guys who got money from illegal means really don't want to spend it," Gaines said.

Such a development, though, is just a snapshot of the deep problems still hitting the wider American economy. Growth rates are stuttering and a recovery is struggling to take hold. It may even now be showing signs of going backwards again, as countries such as Germany start to power forward. Joblessness has taken hold in America, with the numbers of long-term unemployed reaching levels not seen since the Depression of the 1930s. The figures are frightening and illustrate a society that remains in deep trouble.

The headline jobless figure of 9.5% is bad enough but does not begin to convey the problem as it fails to measure those who have stopped looking for work. Over the past three months alone more than a million Americans have fallen into that category: effectively giving up hope of finding a job and dropping out of the official statistics. Such cases now number some 5.9 million and their ranks are likely to grow as millions more find their jobless status becoming a permanent state of hopelessness. Surveys show that with each passing week on the dole their chances of finding a job get slimmer.

Though corporations, especially in the banking sector, are posting healthy profits, they are not hiring new workers. At the same time, government cuts are sweeping through city and state governments alike, threatening tens of thousands of jobs and slicing away at services once thought vital. Schools, street lighting, libraries, refuse collection, the police, fire services and public transport networks are all being scaled back.

America appears to be a society splitting down the centre, shattering the middle class that long formed the cultural bedrock of the country and dividing it into a country of haves and have-nots. "A once unthinkable level of economic distress is in the process of becoming the new normal," warned Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman in a recent New York Times column. Or, as Steven Green, an economics lecturer at Baylor University, put it to the Observer: "We are really in a tough spot right now."

There is a new name for those falling down the black hole of joblessness that has opened up in America's economy. They are the 99ers.

It is a moniker that no one wants. It refers to the 99 weeks of benefits that the jobless can qualify for in America. Government cash helps those laid off keep a tenuous grip on a normal life. It keeps a roof over their heads, pays a phone bill, puts food on a table and petrol in a car. But once the 99 weeks are up the payments stop – as is happening now for millions of people – and they are 99ers.

For many, that moment, which America's politicians have refused to extend, represents the moment of destitution; a sort of modern American version of the old Victorian trip to the workhouse. There are now more than a million 99ers and the number gets bigger each week.

But who are they? Despite Republican attempts to paint them as feckless or job-shy, they are usually anything but. The 99ers are people like Anne Strauss, 58, who spent 35 years working as a PR professional on Long Island. Despite spending every day hunting for work, she has not had a job since June 2008. She and her husband are now living on credit cards watching debts mount as they stare into the abyss. "Looking for a job is the hardest I have ever worked," she said with a smile that conveyed no humour or happiness, only the deep stress that is common to many 99ers.

Strauss, along with about 50 other 99ers, protested on Wall Street last week, demanding an extension of the benefits that could keep them out of poverty. As bankers and financiers strode into the flag-draped Stock Exchange they chanted: "Shame! Shame!" and told their stories. It was a litany of middle-class lives shattered by the recession. There was Connie Kaplan, a corporate librarian who was desperate to resume her career. "We are not bums, we are hardworking," she said. Or Lori Ghavami, a New Jersey financial analyst in her 30s, who had once worked on Wall Street itself and now was staring at landlords' bills she was scared she could not pay. Or New Yorker Steven Bilarbi, 62, who had worked for the same employer for 37 years, until 2007. He has not worked since, despite refusing to spend daytime hours at home and engaging in a permanent job hunt. He is now living off savings and depleting his pension.

"I go to job fairs. I don't feel like staying home. What would I do? Watch game shows and soap operas?" he fumed.

Meeting 99ers is to tap into a deep well of anger at lives that have been knocked off course, shattering the enduring vision of the American dream that many had felt they had achieved. Just take Donna Faiella, a 53-year-old New Yorker who lives alone in Queens. She spent 28 years working in film post-production and video-editing. She was successful and had a career. Now she is desperate for a job, any job. But she cannot find one. "I will do anything. I will sweep floors. You think I look forward to collecting unemployment? It is fucking degrading," she said, almost quivering with anger.

Faiella is in dire trouble. Joblessness has eaten away at her sense of identity. "I feel like we are worthless. We are lost in the world. I don't know what to call myself. I don't have a title any more. What do we do? What do we do?" she implored. Faiella has one week of benefits to go. Then her 99 weeks will be up. She will have a title again. But not one she expected. She will be a 99er. "I am petrified. Do I become homeless?" she said, adding that she has begun making inquiries at local shelters.

If the 99ers are coming to symbolise a human segment of society that America is slowly abandoning to its fate, then Camden is the geographic expression of that marginalisation. Large stretches of the once bustling river port city seem to epitomise urban blight. Vacant lots and burned-out abandoned houses line many of its streets.

Its 79,000 residents have the lowest median household annual income of any city in the US at just $24,000 (£15,000). In terms of crime rates it was the nation's second-most dangerous city last year. Some estimates reckon that about a third of Camden's houses are empty. A third of its people are in poverty and a fifth are unemployed.

It is a deeply grim picture and it is getting worse. Camden's city government is facing the prospect of massive cuts as its cash-strapped resources have run out and it has built up huge debts. Services have already been cut and only a last-minute rescue last week saved Camden's three public libraries from being closed.

In a city that has had it tough for decades these are hammer blows to its residents. One woman who has watched in dismay as the recession unfolded outside her door is Dorothy Allen, 81, who has lived near Haddon Avenue for almost four decades. Known by almost everyone as "Mom", she calls herself "the mother of the block". She has never known anything like the area's current troubles. "I have been here since 1971 and it's the worst it's ever been," she said. Yet to listen to America's politicians many would think recovery is just a matter of time. Yes, they say, the recession has been hard, but America will pull through and everything will be as it once was. Last week New Jersey senator Robert Menendez visited Camden, stopping at a local health clinic. He spoke of the achievements of the Democrats in staving off economic disaster.

Job creation was coming, he told his audience of health executives: "It is not going fast enough to get people back to work but it's a dramatic turnaround." It does not feel that way for millions of Americans all across the country. Camden is far from unique in slashing its services. In Colorado Springs more than a third of street lights have been switched off to cut the municipal electricity bill. The city has also sold off its police helicopters.

In Hawaii schoolchildren were told to stay at home for 17 Fridays to save costs. In a suburb of Atlanta local bus routes were closed, at a stroke wiping out public transport for thousands of people who relied on it to get to precious jobs.

Whether it's the poor of Camden or Colorado Springs or Atlanta, or among the growing throngs of the 99ers, millions of Americans are discovering that working hard, doing the right thing and obeying the rules are no longer enough.

Back at the 99er rally on Wall Street, Anne Strauss felt that way. During her working life she had refused to claim benefits to which she was entitled as she thought she was doing just fine. Now, as a newly minted 99er, she was looking for help from the country that she had always believed in. But the help was not forthcoming. It is hard to see how the version of the American dream that Menendez described could now ever apply to her. For Strauss, living on credit, desperate to work, but with no job in sight, that dream looks a thing of the past, not the future. "This is not the country I grew up in," Strauss said.

Case study: 'This is my last $260 and barring a miracle I'll be sleeping in my car'

Alexandra Jarrin, 49, worked for a small technology company near New York City, earned $56,000 a year, had petrol in her car and a roof over her head. She was enrolled in a graduate business school. Then, two years ago, she lost her job .

She received her last unemployment payment in March, putting her among the first wave of "99ers" who have come to the end of their 99 weeks of entitlement to benefits. When interviewed by the New York Times, she was living in a motel in Brattleboro, Vermont, having paid $260 she managed to scrape together from friends and from selling her living-room furniture – enough for a week-long stay.

She said she wept as she left her old life. 'I thought, you know, what if I turned the wheel in my car and wrecked my car?' Her vehicle is now on the verge of being repossessed. Jarrin has contacted her local shelter, but was told there was a waiting list. "Barring a miracle, I'm going to be [sleeping] in my car," she said.

US Cities Face Massive Cuts

US outrage over public service cutbacks across America has found a rallying point in the death of 12-year-old Frank Marasco
by Andrew Clark | Saturday, August 14, 2010 by The Guardian/UK

PHILADELPHIA - Flanked by two silver balloons bearing the words "I love you‚" and a forlorn blue cuddly toy, the face of 12-year-old Frank Marasco smiles out from a collage of pictures assembled by shocked neighbours on the veranda of his burned-out home. The young autistic boy died in a fire last week thought to have been sparked by a discarded cigarette.

The inferno should have been a routine job for Philadelphia's 1,900-strong fire brigade, the fifth biggest force in the US which handles four major incidents daily. But the nearest fire station to Frank's house, just two blocks away, was unavailable after a so-called "brown out". Firemen at the station, barely 90 seconds' walk from the site of the fire, were on a maintenance run after a 12-hour shutdown, part of a rota of rolling daily closures imposed by city authorities grappling with a wrenching deficit of $2.4bn (£1.5bn) over five years.

"Everybody was running around trying to get the little boy out – he was stuck on the second floor," said a distraught neighbour, Virginia DeShields, whose house was damaged by smoke. She believes the boy might have been saved if the local firehouse had been open: "It's all right if you want to cut. But you shouldn't cut where lives are concerned. You can cut the prison system, cut the libraries, anywhere. But don't cut people who save lives."

Philadelphia's city authorities contend that first responders reached the scene within three minutes – a timeline disputed by Philadelphia's fire union, Local 22, which says it was closer to six minutes before an engine with hoses and water arrived. But irrespective of whether he could have been saved, Frank Marasco's fate is a rallying point in a titanic struggle over cuts engulfing cities and states across the US which are taking desperate budgetary measures, ranging from shutting schools to switching off streetlights and replacing tarmac roads with dirt tracks.

Local government in the US has traditionally been leaner than its British equivalent, with minimal public healthcare, patchy public transport and an ingrained culture of contracting out to private operators. The worst recession since the war has caused a triple-pronged slump: unemployment has eroded income tax takings, a dive in house prices has hurt property tax and weak consumer spending has reduced sales tax. Funding is stretched to breaking point.

The National League of Cities estimates that US municipalities, which had revenue of $398bn last year, face a fiscal hole of between $56bn and $83bn over the two years to 2012. States, which fund broader services such as schools, prisons and highway patrols, are in a worse jam — they grappled with a $192bn shortfall in 2010, equivalent to 29% of their budgets, according to the Washington-based Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"We're seeing drop-offs in revenue that are breaking all records," said John Shure, deputy director of the CBPP's state fiscal project. "The irony is that people's needs are going up but the resources to meet them are going down."

Putting up taxes in a recession is politically unpopular and risks hampering a recovery. And borrowing money is not an option as most US local authorities are prohibited from going into debt. Shure says: "They're required by their own constitutions to have a balanced budget. There's no good answer."

The draconian nature of some cuts would cause even Britain's austere chancellor, George Osborne, to blanch. In Georgia, the county of Clayton, which encompasses down-at-heel suburbs south of Atlanta, axed its entire public bus service to save $8m, leaving 8,400 daily riders high and dry. Faced with a hole in its education budget, Hawaii's Republican governor simply shut down the state's schools on Fridays, moving teachers and pupils onto a four-day week.

Struggling to pay for upkeep of asphalt roads, counties in Michigan and South Dakota have been converting paved country roads to gravel, turning back the clock of modernisation. Then there are trivial, yet eye-catching examples — Miami has dispensed with the services of its chicken catcher. The California city of San Diego disbanded its 27-year-old mounted police force. The state of Washington scrapped its board on geographic names, deciding it could do without a body overseeing the historical and cultural consistency.

Colorado Springs, a city of 360,000 people on the edge of the Rocky Mountains asked voters to approve a tripling of property tax in November. They voted no. So the city switched off a third of its streetlights, removed litter bins from parks, put its police helicopters up for auction online and halted many bus services at 6.15pm. City employees have been asked to stump up more for their own healthcare, while community centres and pools are looking for private money to stay open.

Residents of Colorado Springs are being encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to trim the grass in public spaces.

And anybody who strongly wants lighting can "adopt a streetlight‚" for $75 a year.

Barack Obama this week signed a federal aid package of $26bn for cash-strapped states, some of which will filter through to cities. But many argue this is not enough.

Christiana McFarland, an expert at the National League of Cities, says: "Local authorities are in a serious situation at this point. In years past, we've been down to the bare bones in terms of budget. They're now cutting critical services such as public safety."

Back in Philadelphia, deputy mayor Everett Gillison says it is a "lie" that fire station "brown outs" compromise safety, blaming unions for a cynical campaign to protect overtime. But in a nation where firefighters are held in the top echelon of public esteem, the spectre of darkened firehouses is prompting anger. "That's right – you take pictures of it!" yelled resident Darren Braxton, pulling up in his car as the Guardian visited a shuttered fire station.

Braxton, a maintenance contractor, had some advice for the city authorities: "If you're trying to save money, do something else. You don't mess with the trash men because we'll become Filthadelphia. You don't mess with the police because young people round here don't value life and they be shooting people left, right and centre. And you don't mess with the firefighters because they put out fires."

Wall Street Rules the American People


Bed Bug Infestation Is Scaring Millions Of Americans

Outbreaks of bed bugs, soaring in the most unexpected places -- like CNN's headquarters -- stoke some of our deepest fears.
By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet
Posted on August 16, 2010

Peter Krask stepped out of his New York City apartment one day last year, shut the door, and walked away forever, leaving behind almost everything he owned.

He carried away only a few items of clothing, personal records, and his computer.

Krask's apartment was infested with bedbugs. Savoring warmth, they swarmed in his DSL port, light fixtures, carpets and furniture. They'd feasted on him nightly for a year — which he spent visiting doctors in an increasing state of panic over the rashes inflaming his buttocks and other body parts before finally ascertaining the cause.

It was Cimex lectularius, the flat, cockroach-colored, lentil-sized pest whose favorite food is not just warm blood but human blood. Bedbugs are back, bigtime. According to a National Pest Management Association study, outbreaks have soared 81 percent nationwide since 2000. Their sudden resurgence in all fifty states of a formerly bedbug-free nation has caught off-guard not just the medical and pest-control industries but millions of ordinary people who now apply costly, time-consuming, potentially toxic and inconclusive strategies for slaughtering insects that inhabit indoor environments both soft and hard and can lie in wait without eating for up to a year. Finding hosts, they feed by night, doubling in size as they suck.

Lending a whole new meaning to the phrase "home invasion," the very idea stokes our deepest fears of swarming hordes and sleeper cells and sneak attacks.

Bedbug infestations at Abercrombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret and other trendy Manhattan stores last month — and last week in Manhattan's Time Warner Center, home to CNN — cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each in lost sales, furniture, equipment and merchandise, plus the wages of dozens of workers transporting, fumigating and destroying tainted goods. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

America's bedbug problem, says University of Florida entomology professor Philip Koehler, "has reached epidemic proportions."

It's getting worse, he says. And there's no end in sight.

"Especially in the Northeast, bedbugs are becoming a common part of everyone's lives" — in homes, stores, offices, hotels, hospitals, vehicles, schools, theaters, and restaurants.

"Did you ride home in a car, bus or train? You might have been feeding bedbugs while sitting in your seat."

Koehler has seen bedbugs infesting deluxe retirement condos and VA-hospital waiting rooms, crawling out of purses and backpacks, and "pouring by the thousands" from wheelchairs whose paralyzed riders could not feel the bites. Almost any environment under 120 degrees Fahrenheit can support bedbugs. A single pregnant stowaway on a sleeve, say, or in a thrift-shop cushion could turn you into the next Peter Krask.

He spun those few clothes salvaged from his abandoned apartment in a hot dryer, one of the few tactics known to kill bedbugs and their eggs. Before the self-employed writer and floral designer could use his computer again, "it was placed in a sealed bag with poison-gas pellets for a week."

Other bedbug victims he's known have hired companies that poison-gassed all their possessions in the backs of unmarked trucks.

"I burned through every resource I had to restock my new apartment. In every store where I went to buy new things, salespeople told me that other customers had come in with similar horror stories" about bedbugs.

Physically, psychologically, financially, "it was a total catastrophe."

Virtually eradicated nationwide sixty years ago thanks to superpowered pesticides such as DDT, bedbugs are back — largely because those chemicals are now banned, but also thanks to what experts quoted in news reports call "increased foreign travel." While much of this involves airplanes — and Koehler points out that "there are parts of the world such as India and Pakistan that have had bedbugs forever and where they never went away" — the bedbug resurgence is spurring not-so-surprising buzz about its origins.

"The hospital that takes in all the Mexican illegals who had been knifed or in a car wreck has bed bugs. Way to go ... They are getting free medical and paying for it in bed bugs, not cash," writes the blogger at StoptheInvasionofOregon.wordpress.com.

"Of course these little critters were brought in by illegal aliens. ... Add that to the incurable TB and other diseases brought in by these illegal alien bastards," reads a comment at MSNBC.com following coverage of the Victoria's Secret outbreak.

Certain insects carry age-old social stigmas. Mosquito bites convey no class distinctions, thus no shame. But flea bites imply that one cohabits not just with animals but unclean animals; thus one is rural, thus uncivilized and poor. Cockroaches suggest squalor. So did bedbugs, to our pre-WWII ancestors, who often associated filth with foreignness.

Wherever they came from, bedbugs are ours now.

"The point isn't who brought them in. The point is that they're here, they're spreading, and we need to develop effective ways to deal with them with the tools we now have," says Jeffrey White, research entomologist for the national clearinghouse BedBugCentral.com, whose Bed Bug TV webcasts he hosts, demonstrating the use of bugproof bed-wrappers and search techniques for telltale bedbug fecal streaks. The bed-wrappers have supertight sealing mechanisms, "because we've seen bugs weaving their way through closed zippers."

Other tools include liquid pesticides and eco-friendly ClimbUp Insect Interceptors: double-rimmed, talc-filled cups in which beds' legs stand.

Optimally, "you have to find every bedbug and spray it individually," says Koehler. Treating an apartment costs upwards of $600, but if one unit is infested, the whole building needs treatment. Each treatment requires several visits, each lasting six hours.

And it's a matter of reinventing the wheel.

When bedbugs began reappearing ten years ago, "one of the problems we had was that if you wanted to talk to anyone with any expertise, you'd have to have a seance," Koehler says. "Everyone who ever knew anything about bedbugs had died of old age."

Granted, those bygone experts would have whipped out the DDT, whose powers lay largely in its long-term residual effects. Once dry, it remained toxic for years, which was both good and bad.

"We're dealing with regulations now that we didn't have before," says Koehler, who with other members of the National Pest Management Association — and other petitioners such as Ohio's Department of Agriculture — have asked the EPA, which controls pesticide registration and labeling, to approve the use of the legal pesticide Propoxur for bedbugs. Now widely used in flea collars, Propoxur has demonstrated a 100-percent bedbug-killing rate in lab tests, more than twice that of pesticides currently approved for bedbugs.

"We never asked the EPA to bring back DDT," Koehler says. "We're just asking for some products that can be used legally in the United States on other pests to be used on bedbugs as well." But because "some of the anti-pesticide people lobbied very hard," the EPA refused.

"Their pronouncement told the pest-control industry: 'We know you don't have anything to use that will work on bedbugs, but we don't care.'"

The EPA doesn't fund the kind of research required to control bedbugs, Koehler says. Nor does the USDA, tasked with combating only agricultural pests. Because bedbugs don't spread diseases, they aren't under the jurisdiction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ditto the National Institutes of Health. When I called the US Department of Health and Human Services seeking an interview, I was told that agency representatives wouldn't speak about bedbugs in general but only about specific outbreaks in specific public facilities, such as hospitals.

This button-button-who's-got-the-button situation leaves ordinary people in the lurch. Bedbug-advice websites abound, sponsored by pest-control companies, universities, local government agencies and concerned citizens. "A foul, rotting, bloody-meat smell might be present in heavily infested areas," reads a University of California info-sheet. BedbugRegistry.com is an address-specific infestation database. BedBugCentral.com offers an online "Bed Bugs 101." New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called late last month for the appointment of a "bedbug czar." But with no official guidelines in place, "you see a lot of stupidity," Koehler laments. For instance, company trucks delivering clean new mattresses commonly also haul away customers' discarded bug-infested mattresses. And some people are using heavy agricultural pesticides in private homes.

Bedbugs aren't the only vector making a comeback. At her Berkeley, California headlice-removal salon Catcher's Nitz, registered nurse Sylvia Cummings-Umegboh seats clients in brightly illuminated barbershop chairs, sections their hair beautician-style, affixes a magnifying-glass headgear over her eyes, then painstakingly snares ant-sized lice and their gluey poppyseed-sized eggs, known as nits, with a long-toothed stainless-steel Nit-Free Terminator Comb, flicking them into Barbicide-treated trays from which they can't escape. Sprays and shampoos augment the task here, just as at similar salons popping up in increasing numbers nationwide to tackle the surge of infestations now plaguing schools, camps and daycare centers.

With its fuchsia-pink walls and giant toy car for toddlers to ride, Catcher's Nitz feels fun and chic, because Cummings-Umegboh — who issues all-clear certificates after treatments — wants to counteract the shame that lice traditionally invoke.

"It's very stressful, but there shouldn't be any shame. It's just like having the common cold; that's how prevalent it is. It's nothing to do with being nasty-dirty. A nice clean head is usually the head that lice will choose first, because a clean scalp gives them easier access to the blood. That's how they roll."

So now we must reacquaint ourselves with a reality that our ancestors knew well: Tiny crawly things might be anywhere , anytime, on anything and anyone; they can get on us, in us, and wreck our lives. How primitive. We thought we had transcended this. We thought science and civilization had liberated us from the brutish paranoia it invokes. The very words "outbreak" and "infestation" feel funny to say: archaic, like lines in a play set in the 16th century. Say them we must, as news breaks today of a brand-new antibiotic-resistant bacteria emerging in (wait for it) India and Pakistan.

Just as the mysterious appearance of what turned out to be AIDS radically changed the way America had sex, the resurgence of bloodsucking parasites will change the way we see and touch surfaces and each other.

"Fifteen years ago, people didn't think twice about bringing home free stuff they found on the curb," says BedBug Central's Jeffrey White. "That way of thinking needs to change." As part of a long-overdue policy overhaul, he says medical facilities shouldn't let patients bring blankets from home, thrift shops should heat-treat merchandise on principle, and all retail stores must rethink returns.

"What if someone buys something, puts it in their infested house for four weeks, then returns it to the store?"

White sees no new wonder-weapon on the horizon set to quell this invasion.

"We need to develop more bedbug-controlling methods as soon as possible, especially more affordable methods — because yes, you can pick bedbugs up at a four-star hotel, but the sad truth is that we are starting to see these bugs 'reservoir' among people in the lower socioeconomic classes, because those are the people who can't afford to exterminate them."

DDT was deadly and cheap.

Fund the Damn Jobs: Deficit Fear-mongering Only Helps the Rich

(Because the economy and jobs are the two most important issues with which we must deal, I'm posting articles from both sides of the fence. I see rational points in each side of the deficit-jobs debate, though I lean toward the screw the deficit, we needs jobs camp.--jef)

***

We aren't in this mess because of budget deficits. In fact, the only way to jump-start our economy is for the government to create jobs.

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Posted on August 15, 2010
It's nonsense to think of the economy heading downward again into a double-dip recession when most Americans never emerged from the first dip. We're still in one long Big Dipper.
More people are out of work today than were last year, counting everyone too discouraged even to look for work. The number of workers filing new claims for jobless benefits rose last week to the highest level since February. Not counting temporary census workers, a total of only 12,000 net new private and public jobs were created in July -- when 125,000 are needed each month just to keep up with growth in the population of people who want and need to work.

Not since the government began to measure the ups and downs of the business cycle has such a deep recession been followed by such anemic job growth. Jobs came back at a faster pace even in March 1933 after the economy started to "recover" from the depths of the Great Depression. Of course, that job growth didn't last long. That recovery wasn't really a recovery at all. The Great Depression continued. And that's exactly my point. The Great Recession continues.

Even investors are beginning to see reality. Starting in February the stock market rallied because corporate profits were rising briskly. Investors didn't mind that profits were coming from payroll cuts, foreign sales, and gimmicks like share buy-backs -- none of which could be sustained over the long term. But the rally died in April when investors began to see how paper-thin these profits actually were. And now the stock market is back to where it was at the start of the year.

What to do? First, don't listen to Wall Street and the Right.

Forget the Neo-Hoover deficit hawks who say we have to cut government spending and trim upcoming deficits. We didn't get into this mess and aren't remaining in it because of budget deficits. In fact, the only way to reduce long-term deficits is to restore jobs and growth so government revenues rise and expenses like unemployment insurance drop.

Ignore the government haters who say we have to void or delay upcoming regulations of Wall Street and big business. We got here because Wall Street went bonkers, the housing bubble burst, and the middle class couldn't continue to spend because their health-care bills were soaring and their pay was stagnating. New regulations of Wall Street and big business are necessary to avoid a repeat.

And don't believe the supply-siders who say we have to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Because the wealthy save rather than spend most of their incomes, extending their tax cut won't do squat. And restoring their marginal tax rate to what it was under Bill Clinton won't harm the economy. The Clinton years had the best sustained economy in American history.

The central problem is lack of demand -- and that's what has to be tackled.

Three of the four sources of demand have stopped working. 
(1) Consumers can't and won't buy because they're still under a huge debt load, can't get more credit, are afraid of losing their jobs (or already have), depend on two wage earners, at least one of whom is working part-time and pulling in less, or have to save. 
(2) Businesses won't invest and spend on creating more jobs if they don't see consumers willing to buy more. 
(3) Exports are stalled because the dollar is so high they cost too much, much of the rest of the world is still struggling with recession, and American firms can make things for sale abroad more cheaply abroad.
That leaves only one remaining source of demand -- government. We need a giant jobs program to hire people and put money in their pockets that they'll spend and thereby create more jobs. Put ideology aside and recognize this fact. If it makes you more comfortable call it the National Defense Jobs Act. Call it the WPA. Call it Chopped Liver. Whatever, we have to get the great army of the unemployed and underemployed working again.

Also: Put more money in consumer's wallets by eliminating payroll taxes on the first $20K of income (and make it up by applying payroll taxes to incomes over $250K.)

Also: Get more hiring by giving the states and locales interest-free loans -- so they can rehire all the teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and sanitation workers they've fired -- to be repaid when their state employment rates hit 5 percent or below.

Also: Get more credit by having the Fed return to "quantitative easing" -- expanding the money supply by purchasing mortgage-backed and other types of securities.

If we let the deficit hawks and government haters dominate this debate, as they have, the Big Dipper will continue for years. The Great Depression lasted twelve.

Our Only Existing Jobs Program Is the Military

...an Insane Way to Keep Americans Employed
"National security is a cover for job security. This is nuts."
By Robert B. Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Posted on August 12, 2010

America's biggest -- and only major -- jobs program is the U.S. military.

Over 1,400,000 Americans are now on active duty; another 833,000 are in the reserves, many full time. Another 1,600,000 Americans work in companies that supply the military with everything from weapons to utensils. (I'm not even including all the foreign contractors employing non-US citizens.)

If we didn't have this giant military jobs program, the U.S. unemployment rate would be over 11.5 percent today instead of 9.5 percent.

And without our military jobs program personal incomes would be dropping faster. The Commerce Department reported Monday the only major metro areas where both net earnings and personal incomes rose last year were San Antonio, Texas, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. -- because all three have high concentrations of military and federal jobs.

This isn't an argument for more military spending. Just the opposite. Having a giant undercover military jobs program is an insane way to keep Americans employed. It creates jobs we don't need but we keep anyway because there's no honest alternative. We don't have an overt jobs program based on what's really needed.

For example, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Monday his plan to cut spending on military contractors by more than a quarter over three years, congressional leaders balked. Military contractors are major sources of jobs back in members' states and districts. California's Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, demanded that the move "not weaken the nation's defense." That's congress-speak for "over my dead body."

Gates simultaneously announced closing the Joint Force Command in Norfolk, Virginia, that employees 6,324 people and relies on 3,300 private contractors. This prompted Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to warn that the closure "would be a step backward." Translated: "No chance in hell."

Gates can't even end useless weapons programs. That's because they're covert jobs programs that employ thousands.

He wants to stop production of the C-17 cargo jet he says is no longer needed. But it keeps 4,000 people working at Boeing's Long Beach assembly plant and 30,000 others at Boeing suppliers strategically located in 40 states. So despite Gates's protests the Senate has approved ten new orders.

That's still not enough to keep all those C-17 workers employed, so the Pentagon and Boeing have been hunting for foreign purchasers. The Indian Air Force is now negotiating to buy ten, and talks are underway with several other nations, including Oman and Saudi Arabia.

Ever wonder why military equipment is one of America's biggest exports? It's our giant military jobs program in action.

Gates has also been trying to stop production of a duplicate engine for the F-25 joint Strike Fighter jet. He says it isn't needed and doesn't justify the $2.9 billion slated merely to develop it.

But the unnecessary duplicate engine would bring thousands of jobs to Indiana and Ohio. Cunningly, its potential manufacturers Rolls-Royce and General Electric created a media blitz (mostly aimed at Washington, D.C. where lawmakers wold see it) featuring an engine worker wearing a "Support Our Troops" T-shirt and arguing the duplicate engine will create 4,000 American jobs. Presto. Despite a veto threat from the White House, a House panel has just approved funding the duplicate.

By the way, Gates isn't trying to cut the overall Pentagon budget. He just wants to trim certain programs to make room for more military spending with a higher priority.

The Pentagon's budget -- and its giant undercover jobs program -- keeps expanding. The President has asked Congress to hike total defense spending next year 2.2 percent, to $708 billion. That's 6.1 percent higher than peak defense spending during the Bush administration.

This sum doesn't even include Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, nuclear weapons management, and intelligence. Add these, and next year's national security budget totals about $950 billion.

That's a major chunk of the entire federal budget. But most deficit hawks don't dare cut it. National security is sacrosanct.

Yet what's really sacrosanct is the giant jobs program that's justified by national security. National security is a cover for job security.

This is nuts.

Wouldn't it be better to have a jobs program that created things we really need -- like light-rail trains, better school facilities, public parks, water and sewer systems, and non-carbon energy sources -- than things we don't, like obsolete weapons systems?

Historically some of America's biggest jobs programs that were critical to the nation's future have been justified by national defense, although they've borne almost no relation to it. The National Defense Education Act of the late 1950s trained a generation of math and science teachers. The National Defense Highway Act created millions of construction jobs turning the nation's two-lane highways into four- and six-lane Interstates.

Maybe this is the way to convince Republicans and blue-dog Democrats to spend more federal dollars putting Americans back, and working on things we genuinely need: Call it the National Defense Full Employment Act.

Gas Is Really Costing Us About $15 a Gallon

Calculating the true cost of living in a country built on oil.
By Mark Engler, Tomdispatch.com
Posted on August 13, 2010

This might be an opportune time to make a disclosure: I am a BP shareholder. Admittedly, I’ve never attended the company’s annual meeting, and if I did, I would have very little weight to throw around.

I own two shares of BP stock. I received my stake in the company as a Christmas gift in 1989, when I was 14 years old. The previous June, I had taken a "summer enrichment" course in the Des Moines public schools, designed as an introduction to the world of business. The teacher gave each of us in the class a modest hypothetical budget to invest in the stock market.

Earnest young capitalists, we made our picks and then followed the quotes in the morning paper. I invested heavily in Amoco and finished the summer feeling that my portfolio had done quite well. As a result, my younger brother decided that I should receive a real piece of the enterprise that was once John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. He conspired with my mom to get me an Amoco share for the holidays.

I’ve watched the oil industry as an interested party ever since. In 1998, my Amoco stock split, turning my one share into two. Then, a few months later, the company was acquired by BP. This "oil mega-merger," as the BBC called it, gave me a stake in yet another energy titan. It also allowed the combined corporation to shed 6,000 jobs, prompting its new chief executive, Sir John Browne of BP, to confidently assure the press that "he hoped the merger will increase pre-tax profits of the two partners by 'at least' two billion dollars by the end of 2000."

The merger proved profitable indeed. Over time, the price of my stock nearly doubled. I received dividends every three months, usually of around 60 cents per share. And by the mid-2000s, BP was making some $20 billion per year in profits. The numbers looked good.

Of course, these are not the only numbers to consider. In fact, in the wake of BP's disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, they don’t seem like the right numbers at all. It’s time for a different accounting: What has that catastrophic spill cost our society? What price do we pay for our dependence on oil? How do we measure these things?

Costs of Business

When I first began receiving Amoco’s annual reports, they featured photos that celebrated robust industrial capabilities, like multicolored sunsets behind fields of horsehead oil pumps in Texas. These days, there's still some of that, but the reports tend to have more shots of solar panels, white windmills, and smiling school children (our future). Someone looking at the annual review the company sent me in 2001, for instance, might have been fooled by the photos of lush, palm-heavy landscapes in Indonesia, California, and Trinidad into thinking that it was a mailing from Conservation International.

Such changes in public relations were born of tragedy. Back in 1989, not three months before my summer business class, the Exxon Valdez collided with the Bligh reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, breaching its hull. Even according to conservative estimates, it spilled more than 10 million gallons of oil and contaminated more than 1,200 miles of ecologically sensitive coastline. For years afterwards, we saw Exxon deal with the fallout of the catastrophe.

However many thousands of boats and booms the company deployed, it only managed to recover about 8% of the oil released. The rest evaporated, coated beaches, or sank to the bottom of the sea. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council estimates that 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 killer whales, and billions of salmon and herring eggs were killed by the spill. Two decades later, some 16,000 gallons of leftover oil still poison wildlife in the Prince William Sound.

The cost to the planet was steep. The cost to Exxon could have been severe as well. While the company claims that it spent $2.1 billion on its clean-up efforts, it might have had to pay many times that in fines and lawsuit settlements. The government initially threatened $5 billion in criminal penalties, and in 1994 a federal jury ordered the company to pay $5.2 billion in punitive damages to Alaskans who had filed a class-action lawsuit. For a time, things at Exxon looked grim.

Although these were the worries of a rival corporation, Amoco investors did get a taste of what Exxon was experiencing. In 1990, after a dozen years of litigation, a federal judge in Chicago ordered my company to pay $132 million in damages to the French government and other parties. They had all been harmed 12 years earlier when the Amoco Cadiz ran aground off the coast of Brittany, releasing 68 million gallons of oil. At the time, it was the largest tanker spill ever. It killed millions of sea urchins and mollusks, thousands of tons of oysters, and almost 20,000 birds.

In terms of the overall business, however, the judgment was only a blip on Amoco's radar screen. In the end, Exxon never made any $10 billion payout for its disaster either. The first Bush administration allowed the company to plead guilty to a small number of charges and settled for penalties and fines of around $1 billion. The judge who ultimately approved the settlement had earlier worried that the amount was too low: "I'm afraid these fines send the wrong message," he said, "and suggest that spills are a cost of business that can be absorbed."

It was a prescient concern, especially given the resolution of the class-action suit. In that arena, Exxon's lawyers proved patient and skilled. They held up the case in court for years until, in 2008, nearly two decades after the spill, the Supreme Court ruled that damages paid by the company would be limited to an exceptionally absorbable $507.5 million.

Emerging Unscathed

In the months during which the well under BP's Deepwater Horizon freely spewed crude into the Gulf of Mexico, it released 4.9 million barrels of oil, or 205.8 million gallons, according to a government panel tasked with measuring the spill. Depending on what estimates you use for the earlier disaster, this amounts to roughly 20 times as much oil as the Exxon Valdez released. In negotiations with the Obama administration, BP agreed to put $20 billion into a fund for cleanup. It has also indicated that it will pay "all legitimate claims" related to the disaster.

Despite such vows, how much of the final cost BP will actually end up paying is unclear. Spill-related damages and lost economic activity could amount to tens of billions of dollars more than what BP is currently setting aside. An Oxford Economics study predicts that costs to the tourism industry alone could exceed $22 billion. Damage to the natural environment, much of it potentially unseen, is almost impossible to quantify.

In the case of the Valdez spill, according to the Associated Press, "the state priced each seagull at $167, eagles at $22,000, harbor seals at $700, and killer whales at $300,000." Such an effort could be replicated for the Gulf. Yet a price tag of $167 per seagull seems tragically inadequate as a means of accounting for a destroyed population of birds, and it doesn’t begin to account for species that may seem less significant to us, but could be crucial to the ecosystem.

Now-deposed BP executive Tony Hayward repeatedly vowed to Gulf residents that the company would "make this right." Likewise, in 1989, after the Valdez ran aground, Don Cornett, Exxon's top official in Alaska, told locals dependent on the ruined fishing industry, "We will do whatever it takes to keep you whole. We do business straight." Of course, that was before Exxon went on to pursue years of dogged litigation to limit its liability.

Once the public furor dies down, as already seems to be happening, BP will have financial incentive to do the same. Though the price of my stock took a hit, plummeting from around $60 per share in early April -- before anyone had heard of the Deepwater Horizon -- to a low of $27 per share in late June, it has already rallied to above $40 as of this writing. Some analysts are betting that BP, like Exxon, will contain the cost of its spill, and then continue about its business in much the same manner it did before. As analyst Antonia Juhasz argues with regard to the Valdez disaster, "Exxon emerged virtually unscathed from the incident and is, today, the most profitable corporation the world has ever known."

What We Do Not Pay at the Pump

Aspects of this situation are reminiscent of the aftermath of another recent “spill.” They recall the way in which bailout banks like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase relied on billions of dollars in public funding to stay afloat after causing a global economic near-collapse, then turned around the next year to report massive profits and once again award exorbitant bonuses to their well-heeled employees. In each case, there is something deeply unsatisfying about how the market handles the destructive behavior of powerful economic actors.

It is not a new idea to suggest that the true costs inherent in many economic pursuits have been unfairly socialized. Nor does this notion apply only in moments of crisis. Economists give the name "externalities" to costs associated with a business that are not reflected on the balance sheet of that enterprise or in the prices of its products, but rather are borne by society at large. For example, if a factory can dump its waste in a local river and is never fined, it has successfully externalized the cost of waste disposal, which the public pays for in the form of polluted water and its consequences.

Oil has many externalities, and the BP disaster has been only the most recent trigger -- "the reminder we didn't need," as Carter Dougherty at BNet put it -- for refreshed awareness that the gas we buy is far more expensive to our country than what any of us pay at the pump.

In August 1987, the New York Times published an editorial with the bold title, "The Real Cost of Gas: $5 a Gallon." Given that, at the time, you could commonly fill up for 99 cents per gallon, and that even the energy crises of the 1970s did not push gas prices above $1.50 per gallon, $5-a-gallon gas was pretty much unimaginable. Yet the Times editorial stated that, "in light of the administration's willingness to risk lives and dollars in the defense of oil from the Persian Gulf… the real cost of oil should include the cost of the military forces protecting supplies." It argued for an energy policy that accounted for Pentagon expenditures.

Two Gulf wars later, an array of reports from both liberal and conservative sources suggest that $5 per gallon is anything but an outlandish estimate for the true cost of gas. It could, in fact, be far too low.

Taking military spending into account would only be a start toward reckoning with what we really pay for oil. But since the military takes up a massive part of our national budget, it would be a good start.

Anita Dancs, an economist with the Center for Popular Economics, notes that "energy security, according to national security documents, is a vital national interest and has been incorporated into military objectives and strategies for more than half a century." After breaking down the overall military budget and evaluating specific missions, she concludes that "we will pay $90 billion this year to secure oil. If spending on the Iraq War is included, the total rises to $166 billion." That would already add 56 cents to every gallon of gas we buy.

The late Milton Copulos was a veteran of the Heritage Foundation, an advisor to both President Ronald Reagan’s White House and the CIA, as well as the head of the right-wing National Defense Council Foundation. He was particularly concerned with dependence on foreign oil, and he highlighted how oil imports were both an economic boon to unsavory governments abroad and a missed opportunity for domestic investment. In 2006, Copulos argued that, if you add to oil-related defense spending such factors as the economic impact of periodic oil supply disruptions and the opportunity costs of money spent on oil imports that might have been used elsewhere in the economy, the "hidden" costs of the U.S. dependence on petroleum would total up to $825 billion per year.

"To put the figure in further perspective," he wrote, "it is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline refined from Persian Gulf oil." At today's rates, that would hike the price at the pump to approximately $11 per gallon, or more than $250 to fill the tank of a typical SUV.

Gushing Subsidies

Military spending is just one type of public subsidy that benefits the oil industry and keeps the price at gas stations artificially low. When I made my adolescent wager on Amoco, I was not aware that the company also profited from massive tax breaks and other non-military forms of support. Yet these go a long way toward making the enterprise a safe bet for investors. Copulos factored some of them into his $11 per gallon calculation; others would drive the price still higher.

In early July, The New York Times reported: "With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for [the BP oil spill] cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure… But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process." Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) added, “The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant. There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.”

The Times story notes that BP was, for instance, able to write off 70% of what it was paying in rent for the Deepwater Horizon rig that caught fire, "a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began." Amazingly, BP is also claiming a $9.9 billion tax credit for its response to its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Not only does our government allow energy companies to avoid taxes in myriad ways, the variety of public supports for the oil industry outside the tax code are almost too numerous to list. A 1995 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists mentioned several, including these: the government invests in substantial energy research that directly benefits the oil industry; it spends millions to maintain a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, designed to help stabilize the oil supply; and it maintains a massive highway system that facilitates gas-intensive auto travel, only part of which is paid for by taxes on motorists.

Then, of course, there is the environmental price we pay, most notably in the form of global warming. As Ezra Klein wrote recently in Newsweek, some experts argue that carbon emissions from cars could be offset at the cost of about 65 cents per gallon (money that would presumably be invested in activities like reforestation). Others believe the cost would be much steeper -- perhaps steep enough to turn oil industry profits into losses.

Andrew Simms of the British New Economics Foundation calculated that, if you were to combine BP's exploration, extraction, and production activities with those involved in the sale of its products, you would end up with 1,458 million tons of CO2-equivalent entering the atmosphere per year. Pricing the cost of carbon emissions at $35 per ton, he puts the bill for climate-change damages at $51 billion. Since BP reported a mere $19 billion in profits in 2006, the year Simms was reviewing, he argues that it would have been "$31 billion in the red," or effectively bankrupt, if it had to cover the climate-change bill.

There's more, too. Consider that car exhaust and oil industry pollution mean an increase in smog and asthma, burdening our health-care system. Then count in the damage caused by massive oil spills we seldom hear about in places like Nigeria, Ecuador, or China, as well as the economic cost of traffic congestion and excess auto accidents made possible by subsidized car travel (costs which the willfully contrarian Freakonomics blog contends may be even more expensive than global warming). The final tally is staggering. High-end estimates of the true costs of the gas we use come to over $15 per gallon. Taxpayers subsidize significant parts of this sum without even knowing it.

That Which Makes Life Worthwhile

To the extent that energy corporations are made to spend more to do business in the future -- forced, for example, to pay for mandatory safety measures, pricier insurance policies, or taxes from which they were previously exempt -- some of the costs of oil could be "internalized." If enough costs were accounted for, some companies, no longer confident that their efforts would be profitable, might begin to reconsider exploiting harder-to-extract reserves of fossil fuels. A recent article in the British Guardian offered this scenario: "If the billions of dollars of annual subsidies and the many tax breaks the industry gets were withdrawn, and the cost of protecting oil companies in developing countries were added, then most of the world's oil would almost certainly be left in the ground."

Unfortunately, this is surely an overstatement. If the exploits of oil companies were made more costly, these companies would simply raise their prices and pass along the costs to consumers. And we would pay them because we are unwilling to give up the speed and convenience of driving, or the luxury of airline travel. We would pay them because we are unwilling to reduce our consumption of foods shipped to our grocery stores from far away, or diminish our energy consumption in many other ways. We would pay them in order to maintain at least a facsimile of our previous lives.

Or would we?

While it is too much to say that "most of the world's oil" would be abandoned, some might be. In 2008, when gas prices soared above $4 per gallon, Americans did behave differently. As the New York Times reported, we drove 10 billion fewer miles per month than the year before; surprising numbers of SUV owners traded in their vehicles for smaller, more efficient cars; and daily oil consumption was lowered by 900,000 barrels. Investors began to reconsider how "realistic" the costs of developing alternative energies might be and to fund them more seriously. In other words, Americans responded to the market.

This was a hopeful sign. At the same time, reacting to the market's cues will not be enough to sort out our relationship to oil and the oil business. We must also reckon with the market's limits. Appreciating the full magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon crisis requires us to recognize that the market is inherently unable to account for many of the things we hold most precious. Robert F. Kennedy pointed to this problem in one of his most powerful speeches, explaining that the gross national product measures everything “except that which makes life worthwhile."

Some things cannot be -- or should not be -- left to business spreadsheets. Calculating the cost of a destroyed ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico or along the coast of Alaska means putting a price tag on things that are not meant to be priced. If you accept that a harbor seal's life is indeed worth $700, and a killer whale's $300,000, pretty soon you must accept that your own life has a price tag on it as well.

Yet taking the limits of economic calculus seriously has implications. It means that we cannot trust the market to solve its own problems -- to self-regulate and self-correct. It means that we need democratic action to place controls on corporate behavior. It means that some things must be considered not merely expensive but sacred, and defended against forces blind to their true value.

Those who believe that the price of my BP stock will recover in the next year might be wrong. Even if the stock bottoms out, however, that won’t restore a shattered Gulf, nor will it change a system that prizes easy consumption and deferred responsibility. We can only correct for the catastrophe oil has wrought by living according to a different measure.

How the Defense Industry is Hosing Obama and the Taxpayer ... Again

Incompetence, Corruption or Both
By FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY

Monastir, Tunisa

On 3 March 2010, CounterPunch carried my critique of the Pentagon’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which was released in February. QDRs have a long history of producing rubbish, and President Obama’s first attempt was no exception. Indeed, notwithstanding the expenditure of tens of thousands of man hours and over a year of preparation, Mr. Obama’s QDR set a new low for ducking the hard decisions needed to fix the real problems afflicting the military, and by extension, the taxpayers who pay the bill. Recent events, however, show why it would be a mistake to consign the 2010 QDR to the dustbin of history. The QDR serves a useful purpose for the gamesters inhabiting the hall of mirrors that is Versailles on the Potomac.

The players in the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (MICC) regard hogwash like that produced in the QDR as essential weapons for waging their unremitting budget war to extract money from the American people. Sun Tzu would have recognized the QDR for what it is: a Cheng (a dazzle) to set up a Ch’i (a stroke). When I worked in the Pentagon, we had a more prosaic name for Master Sun’s timeless principle of using a distraction to set up a decisive maneuver: The QDR is part of a cape job to set up a phony debate over the need for ever rising defense budgets while putting the rest of the government on a diet (in a recession).

The 2010 QDR was one of the opening moves in a cynical budget battle that will probably end, temporarily at least, sometime before this year’s congressional election in November. The role of this particular distraction became clear at the end of July and in early August, when the congressionally appointed independent bipartisan QDR Review Panel, co-chaired by William Perry, a defense secretary during the Clinton Administration, and Stephen J. Hadley, a National Security Advisor during the reign of Mad King George, delivered its own sweeping critique of the QDR to the Armed Services Committees in the Congress. These committees established both the QDR and the requirement for a so-called independent review of the QDR for the unstated purpose of ensuring there would always be a head of steam to pump up defense budgets.

The Armed Services Committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate are the operational headquarters of the congressional wing of the MICC. Their members get reelected year after year, and with their increasing seniority, these members become ever more powerful and secure in their positions, because they use Congress’s power of the purse to shovel gobs of defense dollars to their home districts or states to pay for the vast array of contractors and military bases that sustain the domestic economic wing of MICC. Assignment to one of these committees, especially for a freshman, is one of the most sought-after plums on Capital Hill, because it provides a huge source of patronage that virtually guarantees reelection. As one highly moral congressional staffer explained to me years ago, the mission of the Armed Services Committees is to perform “overlook” not “oversight of” the torrent of dollars they unleash on their home districts.

The report produced by the bipartisan panel is aimed at helping the committees perform that mission.

It should be thought of as a follow-on effort to reinforce the original cape job by stating the obvious criticism, while also ducking the hard questions implied by that criticism: Namely, the obvious conclusion that the Pentagon’s QDR did nothing to head off the looming programmatic train wreck, because the QDR did not deal with the existing modernization, readiness, and force structure programs that are grossly underfunded. The only solution, according to the bipartisan panel: Send more money, and send it now.

Of course the committee’s report, like the QDR itself, said nothing about how this underfunding problem came into being, or why this problem is the inevitable result of the MICC’s deliberate gaming strategy to create a perpetual equipment aging crisis by the ubiquitous bureaucratic power games of front loading and political engineering. The panel cannot claim ignorance about these games, since one of its most prominent members, John Lehman, coined the term “front loading” at a Brooking Institution seminar in December 1982, when, as Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy, he bragged that it was too late to stop Reagan’s naval buildup, which due to production lead times, had not yet begun, because in Lehman’s words, “we front loaded the budget.” Nevertheless, despite the intimate understanding of these power games by at least one of its most prominent members, the independent bipartisan review, like the QDR itself, provided no insight into how these bureaucratic games create a situation wherein the costs of ever more complex weapons always grow faster than the budgets paying for those weapons, even when budgets increase at stunning rates as they did in the early 1980s, and especially after 1998, when the defense budget almost doubled in real terms.

Like the QDR, the bipartisan panel ignored another self-evident question about underfunding: Namely how could today’s defense budget, which is clearly at its highest level since the end of WWII (after removing the effects of inflation), not be sufficient to pay for the modernization and support of what is clearly the smallest force structure since the end of WWII? Or by extension, how could such massive spending place the Pentagon on a pathway to what Mssrs. Perry and Hadley called a “train wreck” on page 4 of their 29 July statement to Congress?

Finally, like the QDR, the independent review panel was totally silent on the subject of how the Pentagon’s accountability and auditing problems make it impossible to sort out the details of the front loading and political engineering decisions that deliberately created the train wreck it now deplores. (Readers interested in these issues and their implications can find a comprehensive analysis of them in my June 2002 testimony to Congress.)

Therefore, by mirror imaging the data-free analysis and analysis-free logic used by the authors of the QDR, the bipartisan panel concluded the Defense Department (really the MICC) needs much larger budgets, both now and for evermore -- even though the auditing shambles means the Pentagon cannot tell Congress how wisely it is spending the money it already has. Instead, the panel’s report subjects the reader to the following vapid bureaucratese on page 61: “Meeting the crucial requirements of modernization will require a substantial and immediate additional investment that is sustained through the long term.”

What BS!

Of course, the authors of the QDR in the Pentagon could not mention the self-evident train wreck; nor could they make a recommendation for much higher budgets; nor could they mention the managerial implications of the bookkeeping shambles. How could they? To do so would be to undercut the budget and programmatic decisions they recommended to and maneuvered their boss, President Barack Obama, into approving. So the authors of the QDR took the greasy low road by simply ignoring the obvious, knowing full well that someone in the Congressional wing of the MICC or entity empowered by that wing (e.g., like the bipartisan Congressional panel), or in the mainstream media, would draw the Pentagon’s desired conclusion (no doubt with under the table help from operatives in the Pentagon) and do the dirty work.

That Mr. Obama is made to look like a fool is merely a cost of doing the MICC’s business, and perhaps he will learn the same lesson Bill Clinton learned: don’t mess with Mother MICC. In fairness, some of Obama’s political appointees, particularly those in the spectacularly incompetent policy shop charged with managing the QDR, probably did not know what they were doing and were merely duped by the far more seasoned military and civilian career operatives in the Pentagon. On the other hand, it is important to remember that placing incompetent political appointees into crucial positions is an artful part of the MICC’s gaming tactics.

Moreover, even though the report of the bipartisan panel exhibited no comprehension of the bureaucratic pathologies that created the train wreck it purported to deplore, it devoted Chapter 4 to a discussion of gaseous platitudes for reforming the acquisition system. Such disconnected promises of reform, based on a deliberate failure to connect cause and effect, are a staple of blue ribbon panels in the Hall of Mirrors that passes for a representative democracy with vigorous oversight and checks and balances. The promised reforms always embody the same shopworn snake oil to buy time as well as the acquiescence of the masses to a continuation of business as usual: Don’t worry about the past; history is not relevant, because the reforms we are putting into place will make the future different from the past. We urge patience, send the money, and trust us.

Of course, the unstated implication of this latest round of charades is that the Pentagon’s budget should be allowed to continue growing as usual ... forever. The underlying idea is to increase the political pressure on a hapless President Obama to take defense spending off the table in the negotiations to reduce the deficit, under the auspices of yet another Blue Ribbon Panel with yet another hidden agenda. With the Pentagon off the table, the effect will be to Hooverize Obama by maneuvering him into cutting back Medicare and Social Security expenditures, but not the regressive payroll taxes that pay for these programs, as well as any economic stimulus initiatives the President may be contemplating.

That William Perry, a leading “greybeard” of the MICC’s Democratic wing, a man who has made millions moving back and forth through the revolving door between the Pentagon and the industrial wing of the MICC, is a co-chairman of the review panel making this kind of critique is particularly brazen. As Deputy Secretary of Defense (1993 - 1994) and Secretary of Defense (1994 - Jan 1997), he approved the acquisition decisions that front loaded the defense program of the Clinton Administration with all sorts of new, more expensive weapons. Those decisions (e.g., like the decision to front load the JSF/F-35 program), coupled with front loading decisions made just before his tenure during the waning days of the Bush I administration (e.g, the F-22 and F-18E/F decisions), deliberately created the pathway toward the disastrous train wreck Perry now says we must throw money at to prevent.

Moreover, Perry has the chutzpah to tell us that the only solution is to pump even more money flowing through all three wings of the MICC, although a doubling of the defense budget in inflation adjusted dollars since 1998 has clearly made the train wreck even worse than was predicted by the Pentagon’s own aging data assembled during his watch as Secretary of Defense. (An analysis, based on official DoD data, proving that Perry could and should have understood the long range implications of the “train wreck” problem while he was Secretary of Defense can be found in my 6 March 1996 report Defense Budget Time Bomb, which I produced as a member of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and submitted to my chain of command.)

All of this QDR nonsense goes to show that the name of the real game is to protect the MICC, or as the late American strategist and reformer Colonel John R. Boyd (USAF Ret) used to say, “People say the Pentagon does not have a strategy. They are wrong. The Pentagon does have a strategy; it is: Don’t interrupt the money flow, add to it.” The bipartisan review of the QDR, like the QDR itself, is merely a handmaiden to that strategy.

Recommendation

We tried throwing money at the Pentagon to fix its problems twice in the last thirty years, in the 1980s and after 1998. It is now indisputably clear that these spending sprees created conditions that worsened the pathway toward the deliberately self-induced train wreck. Adding more money simply repeats the process on a more destructive scale. When such behavior repeats itself over and over, it inevitably boils down to another of Colonel Boyd’s aphorisms: “The issue is now reduced to a question of incompetence, corruption, or both.”

On the other hand, there is one thing the bipartisan report on the QDR inadvertently proves: It is now time to clean out the MICC’s Augean Stables.

We know what does not work: Adding money

The only real alternative is to take away the money, and force the MICC’s decision makers to think before they spend.

We should freeze the defense budget, or better yet, reduce it each year on a glide path of one or two or three (or more) percentage points per year in current dollars until the Pentagon can pass an audit that provides decision makers with enough reliable information to sort out the mess deliberately created by the MICC’s front loaders and political engineers. This is hardly an extreme requirement; accounting for money appropriated and expended is an absolute requirement of the Constitution (re. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7), which every member of the federal government has taken a sacred oath to protect and preserve.

There are those who will howl that we cannot take such a drastic action in time of war.

This claim is a red herring that approves trashing the Constitution to defend a country defined by its Constitution. Moreover, even if we assume we want to continue pouring money into those unaccountable bottomless pits, we could continue the policy of throwing money at these wars with supplemental appropriations, while putting the core defense budget on a diet.

Just how much money does that leave us to work with?

On March 4, George Wilson, the dean of Washington’s defense journalists, and one of the few journalists who actually understands how the Pentagon and Congress operate, analyzed the President’s FY 2011 budget and reported in Congressional Daily that Obama’s annual national security expenditures would total more than a trillion dollars, if one adds to the Pentagon’s core budget: (1) the costs of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere; (2) the defense related expenditures in the Energy, State, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security Departments; and (3) the defense share of interest on the federal debt. Of course that is an optimistically low estimate, because as Wilson implied, it assumes there will be no more cost growth.

If we placed the war expenditures, Veterans Affairs, and the interest expenditures off limits, we are left with $713 billion to work on and make accountable to the American people, which is still a larger defense budget than the comparable budgets for the rest of world combined.

Surely, $713 billion is a large enough stall in the MICC’s Augean stable to warrant a serious cleaning operation.

The Ecstasy of Empire

How Close is America's Demise?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The United States is running out of time to get its budget and trade deficits under control. Despite the urgency of the situation, 2010 has been wasted in hype about a non-existent recovery. As recently as August 2 Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner penned a New York Times column, “Welcome to the Recovery.”

As John Williams (shadowstats.com) has made clear on many occasions, an appearance of recovery was created by over-counting employment and undercounting inflation. Warnings by Williams, Gerald Celente, and myself have gone unheeded, but our warnings recently had echoes from Boston University professor Laurence Kotlikoff and from David Stockman, who excoriated the Republican Party for becoming big-spending Democrats.

It is encouraging to see some realization that, this time, Washington cannot spend the economy out of recession. The deficits are already too large for the dollar to survive as reserve currency, and deficit spending cannot put Americans back to work in jobs that have been moved offshore.

However, the solutions offered by those who are beginning to recognize that there is a problem are discouraging. Kotlikoff thinks the solution is savage Social Security and Medicare cuts or equally savage tax increases or hyperinflation to destroy the vast debts.

Perhaps economists lack imagination, or perhaps they don’t want to be cut off from Wall Street and corporate subsidies, but Social Security and Medicare are insufficient at their present levels, especially considering the erosion of private pensions by the dot com, derivative and real estate bubbles. Cuts in Social Security and Medicare, for which people have paid 15 per cent of their earnings all their lives, would result in starvation and deaths from curable diseases.

Tax increases make even less sense. It is widely acknowledged that the majority of households cannot survive on one job. Both husband and wife work and often one of the partners has two jobs in order to make ends meet. Raising taxes makes it harder to make ends meet--thus more foreclosures, more food stamps, more homelessness. What kind of economist or humane person thinks this is a solution?

Ah, but we will tax the rich. The rich have enough money. They will simply stop earning.

Let’s get real. Here is what the government is likely to do. Once Washington realize that the dollar is at risk and that they can no longer finance their wars by borrowing abroad, the government will either levy a tax on private pensions on the grounds that the pensions have accumulated tax-deferred, or the government will require pension fund managers to purchase Treasury debt with our pensions. This will buy the government a bit more time while pension accounts are loaded up with worthless paper.

The last Bush budget deficit (2008) was in the $400-500 billion range, about the size of the Chinese, Japanese, and OPEC trade surpluses with the US. Traditionally, these trade surpluses have been recycled to the US and finance the federal budget deficit. In 2009 and 2010 the federal deficit jumped to $1,400 billion, a back-to-back trillion dollar increase. There are not sufficient trade surpluses to finance a deficit this large. From where comes the money?

The answer is from individuals fleeing the stock market into “safe” Treasury bonds and from the bankster bailout, not so much the TARP money as the Federal Reserve’s exchange of bank reserves for questionable financial paper such as subprime derivatives. The banks used their excess reserves to purchase Treasury debt.

These financing maneuvers are one-time tricks. Once people have fled stocks, that movement into Treasuries is over. The opposition to the bankster bailout likely precludes another. So where does the money come from the next time?

The Treasury was able to unload a lot of debt thanks to “the Greek crisis,” which the New York banksters and hedge funds multiplied into “the euro crisis.” The financial press served as a financing arm for the US Treasury by creating panic about European debt and the euro. Central banks and individuals who had taken refuge from the dollar in euros were panicked out of their euros, and they rushed into dollars by purchasing US Treasury debt.

This movement from euros to dollars weakened the alternative reserve currency to the dollar, halted the dollar’s decline, and financed the US budget deficit a while longer.

Possibly the game can be replayed with Spanish debt, Irish debt, and whatever unlucky country is eswept in by the thoughtless expansion of the European Union.

But when no countries remain that can be destabilized by Wall Street investment banksters and hedge funds, what then finances the US budget deficit?

The only remaining financier is the Federal Reserve. When Treasury bonds brought to auction do not sell, the Federal Reserve must purchase them. The Federal Reserve purchases the bonds by creating new demand deposits, or checking accounts, for the Treasury. As the Treasury spends the proceeds of the new debt sales, the US money supply expands by the amount of the Federal Reserve’s purchase of Treasury debt.

Do goods and services expand by the same amount? Imports will increase as US jobs have been offshored and given to foreigners, thus worsening the trade deficit. When the Federal Reserve purchases the Treasury’s new debt issues, the money supply will increase by more than the supply of domestically produced goods and services. Prices are likely to rise.

How high will they rise? The longer money is created in order that government can pay its bills, the more likely hyperinflation will be the result.

The economy has not recovered. By the end of this year it will be obvious that the collapsing economy means a larger than $1.4 trillion budget deficit to finance. Will it be $2 trillion? Higher?

Whatever the size, the rest of the world will see that the dollar is being printed in such quantities that it cannot serve as reserve currency. At that point wholesale dumping of dollars will result as foreign central banks try to unload a worthless currency.

The collapse of the dollar will drive up the prices of imports and offshored goods on which Americans are dependent. Wal-Mart shoppers will think they have mistakenly gone into Neiman Marcus.

Domestic prices will also explode as a growing money supply chases the supply of goods and services still made in America by Americans.

The dollar as reserve currency cannot survive the conflagration. When the dollar goes the US cannot finance its trade deficit. Therefore, imports will fall sharply, thus adding to domestic inflation and, as the US is energy import-dependent, there will be transportation disruptions that will disrupt work and grocery store deliveries.

Panic will be the order of the day.

Will farms will be raided? Will those trapped in cities resort to riots and looting?

Is this the likely future that “our” government and “our patriotic” corporations have created for us?

To borrow from Lenin, “What can be done?”

Here is what can be done. The wars, which benefit no one but the military-security complex and Israel’s territorial expansion, can be immediately ended. This would reduce the US budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars per year. More hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved by cutting the rest of the military budget which, in its present size, exceeds the budgets of all the serious military powers on earth combined.

US military spending reflects the unaffordable and unattainable crazed neoconservative goal of US Empire and world hegemony. What fool in Washington thinks that China is going to finance US hegemony over China?

The only way that the US will again have an economy is by bringing back the offshored jobs. The loss of these jobs impoverished Americans while producing oversized gains for Wall Street, shareholders, and corporate executives. These jobs can be brought home where they belong by taxing corporations according to where value is added to their product. If value is added to their goods and services in China, corporations would have a high tax rate. If value is added to their goods and services in the US, corporations would have a low tax rate.

This change in corporate taxation would offset the cheap foreign labor that has sucked jobs out of America, and it would rebuild the ladders of upward mobility that made America an opportunity society.

If the wars are not immediately stopped and the jobs brought back to America, the US is relegated to the trash bin of history.

Obviously, the corporations and Wall Street would use their financial power and campaign contributions to block any legislation that would reduce short-term earnings and bonuses by bringing jobs back to America. Americans have no greater enemies than Wall Street and the corporations and their prostitutes in Congress and the White House.

The neocons allied with Israel, who control both parties and much of the media, are strung out on the ecstasy of Empire.

The United States and the welfare of its 300 million people cannot be restored unless the neocons, Wall Street, the corporations, and their servile slaves in Congress and the White House can be defeated.

Without a revolution, Americans are history.

The Predicament of ShoreBank

Hopes Dimming
By RALPH NADER

The Obama Administration’s treatment of its current majority ownership of bailed out General Motors and its standoffishness toward the pioneering but troubled ShoreBank, a community bank based in Chicago, are lessons in how the Big/Bad fare in Washington, D.C., as compared with the Good/Small.

Having shed its bad assets and abandoned its common shareholders, the new GM emerged from bankruptcy in 2009 with a clean balance sheet and lots of taxpayer cash. For the first two quarters of 2010, it has signaled a comeback by reporting over $2 billion in profits.

In return for a federal infusion of well over $50 billion, the government took a 61 percent ownership stake. The Canadian government received 10 percent ownership for its financial assistance, and the United Auto Workers received 17.5 percent ownership in return for major concessions and a two-tier salary scale starting at $14 an hour.

The Obama administration exercises its trust duties on behalf of the taxpayers by repeatedly saying it would not use any powers of majority ownership at all. The Obama administration is urging GM is issue stock sooner than later so that the government can sell its stock and get out of the company completely.

GM’s CEO Edward E. Whitacre Jr., former CEO of AT&T, agrees. In recent weeks, he has been telling the press that GM is losing sales because of its moniker “Government Motors.” Not known for his graciousness, he did not add that without the government a bankrupt General Motors would not have any sales at all.

There are serious consequences for Obama’s absentee management style. First, he did not prohibit GM from lobbying, as was required for the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a major member of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, GM has been part of a lobbying force that seeks to weaken auto safety legislation now moving through the House and the Senate. Historically, GM has been the most strident in its opposition to mandatory pollution control, fuel efficiency and safety standards. The company’s strategy for decades has been to defeat, delay or weaken efforts to clean your air, safeguard your motor vehicle and get you more miles per gallon of gasoline.

Now, when the government, as a majority owner, can at last tell GM to support long established national policies in these three areas, Obama is hands off. The new GM is free to return to its old obstructive ways.

Moreover, GM’s recovery is just beginning. It has cut its costs very significantly so that its breakeven mark is at a low production volume by historical standards. Starting from nearly rock bottom sales volume, GM is making money in the U.S. and booming in China. So why would Obama want to sell the government’s share so early when waiting a couple of years will make a nice profit for the taxpayers and, in the meantime, restrain GM’s opposition to innovation-driven regulations for the health, safety and economic well-being of consumers?

Now, consider ShoreBank’s predicament. This bank broke ground since its founding in 1973 by providing loans for lower-income homebuyers, apartment building owners and small businesses. Year after year, this community bank proved it could make money by opening up markets that the big banks chose to red-line in Chicago and later in Detroit and Cleveland. Hundreds of articles and news reports heralded its success.

Then the Wall Street-produced recession struck the country. Through little fault of its own, many of its hard-pressed lower-income debtors began to miss or default on their loans. ShoreBank started to register losses--$119 million in 2009. Unlike the big banks, ShoreBank did not deal in risky speculative derivatives—like credit default swaps, collaterized debt obligations or subprime mortgage lending.

Washington is drawn irresistibly to bail out the big banks’ wildly speculative, toxic paper investments with no redeeming social value. George W. Bush took the taxpayers to levels of corporate welfare beyond the dreams of corporate avarice.

Neil M. Barofsky, the valiant special inspector general for the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) reported that the giant AIG bailout ($182 billion) gave its trading partners—bonus-rich Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale and other banks—100 cents on the dollar for their notorious credit default swaps. Had AIG defaulted, it would have been a fraction of that sum.

Barofsky’s report denounced the Federal Reserve for not negotiating strongly with the banks. Incredibly, the Fed gave the banks $27 billion in taxpayer cash and let them keep $35 billion more in collateral already posted by AIG. Barofsky declared that these vastly overpaid sums were way “above [these contracts’] market value at the time.”

Compare these amounts to what ShoreBank needs in additional investment to provide liquidity and adequate capital reserves to ride out the recession. It projects losses of about $200 million before returning to black ink and another $300 million or so to support future operations.

The community bank has raised $150 million in pledges from several Wall Street firms—a little p.r. redemption here—and it needs $75 million in TARP funds from the Obama administration.

At this writing, Washington is balking and the Bank, willing to shink down further, finds its hopes dimming.

The Chicago Tribune editorial “Still Worth Saving” put it well: “ShoreBank, for many years, showed that operating honorably in low-income neighborhoods could pay off for everybody. One way or another, we can’t let its shining example disappear.”

The Wages of Compromise

What Now? What Now??
By JOE MOWREY

Oh happy day! It’s mission-accomplished time in Iraq (again), the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has evaporated into history, landmark financial reform and health care reform legislation has passed, the economy is recovering, and we’ll be out of Afghanistan by next year. What more could we want? Well, for starters, how about a glimpse of reality.

These claims are so absurd, they don’t even make for convincing satire. The real irony is that much of what passes for progressive mainstream media endorses this kind of surreal propaganda. The so-called alternative progressive media, if not embracing the lies outright, is willing to play the usual “better than nothing” game of self delusion. Look what we’ve accomplished! What a great first step!

Take the financial “reform” bill. We’ll probably be hearing a lot from progressives about the whistleblower provisions in this bill. This legislation was crafted by corporate lobbyists and works largely to the benefit of their clients. But watch as progressive apologists focus on an anomaly in the bill which provides anonymity to whistleblowers and stipulates a bounty be paid for information leading to successful prosecutions. What a tasty morsel to assuage the hunger of the starving masses! The assumption is, anonymous rewards for whistleblowers will encourage more people to come forward. In addition, costly bounties, on top of fines for malfeasance, will miraculously transform corporate behavior.

Even if one is deluded enough to believe the SEC will enforce this provision in the bill in any substantive manner, since when have financial penalties ever changed corporate behavior? Such fines are chump change to the multinationals. They aren’t deterrents to corporate crime, only additional line items to be included in future budget projections. In recent years, BP has paid more than $730 million in fines. This hasn’t prevented them from continuing to destroy our environment, killing dozens of people in the process, while at the same time posting huge profits.

Progressives have become well accustomed to compromising their core values to achieve meaningless victories. They cite minuscule gains as justification for their participation in a system which repeatedly disenfranchises them. In this way, they become willing partners in the advancement of the corporate agenda. The financial reform bill, like all legislation, is written by and for corporations. But let’s rally ´round some deceptively positive item in the bill so we can maintain the illusion of progress. What rubbish.

In 2008, in exchange for lame promises to end the war in Iraq, a vast majority of the anti-war movement not only endorsed, but campaigned for and enthusiastically promoted a pro-war candidate. As a result, Barack Obama came into office with a mandate to escalate the war in Afghanistan and expand it into Pakistan. The primary goal of the anti-war movement was sacrificed to the lunatic notion that “half a loaf is better than none.” As it turns out, we’re not even getting half a slice. Surprise, surprise.

As our consumer economy digests itself and passes the poor, working poor and fading middle class like a bowel movement into the toilet of destitution, we seem unable to raise more than a whimper from progressives. They remain happily ensconced in steerage on board the ship of state as the power elite in the ballroom overhead raise a toast to U.S. Empire and perpetual war. The so-called liberal opposition has become nothing more than a subculture of this failed system of class warfare we mistakenly call democracy.

The bloated and obscene military industrial complex indiscriminately kills and maims innocents around the world in order to maintain its capitalist hegemony. Meanwhile, our rogue partner, Israel, inflames the Middle East with its rapacious ethnocentric colonial objectives. The ongoing brutal racism and ethnic cleansing in Palestine is blatant. It takes a monumental effort on the part of progressives to ignore the horrors being unleashed on the Palestinian people using our tax dollars. But ignore it they do. They wouldn’t want to alienate the Israel Lobby. That might jeopardize progressives’ political objectives. So they forget about justice and agree not to talk about the Zionist bull in the human-rights china shop.

Many alternative news sites rarely mention Israel or Palestinian human rights. Perhaps the thinking is, if you can’t find something positive to say, why say anything at all? Have you been to BuzzFlash.com lately? How about TruthOut.org? These two progressive-except-for-Palestine sites have joined forces in their mission to promote what they perceive to be a progressive agenda, for everyone but Palestinians. You would think the Israel Lobby has no impact on world affairs at all if these were your only sources of information.

As for the “liberal” mainstream media, you can probably count on one hand the number of times Rachel Maddow has used the ‘P’ word since her ascendence to the corporate media throne. What about Keith Olberman? If you catalog his coverage of Palestine over the last seven years it would make for a very short list. These progressive icons have a strict “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy when it comes to Israel.

But the blue ribbon for hypocrisy concerning Palestine goes to Thom Hartmann, the intellectual darling of progressive talk radio. His pro-Zionist mindset establishes a new standard for willful denial. Israel’s barbaric attack in 2009 on the one-and-a-half million defenseless civilians imprisoned in Gaza resulted in the deaths of more than 1400 people, 350 of them children under the age of fifteen. On his radio program, Hartmann pointed out that this was hardly what one would call a massacre. If those had been Israeli children murdered, he may have taken a slightly different position on the matter.

When criticized for their blind support of Barack “Killer-Drone” Obama, progressives produce such absurd rejoinders as, “What would you have had us do, elect John McCain?” The real question in 2008, and in 2004 as well, should have been, “Why are we working to elect a pro-war corporatist?”

Embracing honest logic is difficult for many progressives. They prefer to cling to their religion of “hope and change” and suffer the wages of compromise, unwilling to face the simple truth. The system has diverted the energy and resources of the Left from our main objectives. We have become pawns within this self-perpetuating, parasitic corporatocracy. Our voices have been co-opted to facilitate its Orwellian existence.

Uh-oh. Conundrum. You mean to say that reasoned dialogue won’t save us; the status quo can’t be amended and made to conform to our naive expectations; we can’t work from within to excise the cancerous tumor that is our government? Everyone begins to wring their hands and wipe sweat from their brows (using facial tissue made from recyled paper, of course). Minds close, eyes glaze over. The collective hard drive of the Left crashes and everyone is stunned into silence. The screen flashes the ominous error message, “What Now? What Now?”

Hey, I know. Let’s head off to the polls in the next election and vote against the most terrible option. That should solve the problem. Let’s continue marching in lockstep right over the lesser-of-two-evils cliff into oblivion. Let’s give pro-war corporatists the keys to the national treasury and watch in dismay as they transfer it into the pockets of the power elite while continuing to wage senseless wars against people all over the planet. Let’s empower yet another gang of lying, sociopathic stewards of empire and hope they don’t wreak more havoc than the previous bunch. There’s a plan we haven’t tried before!

If this madness appears to be a hopeless, downward spiral into totalitarianism and despair, that’s because it is. We are taking the same action over and over again, expecting different results. Insanity has replaced rationality.

It may seem like there are few options available to us. Certainly there are none at all if we continue to push that familiar boulder up the hill, only to watch it roll back down again. But if we can buck up and face reality, retire the usual song and dance routine which is getting us nowhere, then this will allow alternative strategies to develop. Once we disengage from the status quo, stop sacrificing our principles and resources in pursuit of pointless compromise, the passionate minds of the Left will come up with different approaches. We just need to establish a few simple guidelines to keep us on course.

First, compromise is for deciding what color to paint the bathroom. While common ground may be a great place to debate acceptable means to an end, if that common ground is in a pool of someone else’s blood, we must refuse to go there. Our objectives must be non-negotiable. They should not include the occasional splatter of the blood of innocents. Politics may be the art of the possible, but advocacy for human rights should be absolute. We cannot tolerate “some” inhumanity, nor sacrifice justice for the sake of achieving a resolution.

Second, reconciliation is an objective, not a strategy. Anger is not violence; being non-violent doesn’t require us to be passive or even peaceful.The penchant many on the Left have for “respectful dialogue” is admirable. But it’s time to get over it and get angry. We are in a very small boat on rough seas. If some posturing fools stand up, threatening to capsize the boat, there isn’t much point in having a polite discussion with them. The only rational response is to tell them, “Sit down before you drown us all!” Say it loudly, and impolitely if need be, to make yourself heard above the noise of the threatening storm. Otherwise, you’ll find yourself in the water having a less-than-mutually-respectful dialogue with hungry sharks.

Third, and most important of all, stop voting! It only enables the status quo. What is this obsession we have with participating in a system which excludes the values and principles we believe in? If the menu consists of nothing but poisonous food, refuse to sit down at the table. The corporatocracy will never offer us candidates for national office who represent progressive values. Name any President and most members of Congress over the last 100 years. These are people who have participated in the slaughter of millions of innocent men, women and children around the globe. Their legacy belongs on trial in the Hague. Why do we continue to champion their fetid Empire, for any reason, under any circumstances?

Unyielding commitment to the principles of human rights and social justice would provide the incentive we need to abandon this cycle of capitulation and instigate a true social revolution. Once we disengage from this inhumane paradigm, no longer lend our voices to its perpetuation, a world of possibilities will be open to us. It’s not as if we would be abandoning a program of proven success. The only thing we know for certain is what doesn’t work.

In the last national election, roughly 130 million people showed up at the polls. Are you enjoying Bush’s third term yet? How many of those people hold progressive views? What would happen on election day if even as few as two percent of that 130 million showed up in Washington D.C. and cast a real vote for change. Imagine, millions of unarmed, non-violent people (too many to shoot, too many to arrest) converging on the heart of darkness to silence it, permanently.

Chaos you say? Anarchy? “OMB (oh my Buddha), what will we do now? With its head removed, this misbegotten leviathan, this bloodthirsty purveyor of terror, death and destruction, will cease to function.”

Hmmm...need we say more?

Until we refuse to endorse the criminality of our Empire, refuse to participate in our own deception, refuse to give our power to maniacs, the Left will continue to be an anachronism which pays lip service to progressive ideals. Isn’t it time we tried something new?