My, they do take the Big Brass Ones award! They still don’t get it. This country is so close to the edge, and they’ve decided to take it all the way over. (Maybe they figure workers should cover potential liability from their crappy nuclear power plants?) Mike Elk at Think Progress: Last week, the New York Times reported that, despite making $14.2 billion in profits, General Electric, the largest corporation in the United States, paid zero U.S. taxes in 2010 and actually received tax credits of $3.2 billion dollars. The article noted that GE’s tax avoidance team is comprised of “former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.” After not paying any taxes and making huge profits, ThinkProgress has learned that General Electric is expected to ask its nearly 15,000 unionized employees in the United States to make major concessions. This year, 14 unions representing more than 15,000 workers will negotiate a new master contract with General Electric. Among the major concessions GE has signaled that it will ask of union workers is the elimination of a defined contribution benefit pension for new employees, a move the company has already implemented for its non-union salaried employees. Likewise, GE is signaling to the union that it will ask for the elimination of current health insurance plans in favor of lower quality health saving accounts, a move the company has already implemented for non-union salaried employees as well. In addition, General Electric may ask some workers for a wage freeze. Since the recession began in 2007, GE threatened to close plants in Schenectady, NY and Louisville, KY unless workers took wage concessions and adopted two-tier wage structure. In an interview with ThinkProgress, Mark Haller, a machinist at General Electric locomotive factory in Erie, PA, said: The company I work for paid no federal taxes last year, but we all get these mass emails from GE asking us to call our Congressman to fund the useless, alternative GE engine for the F-35. As taxpayers, we are subsidizing the profits of this company to a huge extent and now after making the company even more profitable, they are asking us to make concessions on pensions, benefits, and perhaps even wages. You wonder why there is a jobs crisis in this country with a guy like G.E. CEO Jeff Immelt heading the President’s Jobs Commission . In 2003, union workers at 16 different General Electric factories engaged in a strike when G.E. proposed to cut their health care. Workers are mobilizing again this year. They have planned a rally that is expected to attract 10,000 workers from all over the country at the General Electric Locomotive Factory in Erie, PA on June 4th.
Continue reading …Not that it matters much to the militant dictators running Wisconsin right now. Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi has just blocked — again — Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) new law curtailing public employee unions, after the state Republican leadership moved last Friday to circumvent her previous order that blocked the law on procedural grounds. But that’s not the end of the discussion, as it appears the state will continue to defy the order. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports: “Further implementation of the act is enjoined,” said Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi. She noted her original restraining order issued earlier this month was clear in saying that the state should not proceed with implementing the law. The Walker administration did so after the bill was published Friday by a state agency not included in Sumi’s earlier temporary restraining order. “Apparently that language was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation of Act 10 was enjoined. That is what I now want to make crystal clear,” she said. But minutes later, outside the court room, Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the legislation “absolutely” is still in effect .
Continue reading …About two-thirds of police have contact with the public but will be difficult to retain in the face of 20% cuts, says HMIC About two-thirds of the police workforce in England and Wales should be classed as involved in the “frontline” and will be very hard to retain in the face of 20% cuts, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) warns. In the first official attempt to define what constitutes the frontline in policing, the HMIC study says that 68% of police officers and civilian staff are involved either in everyday “visible” contact with the public or in specialist roles intervening directly to keep people safe and enforce the law. The study suggests that CID, confiscating criminal assets, fingerprint and scenes of crime jobs are all frontline functions while handling intelligence, processing offenders, training, IT and communications could all be regarded as middle-office and back-office roles. Sir Denis O’Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary, stressed that staff in middle or back office jobs were also key and ensured frontline duties were properly carried out. “Quite a lot of functions in there. We can’t see that any of them are particularly redundant. You need them all in some form,” he said. O’Connor said that while back-office staff were not just disposable assets and some roles did not have to be done by officers, there were areas that were off-limits: “I would want police officers involved in training detectives and people driving cars. There is an element of expertise. Learning how to interrogate people well is not something you can learn from a book,” he said. HMIC says in its report, Demanding Times, that it will be a big challenge to make cuts without damaging the frontline. “Even if you imagine that the back office and middle office are ripe for reform, you have only got one third of them to do it with,” said O’Connor, implying the rest were off-limits as frontline roles. “The cuts across England and Wales do not cut the same way for every force. For some it is a much bigger challenge. It remains difficult for the frontline to remain in its current form for a number of forces. In its present form it looks very hard to retain.” The study was undertaken after ministers and MPs failed to find any consensus within the police over what constitutes the frontline. Peter Fahy of the Association of Chief Police Officers said the HMIC report highlighted the close link between what was seen as frontline and those working out of sight: “Whether it be handling intelligence, delivering training, processing offenders through the criminal justice system or any other task, roles in support of the frontline are as critical to policing as they are in any other large organisation. Simplistic judgments about the value of the work our officers and staff do are not helpful.” The report is published after a Labour survey showed that 2,200 of the most experienced officers are to be forcibly retired over the next four years and it was disclosed that Warwickshire police have become the first in the country to tell uniformed officers they will be drafted into back-office roles to cover civilian staff who have taken redundancy. Police Public sector cuts Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In Balochistan, mutilated corpses bearing the signs of torture keep turning up, among them lawyers, students and farm workers. Why is no one investigating and what have they got to do with the bloody battle for Pakistan’s largest province? The bodies surface quietly, like corks bobbing up in the dark. They come in twos and threes, a few times a week, dumped on desolate mountains or empty city roads, bearing the scars of great cruelty. Arms and legs are snapped; faces are bruised and swollen. Flesh is sliced with knives or punctured with drills; genitals are singed with electric prods. In some cases the bodies are unrecognisable, sprinkled with lime or chewed by wild animals. All have a gunshot wound in the head. This gruesome parade of corpses has been surfacing in Balochistan , Pakistan’s largest province, since last July. Several human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have accounted for more than 100 bodies – lawyers, students, taxi drivers, farm workers. Most have been tortured. The last three were discovered on Sunday. If you have not heard of this epic killing spree, though, don’t worry: neither have most Pakistanis. Newspaper reports from Balochistan are buried quietly on the inside pages, cloaked in euphemisms or, quite often, not published at all. The forces of law and order also seem to be curiously indifferent to the plight of the dead men. Not a single person has been arrested or prosecuted; in fact, police investigators openly admit they are not even looking for anyone. The stunning lack of interest in Pakistan’s greatest murder mystery in decades becomes more understandable, however, when it emerges that the prime suspect is not some shady gang of sadistic serial killers, but the country’s powerful military and its unaccountable intelligence men. This is Pakistan’s dirty little war. While foreign attention is focused on the Taliban, a deadly secondary conflict is bubbling in Balochistan, a sprawling, mineral-rich province along the western borders with Afghanistan and Iran. On one side is a scrappy coalition of guerrillas fighting for independence from Pakistan; on the other is a powerful army that seeks to quash their insurgency with maximum prejudice. The revolt, which has been rumbling for more than six years, is spiced by foreign interests and intrigues – US spy bases, Chinese business, vast underground reserves of copper, oil and gold. And in recent months it has grown dramatically worse. At the airport in Quetta, the provincial capital, a brusque man in a cheap suit marches up to my taxi with a rattle of questions. “Who is this? What’s he doing here? Where is he staying?” he asks the driver, jerking a thumb towards me. Scribbling the answers, he waves us on. “Intelligence,” says the driver. The city itself is tense, ringed by jagged, snow-dusted hills and crowded with military checkposts manned by the Frontier Corps (FC), a paramilitary force in charge of security. Schools have recently raised their walls; sand-filled Hesco barricades , like the ones used in Kabul and Baghdad, surround the FC headquarters. In a restaurant the waiter apologises: tandoori meat is off the menu because the nationalists blew up the city’s gas pipeline a day earlier. The gas company had plugged the hole that morning, he explains, but then the rebels blew it up again. The home secretary, Akbar Hussain Durrani, a neatly suited, well-spoken man, sits in a dark and chilly office. Pens, staplers and telephones are neatly laid on the wide desk before him, but his computer is blank. The rebels have blown up a main pylon, he explains, so the power is off. Still, he insists, things are fine. “The government agencies are operating in concert, everyone is acting in the best public interest,” he says. “This is just a . . . political problem.” As we speak, a smiling young man walks in and starts to take my photo; I later learn he works for the military’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency. We cut across the city, twisting through the backstreets, my guide glancing nervously out the rear window. The car halts before a tall gate that snaps shut behind us. Inside, a 55-year-old woman named Lal Bibi is waiting, wrapped in a shawl that betrays only her eyes, trembling as she holds forth a picture of her dead son Najibullah. The 20-year-old, who ran a shop selling motorbike parts, went missing last April after being arrested at an FC checkpost, she says. His body turned up three months later, dumped in a public park on the edge of Quetta, badly tortured. “He had just two teeth in his mouth,” she says in a voice crackling with pain. She turns to her father, a turbaned old man sitting beside her, and leans into his shoulder. He grimaces. Bibi says her family was probably targeted for its nationalist ties – Najibullah’s older brother, now dead, had joined the “men in the mountains” years earlier, she says. Now a nephew, 28-year-old Maqbool, is missing. She prays for him, regularly calling the hospitals for any sign of him and, occasionally, the city morgues. Over a week of interviews in Karachi and Quetta, I meet the relatives of seven dead men and nine “disappeared” – men presumed to have been abducted by the security forces . One man produces a mobile phone picture of the body of his 22-year-old cousin, Mumtaz Ali Kurd, his eyes black with swelling and his shirt drenched in blood. A relative of Zaman Khan, one of three lawyers killed in the past nine months, produces court papers. A third trembles as he describes finding his brother’s body in an orchard near Quetta. Patterns emerge. The victims were generally men between 20 and 40 years old – nationalist politicians, students, shopkeepers, labourers. In many cases they were abducted in broad daylight – dragged off buses, marched out of shops, detained at FC checkposts – by a combination of uniformed soldiers and plain-clothes intelligence men. Others just vanished. They re-emerge, dead, with an eerie tempo – approximately 15 bodies every month, although the average was disturbed last Saturday when eight bodies were found in three locations across Balochistan. Activists have little doubt who is behind the atrocities. Human Rights Watch says “indisputable” evidence points to the hand of the FC, the ISI and its sister agency, Military Intelligence. A local group, Voice for Missing Persons, says the body count has surpassed 110. “This is becoming a state of terror,” says its chairman, Naseerullah Baloch. The army denies the charges, saying its good name is being blemished by impersonators. “Militants are using FC uniforms to kidnap people and malign our good name,” says Major General Obaid Ullah Khan Niazi, commander of the 46,000 FC troops stationed in Balochistan. “Our job is to enforce the law, not to break it.” Despairing relatives feel cornered. Abdul Rahim, a farmer wearing a jewelled skullcap, is from Khuzdar, a hotbed of insurgent violence. He produces court papers detailing the abduction of his son Saadullah in 2009. First he went to the courts but then his lawyer was shot dead. Then he went to the media but the local press club president was killed. Now, Rahim says, “nobody will help in case they are targeted too. We are hopeless.” Balochistan has long been an edgy place. Its vast, empty deserts and long borders are a magnet for provocateurs of every stripe. Taliban fighters slip back and forth along the 800-mile Afghan border; Iranian dissidents hide inside the 570-mile frontier with Iran. Drug criminals cross the border from Helmand, the world’s largest source of heroin, on their way to Iran or lonely beaches on the Arabian Sea. Wealthy Arab sheikhs fly into remote airstrips on hunting expeditions for the houbara bustard, a bird they believe improves their lovemaking. At Shamsi, a secretive airbase in a remote valley in the centre of the province, CIA operatives launch drones that attack Islamists in the tribal belt. The US spies appreciate the lack of neighbours – Balochistan covers 44% of Pakistan yet has half the population of Karachi. The province’s other big draw is its natural wealth. At Reko Diq, 70 miles from the Afghan border, a Canadian-Chilean mining consortium has struck gold, big-time. The Tethyan company has discovered 4bn tonnes of mineable ore that will produce an estimated 200,000 tonnes of copper and 250,000 ounces of gold per year, making it one of the largest such mines in the world. The project is currently stalled by a tangled legal dispute, but offers a tantalising taste of Balochistan’s vast mineral riches, which also includes oil, gas, platinum and coal. So far it is largely untapped, though, and what mining exists is scrappy and dangerous. On 21 March, 50 coal workers perished in horrific circumstances when methane gas flooded their mine near Quetta, then catastrophically exploded. Two conflicts are rocking the province. North of Quetta, in a belt of land adjoining the Afghan border, is the ethnic Pashtun belt. Here, Afghan Taliban insurgents shelter in hardline madrasas and lawless refugee camps, taking rest in between bouts of battle with western soldiers in Afghanistan. It is home to the infamous “Quetta shura”, the Taliban war council, and western officials say the ISI is assisting them. Some locals agree. “It’s an open secret,” an elder from Kuchlak tells me. “The ISI gave a fleet of motorbikes to local elders, who distributed them to the fighters crossing the border. Nobody can stop them.” The other conflict is unfolding south of Quetta, in a vast sweep that stretches from the Quetta suburbs to the Arabian Sea, in the ethnic Baloch and Brahui area, whose people have always been reluctant Pakistanis. The first Baloch revolt erupted in 1948, barely six months after Pakistan was born; this is the fifth. The rebels are splintered into several factions, the largest of which is the Balochistan Liberation Army. They use classic guerrilla tactics – ambushing military convoys, bombing gas pipelines, occasionally lobbing rockets into Quetta city. Casualties are relatively low: 152 FC soldiers died between 2007 and 2010, according to official figures, compared with more than 8,000 soldiers and rebels in the 1970s conflagration. But this insurgency seems to have spread deeper into Baloch society than ever before. Anti-Pakistani fervour has gripped the province. Baloch schoolchildren refuse to sing the national anthem or fly its flag; women, traditionally secluded, have joined the struggle. Universities have become hotbeds of nationalist sentiment. “This is not just the usual suspects,” says Rashed Rahman, editor of the Daily Times , one of few papers that regularly covers the conflict. At a Quetta safehouse I meet Asad Baloch, a wiry, talkative 22-year-old activist with the Baloch Students’ Organisation (Azad). “We provide moral and political support to the fighters,” he says. “We are making people aware. When they are aware, they act.” It is a risky business: about one-third of all “kill and dump” victims were members of the BSO. Baloch anger is rooted in poverty. Despite its vast natural wealth, Balochistan is desperately poor – barely 25% of the population is literate (the national average is 47%), around 30% are unemployed and just 7% have access to tap water. And while Balochistan provides one-third of Pakistan’s natural gas, only a handful of towns are hooked up to the supply grid. The insurgents are demanding immediate control of the natural resources and, ultimately, independence. “We are not part of Pakistan,” says Baloch. His phone rings. News comes through that another two bodies have been discovered near the coast. One, Abdul Qayuum, was a BSO activist. Days later, videos posted on YouTube show an angry crowd carrying his bloodied corpse into a mortuary. He had been shot in the head. The FC commander, Maj Gen Niazi, wearing a sharp, dark suit and with neatly combed hair (he has just come from a conference) says he has little time for the rebel demand. “The Baloch are being manipulated by their leaders,” he says, noting that the scions of the main nationalist groups live in exile abroad – Hyrbyair Marri in London; Brahamdagh Bugti in Geneva. “They are enjoying the life in Europe while their people suffer in the mountains,” he says with a sigh. Worse again, he adds, they were supported by India. The Punjabi general offers no proof for his claim, but US and British intelligence broadly agree, according to the recent WikiLeaks cables. India sees Balochistan as payback for Pakistani meddling in Kashmir – which explains why Pakistani generals despise the nationalists so much. “Paid killers,” says Niazi. He vehemently denies involvement in human rights violations. “To us, each and every citizen of Balochistan is equally dear,” he says. Civilian officials in the province, however, have another story. Last November, the provincial chief minister, Aslam Raisani, told the BBC that the security forces were “definitely” guilty of some killings; earlier this month, the province’s top lawyer, Salahuddin Mengal, told the supreme court the FC was “lifting people at will”. He resigned a week later. However, gross human rights abuses are not limited to the army. As the conflict drags on, the insurgents have become increasingly brutal and ruthless. In the past two years, militants have kidnapped aid workers, killed at least four journalists and, most disturbingly, started to target “settlers” – unarmed civilians, mostly from neighbouring Punjab, many of whom have lived in Balochistan for decades. Some 113 settlers were killed in cold blood last year, according to government figures – civil servants, shopkeepers, miners. On 21 March, militants riding motorbikes sprayed gunfire into a camp of construction workers near Gwadar, killing 11; the Baloch Liberation Front claimed responsibility. Most grotesque, perhaps, are the attacks on education: 22 school teachers, university lecturers and education officials have been assassinated since January 2008, causing another 200 to flee their jobs. As attitudes harden, the middle ground is being swept away in tide of bloodshed. “Our politicians have been silenced,” says Habib Tahir, a human rights lawyer in Quetta. “They are afraid of the young.” I ask a student in Quetta to defend the killing of teachers. “They are not teachers, they work for the intelligence agencies,” one student tells me. “They are like thieves coming into our homes. They must go.” The Islamabad government seems helpless to halt Balochistan’s slide into chaos. Two years ago, President Asif Ali Zardari announced a sweeping package of measures intended to assuage Baloch grievances, including thousands of jobs, a ban on new military garrisons and payment of $1.4bn (£800m) in overdue natural gas royalties. But violence has hijacked politics, the plan is largely untouched, and anaemic press coverage means there is little outside pressure for action. Pakistan’s foreign allies, obsessed with hunting Islamists, have ignored the problem. “We are the most secular people in the region, and still we are being ignored,” says Noordin Mengal, who represents Balochistan on the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. In this information vacuum, the powerful do as they please. Lawyer Kachkol Ali witnessed security forces drag three men from his office in April 2009. Their bodies turned up five days later, dead and decomposed. After telling his story to the press, Ali was harassed by military intelligence, who warned him his life was in danger. He fled the country. “In Pakistan, there is only rule of the jungle,” he says by phone from Lørenskog, a small Norwegian town where he won asylum last summer. “Our security agencies pick people up and treat them like war criminals,” he says. “They don’t even respect the dead.” Balochistan’s dirty little war pales beside Pakistan’s larger problems – the Taliban, al-Qaida, political upheaval. But it highlights a very fundamental danger – the ability of Pakistanis to live together in a country that, under its Islamic cloak, is a patchwork of ethnicities and cultures. “Balochistan is a warning of the real battle for Pakistan, which is about power and resources,” says Haris Gazdar, a Karachi-based researcher. “And if we don’t get it right, we’re headed for a major conflict.” Before leaving Quetta I meet Faiza Mir, a 36-year-old lecturer in international relations at Quetta’s Balochistan University. Militants have murdered four of her colleagues in the past three years, all because they were “Punjabi”. Driving on to the campus, she points out the spots where they were killed, knowing she could be next. “I can’t leave,” says Mir, a sparky woman with an irrepressible smile. “This is my home too.” And so she engages in debate with students, sympathising with their concerns. “I try to make them understand that talk is better than war,” she says. But some compromises are impossible. Earlier on, students had asked Mir to remove a portrait of Muhammad Ali Jinnah , Pakistan’s founding father, from her office wall. Mir politely refused, and Jinnah – an austere lawyer in a Savile Row suit – still stares down from her wall. But how long will he stay there? “That’s difficult to say,” she answers. Pakistan Taliban Afghanistan Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Wall Street Journal ( Click here for larger image ) The national debt of the United States tripled under Ronald Reagan and doubled again under George W. Bush. Bush and the GOP Congress cut taxes during wartime , a first in modern American history. During his presidency, Republicans voted seven times to increase the debt ceiling. As Utah Senator Orrin Hatch in 2009 described Republican orthodoxy under Republican presidents, “It was standard practice not to pay for things.” But that was then and this is now. And now with a Democrat in the White House, Hatch and his Republican colleagues are demanding passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition of raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Whether that blackmail is paid or not, either way the result would be a catastrophe for the United States. The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) gambit is just the latest chapter in the Republican saga of “America Held Hostage.” Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that “not a single one of the 47 Republicans will vote to raise the debt ceiling unless it includes with it some credible effort to do something about our debt.” McConnell then upped the ante : Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned on Friday that GOP senators will not vote to increase the government’s borrowing limit unless President Barack Obama agrees to rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, laying down a high-stakes marker just weeks before the debt ceiling is reached. Now, as Human Events and Politico reported Friday, America’s Republican captors are threatening the shut down the government and undermine the full faith and credit of the United States if their demands for a “Starve the Beast” amendment are not met: The Senate Republicans are preparing to tell President Obama that they want a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution passed in Congress in exchange for raising the statuary debt ceiling above $14.2 trillion. “My hope is that we would force a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition to voting on the debt ceiling,” Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) told HUMAN EVENTS. “By next week, or shortly thereafter, we will have all 47 Republicans unified behind the effort, and then begin to reach out to our Democratic colleagues.” A BBA would force the federal government to balance the federal spending to incoming revenue each year and cap spending at 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP). For the current Fiscal Year (FY 2011), the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that government spending will be $1.4 trillion more than revenue and account for almost 25% of the GDP. Of course, the GOP BBA is a recipe for disaster. If codified, Republican grandstanding on the budget would not only mean draconian cuts in government services. The fragile U.S. recovery would be stopped dead in its tracks. As a matter of simple math, balancing President Obama’s proposed FY 2012 budget would mean slashing $1.6 trillion from a $3.7 trillion spending request. That inevitably would devastate federal programs across the board. As this now-dated diagram of the 2011 budget below illustrates, you simply can’t get there from here without raising taxes . Taking interest on the debt and defense spending off the table (as most Republicans insist) means cutting over half of everything else the federal government does . And that includes Social Security and Medicare. Just as important, setting 18% of GDP as a target for both tax revenue and spending is both arbitrary and unrealistic. As the chart at the top shows, over the last 30 years federal spending dipped to 18% only during the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton. It never dropped below 21% during the tenure of supposed small government advocate Ronald Reagan. As for revenue, the CBO among others reported that the combination of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and the recession which started in 2007 drove total federal taxes as a percentage of the U.S. economy at their lowest level since 1950. Making matters worse, in December Republicans demanded another $140 billion windfall for the wealthy as their price for continuing tax relief for everyone else. (More galling still, in February the GOP’s Jim Demint (R-SC) and Mike Pence (R-IN) proposed legislation which would make the Bush tax cust permanent beginning in 2013 – and drain another $4 trillion from the U.S. Treasury over the ensuing decade.) At a time of war and economic recovery, government should be high – certainly well above 18%. And as the economic recovery progresses, the government should and must raise taxes to reduce future deficits and to pay off what will be a $3 trillion tab for the nation’s unfunded wars. But the various versions of the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment would make the necessary virtually impossible . While both the House and Senate versions allow for the federal government to run deficits in wartime, both chambers would require a three-fifths vote to suspend the spending limit and balanced budget requirement ” “when the U.S. is engaged in military conflict which causes imminent and serious military threat to national security and declared by a joint resolution that is approved by a three-fifths vote of each House of Congress.” Even more onerous: Furthermore, the Senate BBA prevents future Congresses from raising taxes in order to meet the requirements of the balanced budget by stipulating that any bills with tax increases will need two-thirds votes in both chambers. For his part, Senator Cornyn (R-TX) acknowledged his party’s latest ransom demand over the debt ceiling is a political ploy. Despite some Democratic support in the past (including from then Senator Joe Biden), the BBA is not going to get through the Senate and may not even come up for a vote. And that’s just fine with John Cornyn: “If, for some reason, the Balanced Budget Amendment were not to pass, I think the voters would then know, with very stark clarity, who is for a balanced budget and who is not, and it could have a big impact on the 2012 elections.” Of course, if for some reason Republicans follow through on their blackmail regarding the debt ceiling, the results would be cataclysmic. While the specter of a global financial cataclysm caused by the default of the United States caused most sentient mammals to denounce that prospect as “insanity” (Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee ), resulting in “severe harm” (McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi ), “financial collapse and calamity throughout the world” (Senator Lindsey Graham ), “financial disaster” (House Speaker John Boehner ), Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republican colleagues are determined to continue with the game of chicken. Apparently, American fiscal suicide is a small price to pay for political power. Meanwhile, the same Orrin Hatch who admitted that when a Republican sat in the Oval Office “it was standard practice not to pay for things” is now sponsoring his own version of a Balanced Budget Amendment. As Hatch declared last week : “A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution’s time has more than come.” No, it hasn’t. A Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea whose time should never come. And to use it to hold America hostage over the debt ceiling is beyond dangerous. It’s suicidal. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Wall Street Journal ( Click here for larger image ) The national debt of the United States tripled under Ronald Reagan and doubled again under George W. Bush. Bush and the GOP Congress cut taxes during wartime , a first in modern American history. During his presidency, Republicans voted seven times to increase the debt ceiling. As Utah Senator Orrin Hatch in 2009 described Republican orthodoxy under Republican presidents, “It was standard practice not to pay for things.” But that was then and this is now. And now with a Democrat in the White House, Hatch and his Republican colleagues are demanding passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition of raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Whether that blackmail is paid or not, either way the result would be a catastrophe for the United States. The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) gambit is just the latest chapter in the Republican saga of “America Held Hostage.” Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that “not a single one of the 47 Republicans will vote to raise the debt ceiling unless it includes with it some credible effort to do something about our debt.” McConnell then upped the ante : Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned on Friday that GOP senators will not vote to increase the government’s borrowing limit unless President Barack Obama agrees to rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, laying down a high-stakes marker just weeks before the debt ceiling is reached. Now, as Human Events and Politico reported Friday, America’s Republican captors are threatening the shut down the government and undermine the full faith and credit of the United States if their demands for a “Starve the Beast” amendment are not met: The Senate Republicans are preparing to tell President Obama that they want a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution passed in Congress in exchange for raising the statuary debt ceiling above $14.2 trillion. “My hope is that we would force a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition to voting on the debt ceiling,” Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) told HUMAN EVENTS. “By next week, or shortly thereafter, we will have all 47 Republicans unified behind the effort, and then begin to reach out to our Democratic colleagues.” A BBA would force the federal government to balance the federal spending to incoming revenue each year and cap spending at 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP). For the current Fiscal Year (FY 2011), the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that government spending will be $1.4 trillion more than revenue and account for almost 25% of the GDP. Of course, the GOP BBA is a recipe for disaster. If codified, Republican grandstanding on the budget would not only mean draconian cuts in government services. The fragile U.S. recovery would be stopped dead in its tracks. As a matter of simple math, balancing President Obama’s proposed FY 2012 budget would mean slashing $1.6 trillion from a $3.7 trillion spending request. That inevitably would devastate federal programs across the board. As this now-dated diagram of the 2011 budget below illustrates, you simply can’t get there from here without raising taxes . Taking interest on the debt and defense spending off the table (as most Republicans insist) means cutting over half of everything else the federal government does . And that includes Social Security and Medicare. Just as important, setting 18% of GDP as a target for both tax revenue and spending is both arbitrary and unrealistic. As the chart at the top shows, over the last 30 years federal spending dipped to 18% only during the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton. It never dropped below 21% during the tenure of supposed small government advocate Ronald Reagan. As for revenue, the CBO among others reported that the combination of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and the recession which started in 2007 drove total federal taxes as a percentage of the U.S. economy at their lowest level since 1950. Making matters worse, in December Republicans demanded another $140 billion windfall for the wealthy as their price for continuing tax relief for everyone else. (More galling still, in February the GOP’s Jim Demint (R-SC) and Mike Pence (R-IN) proposed legislation which would make the Bush tax cust permanent beginning in 2013 – and drain another $4 trillion from the U.S. Treasury over the ensuing decade.) At a time of war and economic recovery, government should be high – certainly well above 18%. And as the economic recovery progresses, the government should and must raise taxes to reduce future deficits and to pay off what will be a $3 trillion tab for the nation’s unfunded wars. But the various versions of the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment would make the necessary virtually impossible . While both the House and Senate versions allow for the federal government to run deficits in wartime, both chambers would require a three-fifths vote to suspend the spending limit and balanced budget requirement ” “when the U.S. is engaged in military conflict which causes imminent and serious military threat to national security and declared by a joint resolution that is approved by a three-fifths vote of each House of Congress.” Even more onerous: Furthermore, the Senate BBA prevents future Congresses from raising taxes in order to meet the requirements of the balanced budget by stipulating that any bills with tax increases will need two-thirds votes in both chambers. For his part, Senator Cornyn (R-TX) acknowledged his party’s latest ransom demand over the debt ceiling is a political ploy. Despite some Democratic support in the past (including from then Senator Joe Biden), the BBA is not going to get through the Senate and may not even come up for a vote. And that’s just fine with John Cornyn: “If, for some reason, the Balanced Budget Amendment were not to pass, I think the voters would then know, with very stark clarity, who is for a balanced budget and who is not, and it could have a big impact on the 2012 elections.” Of course, if for some reason Republicans follow through on their blackmail regarding the debt ceiling, the results would be cataclysmic. While the specter of a global financial cataclysm caused by the default of the United States caused most sentient mammals to denounce that prospect as “insanity” (Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee ), resulting in “severe harm” (McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi ), “financial collapse and calamity throughout the world” (Senator Lindsey Graham ), “financial disaster” (House Speaker John Boehner ), Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republican colleagues are determined to continue with the game of chicken. Apparently, American fiscal suicide is a small price to pay for political power. Meanwhile, the same Orrin Hatch who admitted that when a Republican sat in the Oval Office “it was standard practice not to pay for things” is now sponsoring his own version of a Balanced Budget Amendment. As Hatch declared last week : “A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution’s time has more than come.” No, it hasn’t. A Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea whose time should never come. And to use it to hold America hostage over the debt ceiling is beyond dangerous. It’s suicidal. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Wall Street Journal ( Click here for larger image ) The national debt of the United States tripled under Ronald Reagan and doubled again under George W. Bush. Bush and the GOP Congress cut taxes during wartime , a first in modern American history. During his presidency, Republicans voted seven times to increase the debt ceiling. As Utah Senator Orrin Hatch in 2009 described Republican orthodoxy under Republican presidents, “It was standard practice not to pay for things.” But that was then and this is now. And now with a Democrat in the White House, Hatch and his Republican colleagues are demanding passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition of raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Whether that blackmail is paid or not, either way the result would be a catastrophe for the United States. The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) gambit is just the latest chapter in the Republican saga of “America Held Hostage.” Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that “not a single one of the 47 Republicans will vote to raise the debt ceiling unless it includes with it some credible effort to do something about our debt.” McConnell then upped the ante : Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned on Friday that GOP senators will not vote to increase the government’s borrowing limit unless President Barack Obama agrees to rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, laying down a high-stakes marker just weeks before the debt ceiling is reached. Now, as Human Events and Politico reported Friday, America’s Republican captors are threatening the shut down the government and undermine the full faith and credit of the United States if their demands for a “Starve the Beast” amendment are not met: The Senate Republicans are preparing to tell President Obama that they want a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution passed in Congress in exchange for raising the statuary debt ceiling above $14.2 trillion. “My hope is that we would force a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition to voting on the debt ceiling,” Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) told HUMAN EVENTS. “By next week, or shortly thereafter, we will have all 47 Republicans unified behind the effort, and then begin to reach out to our Democratic colleagues.” A BBA would force the federal government to balance the federal spending to incoming revenue each year and cap spending at 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP). For the current Fiscal Year (FY 2011), the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that government spending will be $1.4 trillion more than revenue and account for almost 25% of the GDP. Of course, the GOP BBA is a recipe for disaster. If codified, Republican grandstanding on the budget would not only mean draconian cuts in government services. The fragile U.S. recovery would be stopped dead in its tracks. As a matter of simple math, balancing President Obama’s proposed FY 2012 budget would mean slashing $1.6 trillion from a $3.7 trillion spending request. That inevitably would devastate federal programs across the board. As this now-dated diagram of the 2011 budget below illustrates, you simply can’t get there from here without raising taxes . Taking interest on the debt and defense spending off the table (as most Republicans insist) means cutting over half of everything else the federal government does . And that includes Social Security and Medicare. Just as important, setting 18% of GDP as a target for both tax revenue and spending is both arbitrary and unrealistic. As the chart at the top shows, over the last 30 years federal spending dipped to 18% only during the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton. It never dropped below 21% during the tenure of supposed small government advocate Ronald Reagan. As for revenue, the CBO among others reported that the combination of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and the recession which started in 2007 drove total federal taxes as a percentage of the U.S. economy at their lowest level since 1950. Making matters worse, in December Republicans demanded another $140 billion windfall for the wealthy as their price for continuing tax relief for everyone else. (More galling still, in February the GOP’s Jim Demint (R-SC) and Mike Pence (R-IN) proposed legislation which would make the Bush tax cust permanent beginning in 2013 – and drain another $4 trillion from the U.S. Treasury over the ensuing decade.) At a time of war and economic recovery, government should be high – certainly well above 18%. And as the economic recovery progresses, the government should and must raise taxes to reduce future deficits and to pay off what will be a $3 trillion tab for the nation’s unfunded wars. But the various versions of the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment would make the necessary virtually impossible . While both the House and Senate versions allow for the federal government to run deficits in wartime, both chambers would require a three-fifths vote to suspend the spending limit and balanced budget requirement ” “when the U.S. is engaged in military conflict which causes imminent and serious military threat to national security and declared by a joint resolution that is approved by a three-fifths vote of each House of Congress.” Even more onerous: Furthermore, the Senate BBA prevents future Congresses from raising taxes in order to meet the requirements of the balanced budget by stipulating that any bills with tax increases will need two-thirds votes in both chambers. For his part, Senator Cornyn (R-TX) acknowledged his party’s latest ransom demand over the debt ceiling is a political ploy. Despite some Democratic support in the past (including from then Senator Joe Biden), the BBA is not going to get through the Senate and may not even come up for a vote. And that’s just fine with John Cornyn: “If, for some reason, the Balanced Budget Amendment were not to pass, I think the voters would then know, with very stark clarity, who is for a balanced budget and who is not, and it could have a big impact on the 2012 elections.” Of course, if for some reason Republicans follow through on their blackmail regarding the debt ceiling, the results would be cataclysmic. While the specter of a global financial cataclysm caused by the default of the United States caused most sentient mammals to denounce that prospect as “insanity” (Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee ), resulting in “severe harm” (McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi ), “financial collapse and calamity throughout the world” (Senator Lindsey Graham ), “financial disaster” (House Speaker John Boehner ), Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republican colleagues are determined to continue with the game of chicken. Apparently, American fiscal suicide is a small price to pay for political power. Meanwhile, the same Orrin Hatch who admitted that when a Republican sat in the Oval Office “it was standard practice not to pay for things” is now sponsoring his own version of a Balanced Budget Amendment. As Hatch declared last week : “A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution’s time has more than come.” No, it hasn’t. A Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea whose time should never come. And to use it to hold America hostage over the debt ceiling is beyond dangerous. It’s suicidal. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …During the 2008 presidential campaign one Fox News executive repeatedly tried to smear Barack Obama with charges of “socialism.” Liberal watchdog group Media Matters has uncovered audio that indicates Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon was just engaging in what he called “mischievous speculation.” In 2009, Sammon told an audience aboard Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college that his 2008 attempt to link Obama to socialism was “a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched.” “Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, ‘spread the wealth around,’” Sammon said. “At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched.” During the 2008 campaign, the then-Washington deputy managing editor repeatedly suggested that Obama had socialist tendencies. On Oct. 14, 2008, Sammon said that Obama’s comment to Joe Wurzelbacher “is red meat when you’re talking to conservatives and you start talking about ‘spread the wealth around.’ That is tantamount to socialism.” In early February, Media Matters obtained an email where Sammon offered talking points to Fox News staff, linking Obama to socialism and Marxism during the 2008 campaign. “If Fox News really cares about its ‘reporting,’ they will fire DC exec Bill Sammon over this,” former MSNBC anchor David Shuster tweeted Tuesday. “These remarks, unearthed by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters, raise the question of whether Sammon, who oversees Washington news coverage for Fox News, was deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic presidential candidate,” The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz noted . In another e-mail obtained by Media Matters, Sammon told his staff to downplay the importance of climate science that showed the world was getting warmer. Additional emails showed that Sammon asked his news department to refer to the public option as the “government run option” because polls showed the phrase “government option” was opposed by the public.
Continue reading …