3:15 P.M. EDT

DR. BIDEN:  Thank you, Patty, for that warm introduction and for all you do for military families, and especially the children.  I always love seeing you, and I’m so delighted to see you here today.  Thank you.

Good afternoon.

AUDIENCE:  Good afternoon.

DR. BIDEN:  It’s so nice to see so many friends here.  I’m Jill Biden, and I’m a proud military mom and grandmom.  And it’s a special honor to welcome you all to the White House today.

This has been quite a week, hasn’t it?  (Laughter.)  Yesterday I joined my husband at the Pentagon to commemorate the victims of the attacks on 9/11.  None of us will ever forget that day.  But the heroic actions in Pakistan earlier this week reminded all Americans of the extraordinary courage that our military service members and their families demonstrate on a daily basis.

On Sunday night, as I was -- after the President made his announcement, I was -- it was late, and I was outside waiting for my husband.  I had on my bathrobe, and I was sitting on the steps of our residence, and I could hear in the distance -- because there were so many people that were outside -- and I could hear them at the gates that opened to our driveway, and there were people there singing, “God Bless America.”  And it really just renewed what we all know -- just really -- it just brought this country together.  And I think it was such a great feeling.

We and the entire nation are so proud of all of you.
Michelle and I are thrilled to have you here at the White House today as we express the thanks of our entire nation for those who serve.  You are all heroes -- from the moms who keep their families together while your loved ones are serving overseas, to the grandparents who step in with much needed support, to the siblings and children who are strong and brave while mom or dad is away.

Just last month I attended a deployment ceremony where I met some folks I now call, “The Grandparents.”  Both parents of three children under the age of 10 were deploying, and these grandmothers decided to circle the wagons and take care of those children.  What a relief it is for those parents to know that their children are being taken care of by their grandparents, and what a gift to the children to be surrounded by love while both of their parents are deployed.

Last summer, I traveled to Iraq with my husband, Joe, to visit our troops during the Fourth of July.  I had lunch with several female soldiers, many of whom were mothers.  These women were managing all the challenges of parenting  -- arranging health care, childcare, and education -- thousands and thousands of miles away from their homes and loved ones.

One woman across the table fought back tears as she told me that she was missing out on taking her youngest daughter to college.  I was at a loss for words.  All I could do at that moment was just reach across that table and grab her hand.

Michelle and I have both been struck by these women fiercely proud to serve their country and never complaining, but still struggling with some of the everyday challenges we all face in managing a home and a family.

You here today, and all the women we have met in our travels, are doing your part.  The government is working hard to do its part.  And each American also has the ability to make a difference in the life of a military family.  That’s what our Joining Forces initiative is all about.

And now, it’s my honor and privilege to introduce a woman who is doing her part as a strong leader and a constant advocate for our service members, veterans, and military families.  I have had the privilege of traveling with our First Lady to meet military families across this country, and I’ve seen firsthand how committed she is to doing everything she can to support them.  I feel so fortunate to have her as a partner in this effort and to have her as my dear friend -- our First Lady, Michelle Obama.  (Applause.)

MRS. OBAMA:  Thank you, everyone.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you all so much.  Please rest, enjoy the tea.  Welcome to the White House.  Isn’t this great?  It’s fabulous.  (Applause.)  And everyone looks amazing.  (Laughter.)  It’s like a room full of bursting flowers.  And we have our little ladies -- you guys have your pinkies up, everyone’s pinkies up?  (Laughter.)  Or something like that.  (Laughter.)

We're delighted to have you here.  Let me start by recognizing my partner in so much -- and I didn’t know that this woman would be not just a partner but a friend, a Blue Star mom herself who has been sending out the call, educating this country long before she stepped into this role, focusing the nation on the sacrifices of the families -- Dr. Jill Biden.  Let’s give her a round of applause.  (Applause.)

And Patty.  Patty has been a tremendous advisor to Jill and I throughout this entire process, and she is amazing and knowledgeable, and she is going to be a critical component of Joining Forces.  And we are so proud of her and her service.  Let’s give Patty a hand.  (Applause.)

And finally, I want to thank all of you.  Thank you.

I know it’s pretty exciting to be having tea at the White House in the East Room.  But believe it or not, we are just as excited, and probably more excited, to have you all here.  I mean, it is really -- we love you all.  We really, really do.  And that’s because over the last two years, as Jill said, we have been inspired by all of you in so many ways.  Spending time with our men and women in uniform and their families has been the highlight of our work in these roles.

We’ve been moved by your strength and your spirit, by your courage and, more importantly, by your sacrifice.  And as you have opened your arms and your hearts to me -- which you have so fully, and I feel it and I know it.  I'm not a Blue Star mom or a Gold Star mom, but you all have scooped me up in ways that I wouldn’t have imagined.

You’ve also opened my eyes to what being part of a military family is truly all about.  You’ve shown me what it takes for one parent to do the job of two -- juggling the carpools and the soccer practices on top of many of you handling the work of a full-time job and all the rest that goes into running a household; caring for a loved one who’s been injured, or mourning a spouse or a child who never made it home.

And I know that there are people in the room today who feel a little sad because this Mother’s Day is a little less than what you’d hope.  And all we can do is hug you and tell you that we are thinking and praying and working for you all, and we are proud of you.  And some of you are, as Jill said, grandparents caring for a grandchild.  And others of you have served in uniform yourselves.

You’ve shown us what it takes to be a military child, many of you -- changing and leaving friends behind every few years; trying to keep up with homework and activities; and trying to lead the life of a normal kid while worrying about a parent or a sibling who is in harm’s way.  And as Jill reminded us just this past week, as Americans everywhere stood in awe at the bravery of the soldiers who carried out that daring operating in Pakistan, it was also a moment for all of us to remember that everyone who serves is able to do so because of the love and support of their families.

And what you do is not easy.  I won’t even say it’s not always easy.  I don’t think it’s ever easy.  I know that every day you deal with things that most of us can only imagine.  But I also know that along with incredible challenges come incredible strength.  That's something else that I know from you all.

Roseanna Yamashita and her daughter Tyler are some of you who know what I’m talking about.  With a father serving in the army, Tyler is only a junior in high school, but she’s already attended 10 schools on three continents.  And next year, the Yamashitas are moving to Germany.  But Tyler and Roseanna never complain -- as none of you do.  They know it’s part of serving their country.

And then there’s Helen Norberg and her daughter Julia.  They know a thing or two about what I’m talking about.  When Julia had to deploy to Iraq, Helen was there every day to help take care of their three-year-old grandson Isaiah.  She enrolled him in gymnastics, probably just to settle him down.  (Laughter.)  She took him to his first dentist appointment.  And since the only time Julia and Isaiah could speak was during the day, Helen would often leave work, drive to Isaiah’s school with her cell phone, just so he could hear his mom’s voice.

And then, last year as Julia’s deployment was coming to an end, Helen’s house was destroyed by a tornado.  Helen jumped on top of Isaiah to protect him.  She broke two vertebrae in her back.  When the storm died down, Isaiah had nothing but a small scratch on his arm.  And as Julia said, she has been the best grandmother and mother any soldier could ask for.  (Applause.)

And there are stories like this at every table, in every one of your households, in every one of your lives.  I know that.  These are only examples of what you live every day.  So make no mistake about it, even if you’re not the ones wearing the uniform, every single one of you is serving our country.  And every single one of you deserves our support -- not just with words, but with deeds.  Now, words are good.  They help.  Deeds are better.  (Laughter.) Real concrete actions that make a difference for you at your workplaces, in your schools, and in your communities.

And that’s why last month, Jill and I -- with Patty’s help and so many others -- we started Joining Forces, a nationwide campaign to rally this country to recognize, honor, and support our military families.  We’re joining forces across this country, and we’re calling on all Americans to ask themselves just one simple question:  How can I give back to these families who have given me so much?

We’re joining forces across the federal government, building on over 50 commitments that departments and agencies have made for how they can better serve military families.  We’re going to be joining forces with cities and states, encouraging them to adopt policies that will help you all.

We’re joining forces with organizations like the national PTA and the Military Child Education Coalition, to improve school outreach to military kids.  We’re joining forces with businesses and nonprofits, getting commitments from companies like Walmart and Sears to help military spouses find and keep jobs.

And we’re joining forces with families and communities.  We’re urging people to do whatever they can as neighbors, colleagues, and classmates to lend a hand to military families.

We believe that this is what you deserve from us, because showing our gratitude to those who serve our nation whether it’s on the battlefield or at home, is something that every single American can do.  And it’s something that every single American should do.

So, to everyone here, I just want to say thank you.  This is a very small way to say thank you.  Thank you for your strength, your commitment.  Thank you for setting an example for the rest of us.  It has been such a pleasure getting to meet all of you.

So let’s stop crying -- because I’m about to cry again.  (Laughter.)  Let’s just stop now.  (Laughter.)  And remember, it is Mother’s Day.  So today is a non-“Let’s Move!” day.  (Laughter.)  Eat all the cookies you want.  (Applause.)  And enjoy this weekend.  Continue to take care of each other.  We love you.  We are proud of you.  And we will keep working.

So thank you all.  Take care.  (Applause.)

END
3:30 P.M. EDT

Zero for 93,000. That was the government's terrorism conviction record resulting from several preventive immigration measures that targeted citizens of principally Arab- and Muslim-majority nations. At the heart of these efforts stood the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System NSEERS.

Last Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made a long-overdue announcement indefinitely suspending NSEERS, which singled out immigrant men and boys from designated countries for extraordinary registration requirements with DHS, ranging from an extra half-hour of screening on arrival, through tracking of whereabouts while in the United States, to limitations on points of departure. Repeatedly condemned by the United Nations' Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, NSEERS mandated ethnic profiling on a scale not seen in the United States since Japanese-American internment during World War II and the "Operation Wetback" deportations to Mexico of 1954. Former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner James Ziglar was right in his appraisal of NSEERS, which the ACLU opposed from day one. Ziglar described NSEERS as a "disruption in our relationships with immigrant communities and countries that we needed help from" after 9/11, and lamented that it "caused us to use resources in the field that could have been much better deployed."

Although NSEERS was conceived as a program to prevent terrorist attacks, among the tens of thousands of people forced to register, the government did not achieve a single terrorism-related conviction. NSEERS proved completely ineffective as a counterterrorism tool while failing to give proper notice to many of its targets and often violating their right to counsel. This led to the deportations of thousands of men and boys from Arab- and Muslim-majority countries for civil immigration violations that were frequently based simply on a failure to understand NSEERS' arcane rules.

Consider the case of Imad Daou, a 31-year-old Lebanese national who came to the United States lawfully in June 2003, traveling abroad for the first time. He enrolled in graduate studies at Texas A&M International University, specializing in information systems. Daou was a top student and became engaged to a Mexican-American MBA classmate. Returning from a visit to Mexico to see his fiancée's family, Daou was detained for two months and subsequently deported for his failure to register under NSEERS.

In addition to creating a labyrinth of misunderstood rules, the government made mistakes in its enforcement of NSEERS. Abdulameer Yousef Habeeb, a refugee from Iraq, was lawfully admitted to the United States after suffering imprisonment and torture by Saddam Hussein's regime. Habeeb was on a train from Seattle to Washington, D.C., to start a new life when Border Patrol agents singled him out for questioning without any individualized suspicion. As a refugee, Habeeb was not required to register with NSEERS, but when he showed the border agents his refugee documentation, the agents insisted—incorrectly—that he was in violation of NSEERS' registration requirements. Detained for a week, Habeeb lost his job. Habeeb was terrified of being returned to Iraq, yet the government stubbornly continued deportation proceedings for six weeks. Ultimately, after the ACLU filed suit, Habeeb won an apology from the government stating: "[T]he United States of America acknowledges that, by not registering under NSEERS, you did nothing wrong [and] regrets the mistake."

While the ACLU applauds DHS's announcement suspending NSEERS, it is only a first step. Discriminatory enforcement is illegitimate and its effects must be corrected. Yet DHS's suspension of the NSEERS program didn't even merit a posting on DHS's website, much less a plan to communicate with those harmed by NSEERS. Tellingly, DHS justified NSEERS' suspension only on efficiency grounds, stating that all NSEERS information is now collected from other sources, and completely glossed over the program's civil liberties costs. DHS chose merely to delist designated countries, leaving the door open for renewed registration in the future. The dormant NSEERS regulations therefore now stand as an agency equivalent to the Supreme Court's Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American internment during World War II, which also remains on the books.

The federal government should promptly take every available step to reverse adverse immigration consequences that resulted for individuals because of NSEERS, including wrongful deportations and denied benefits. The failed NSEERS program has rightly been suspended at long last, but not before it inflicted misery upon tens of thousands and weakened the United States' commitment to the principles of equality and due process. DHS must now work to remedy these injustices and avoid repeating them in its other enforcement initiatives.

Learn more about immigrants' rights: Subscribe to our newsletter, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Bin Ladin is supposedly dead. A million plus terrorists to go.

The death of Bin Ladin ends the war on terrorism the same way the capture of Saddam ended war in Iraq.

Now that Bin Ladin is supposedly dead, expect Qaddaffi to attempt to regain his crown as king of all terrorists.

Bin Ladin's compound is surrounded by 18 foot walls. Can't help but admire his taste in architecture and real estate.

Bin Ladin is said to have died amongst his wives and children.  Given enough time, Albert Mohler and radical homeschoolers will eventually speak more highly of this mass murderer than Christian singles that have never married.

Obama says Bin Ladin was a mass murderer of Muslims. What about the Christian and Jewish victims of Islamist terrorism?

Obama insisting that Bin Ladin is a murderer of Muslims without referencing victims of other religions will certainly assure America that the President is a Christian and not a Muslim as he insists.

Interesting news of Bin Ladin's death announced on a Communistic/occultuc holiday.
Guess Bin Ladin was given up as a Beltane offering by globalist elites.  An article linked to on the Drudge Report points out Hitler also declared dead on a May 1. The dark hidden powers of this earth must demand the sacrifice of their favorites on Beltane.

Mark these words: don't know of what ideology the character will be; but 66 years from now on this very day, the world will be celebrating the death of another figure that will be considered the great blight of that era in history. Hence forward, that proclamantion shall be heralded as the Meekins Prediction.

Bin Ladin's wives taken into custody. US will likely dish out larger social security checks to them than the average American under 45 will ever see

Bin Ladin's body was disposed of in compliance with Islamic customs. It should have been dragged down the street by a wagon pulled by pigs driven by Hooters girls and then buried in women's underwear.

If Osama really wasn't a legitimate Muslim as Obama insists, why was Bin Ladin's body treated in accordance with Islamic custom?

At least Bin Ladin had a body of dispose of. That's more than the families of 9/11 victims were given.

Wonder if the federal government was as respectful of the killed Branch Davidians or the Randy Weaver family.

If Bin Ladin is supposedly buried at sea, what proof do we have that he is really dead?

Fifty years from now, some History channel producer will make a fortune broadcasting documentaries whether or not Bin Ladin actually perished at the hands of American military personnel.

Apparently not one dumb ass in the White House realized chucking Bin Ladin overboard is going to contribute to the greatest conspiracy theory of the 21st century?

Feeding whoever it was captured quickly to the sharks certainly cuts out the possibility for independent verification.

Even in attempting to do something on behalf of the United States, Obama has to insert his nose into the rear ends of the ragheads

I guess Daniel Pearl's and Nick Berg's severed heads were treated with all the respect due the adherents of the Western monotheistic tradtions.

Those turned off by the "celebrations" regarding Bin Ladin's demise should be asked their opinion of the Palestinians celebrations that erupted regarding 9/11.

Bin Ladin is supposedly dead. As any comic book or history reader knows, this is just the opening chapter of the next story.

Wasn't Megatron buried at sea in the first live-action Transformers movie. Look how long that lasted. More than one alleged supervillian popped back from his alleged demise.  In the 1980's G.I.Joe comic, readers thought Cobra Commander had been murdered but wasn't.  Lex Luthor cloned an entirely new body which he downloaded his consciousness into.

I guess a burial at sea is appropriate for Bin Ladin. He'll need all the water he can get where he's at most likely.

Bin Ladin, whom Obama insists isn't a real Muslim, was given Islamic burial at sea. Often, naval regulations forbid actual Christians from praying in the name of Christ.

If WWII era Italians had all these qualms about respecting a tyrant's body and such, they'd still be living under Mussolini's Fascism.

Shouldn't our border have been secured before removing Bin Ladin unless globalists in office are hoping the death of Bin Ladin will result in mass retaliation?

God might have loved Bin Ladin, but Bin Ladin hated both God and free society to such an extent that he was no longer worthy of the protections of either.

In pointing to the death of Bin Ladin as "an example of what Americans can do when united", social engineers are laying the conceptual framework to have stigmatized as the next Bin Ladin those that disagree with expanded welfare programs and curtailed constitutional liberties.  Apart from killing terrorists, there isn't all that much Americans need to be of the same mind of in terms of being imposed by centralized authorities.

One of the lessons to learn from the Bin Ladin incident is that, given the chance, your wife will ultimately be the one to rat you out.

by Frederick Meekins

Al-Qaida pulled off the Sept. 11 attacks for approximately $500,000, according to the 9/11 Commission report. By the end of fiscal 2011 the U.S. will have spent $1.3 trillion, or 9% of the national debt, fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq according to the Center for Defense Information.

But when it's all said and done the total cost of the wars will make Bin Laden's 2,514,000:1 return at the time of his death multiply dramatically. It has been projected by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and others that the lifetime cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will run to approximately $3 trillion, or over 20% of current federal public debt, when long-term medical care for the wounded and other costs are factored.

Bringing Bin Laden at long last to justice represents a real victory, and since 9/11 Al Qaeda has not executed a successful terrorist attack on American soil. However, in assessing the economic war Al Qaeda has conducted against the U.S. one can't help but conclude that Osama bin Laden has received fantastic bang-for-the-buck.

“We, alongside the mujahedeen,” bin Laden was reported to have said in a speech delivered right before the 2004 presidential election, “bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw [from Afghanistan] in defeat. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”

“Every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs,” he added.

How Do You Bring Down The Most Powerful Nation in History?

In his biographies of the Rothschild banking dynasty, as well as The Cash Nexus and The Ascent of Money, Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson makes a strong case that a nation's ability to borrow in the bond market is a reflection, and perhaps key wellspring, of the state's power.

For example, the British Empire's ability to borrow more, and at cheaper rates of interest, was key in  its defeat of Napoleonic France. In contrast, her crippling post-WWII debt signaled the dawning of a new era for Britain which consisted of economic malaise, military impotency, and periods of currency instability which resulted in dramatic devaluations of pound sterling in both 1949 and 1967.

Today the U.S. Treasury market is the deepest, most liquid bond market in the world. It also serves as a cornerstone of the U.S. dollar's privileged reserve currency status. In times of panic, as we saw in the 2008 financial crisis, the world flees other assets for U.S. dollar denominated securities such as T-bills.

Whether or not the U.S.'s bond market is in fact the key pillar of American power is open to debate. What is irrefutable, however, is that displacing the dominant role played by the U.S. dollar and treasuries in the world's financial system would deal a huge, perhaps even mortal, blow to what remains of America's hegemonic power.

There are perhaps several different approaches, but one surefire way to weaken a nation state's currency and ability to borrow is for its government to run persistently large deficits, just as the U.S. has done for the past decade.

Whether Osama bin Laden's professed-in-2004 original aim for 9/11 was to entice America into engaging in protracted and costly Eurasian wars is revisionist history or the fact is unclear. Regardless, Al Qaeda deserves at least some of the credit for the U.S.'s large deficits, crippling debt load, and rapidly weakening currency.

For the latest in politics, visit Politics. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Bloomberg News - (Bloomberg) - Investors who bought stocks as Europe's credit crisis spread, Japan battled a nuclear emergency and the U.S. budget deficit swelled to a record are unlikely to view the death of Osama bin Laden as anything but bullish.

His killing in Pakistan may lure more individuals to stocks in coming months, said Thomas Lee, chief U.S. equity strategist for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. in New York. While the attack may create a martyr for terrorists, it will spur traders to sell commodities and buy shares, said Jim O'Neill, chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management in London. The dollar's retreat won't be curbed, said Kathleen Brooks, research director at Gain Capital Group.

Bin Laden's death marked the end of a 10-year manhunt encompassing two global bear markets in stocks that began with the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001. While some strategists attributed only symbolic importance to the operation and U.S. equities fell yesterday, Mr. Lee said investors will reap benefits as confidence in the U.S. and President Barack Obama increases.

Yesterday's market reaction was “basically noise,” Mr. Lee said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's In the Loop with Betty Liu. “It's positive because people have been avoiding stocks because they think they've been risky, and part of it is global security. This is going to basically really boost inflows into stocks.”

U.S. stocks retreated Monday, pulling the Standard & Poor's 500 Index down 0.2% to 1,361.22 after it reached the highest level since June 2008. Yields on 10-year notes fell one basis point, or 0.01 percentage point, to 3.28% at 5:11 p.m. in New York, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader prices, after rising as much as three basis points.

The dollar touched the weakest level in 16 months versus the euro, while oil for June delivery fell 41 cents to settle at $113.52 a barrel in New York.

The benchmark gauge for American equities has rallied 8.3% from this year's low on March 16 as Japan avoided a nuclear meltdown following its biggest earthquake on record. The MSCI All-Country World Index of emerging and developed market stocks has rebounded 10% since March even as Mr. Obama sought $4 trillion in deficit cuts within 12 years and Greek and Irish bond yields increased amid concern over Europe's debt crisis.

Investors added $598.6 billion to mutual funds that purchase debt in the two years ended March 31, compared with $30.6 billion for equities, according to Washington-based Investment Company Institute data. The S&P; 500 has gained 110% including dividends in the past 26 months, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

“It is a positive symbolic gesture for U.S. leadership, and Barack Obama in particular,” said Mr. O'Neill, of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “Of course, beyond this immediate reaction, markets need to be careful as bin Laden has possibly not been the single biggest security threat directly for many years, and those who will regard him as a martyr won't give up as a result of his killing.”

Investors are enjoying the biggest bull market in 54 years after 76% of S&P; 500 companies beat first-quarter earnings projections as the economic recovery continued. Gross domestic product expanded 1.8% in the first quarter. It will rise 3.2% this quarter, and accelerate through the end of the year, according to the median of economists' estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

The S&P; 500 has risen eight straight months when dividends are included, matching its longest streak since 1995, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Gains have come as Obama's Democrats in Congress struggle to find common ground with opposition Republicans on how to reduce the fiscal deficit. U.S. government debt has more than doubled to a record since the 2001 attacks to $14.3 trillion, partly due to spending on military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The rally has driven the VIX, the benchmark index for U.S. stock options that measures the cost of using them as insurance against declines, to three-year lows. The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, as the index is known, fell to 14.62 on April 28, the lowest close since June 2007 and a drop of 50% since this year's peak of 29.40 after Japan's earthquake. It rose 8.4% to 15.99 yesterday, below its 20.36 average during its two-decade history.

“Had this happened in 2009 when the VIX was at 40, we might have seen the market rally 5% and the VIX be down 5 points,” said Jeremy Wien, head of VIX options trading at Peak6 Capital Management in Chicago. “You can't have that here because of where we are. The VIX is already at a level that's so low compared to recent years that it would be hard for it to come in too much more.”

Bin Laden's killing put American and allied officials on guard against possible reprisals as they vowed to maintain the fight against terrorism. CIA Director Leon Panetta said Tuesday in a message to agency employees that bin Laden's death “struck a heavy blow” against al-Qaeda, even as he warned that terrorists “almost certainly will attempt to avenge” the killing.

Eliminating the terror group's leader doesn't affect the rate of expansion in the economy or company profits and won't make North America or Europe any safer, said billionaire investor Kenneth Fisher, who oversees $45 billion at Woodside, Calif.-based Fisher Investments Inc.

“I'd be quite surprised if this has a big impact,” Mr. Fisher said. “Al Qaeda will still be there and we're not becoming any more beloved by the people who hate us, so this isn't going to solve anything. It doesn't change earnings, it doesn't change the economy, and it doesn't make us free from terrorism concerns.”

Optimism spurred by the killing is unlikely to help the dollar rally, according to Ms. Brooks, of Gain Capital in London. Any appreciation is an opportunity for investors to increase bets the currency will decline because the U.S. Federal Reserve is unlikely to raise its target interest rate on overnight loans between banks anytime soon, she said.

“The Fed still dominates financial matters and right now they are on hold, which is proving to be a heady mix for risk, while also weighing on the dollar,” Ms. Brooks said.

Bin Laden's death means financial assets will be more tied to economic data, according to Thomas Caldwell, chief executive officer of Caldwell Securities in Toronto, which manages about $1.05 billion. Reports this week may show factory orders rose in March, the rate of expansion in U.S. service industries increased, and nonfarm payrolls gained for a seventh month, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg.

Killing bin Laden “does show America can reach out and get these people,” Mr. Caldwell said. “It's not going to change the nature of the conflict. It's a positive, it's a bump, but I think markets are taking cues more from the economic things.”

In previous posts, I have discussed bipartisan attempts to find a fiscal policy compromise (here and here), and also Republican plans for closing the budget gap through spending cuts alone (here and here). Today's post turns to the less widely publicized People's Budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. What is there to like about the progressive fiscal plan, and what not to like?

First what I like. On the spending side, the People's Budget does not limit itself to swinging a meat-ax at tiny targets like NPR and AmeriCorps within the 12 percent of the budget that is made up of discretionary nondefense spending. Instead, it goes after some really juicy chunks, including defense. Not just at waste, fraud, and abuse in the military budget, either. It comes right out and proposes an orderly but swift end to the military adventure in Afghanistan, thereby saving something between $400 billion and $1.6 trillion, depending on what baseline you compare it to. But the progressives do not really have a monopoly here. Concerns that the United States has not gotten its money's worth from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly voiced  on the Republican side of the aisle, including like Ron and Rand Paul, Jason Chafitz, and Walter Jones.

Next, the People's Budget takes aim at the nation's infrastructure deficit. As I argued in an earlier post, cutting infrastructure investment below what is needed to cover depreciation, as has been done in many areas, is an illusory way of improving the national balance sheet. What is saved in terms of reduced financial liabilities is offset by more rapid depreciation of real assets like bridges, dams, and power lines. In fact, since deferral of needed maintenance almost always means greater spending later when something breaks, cuts to infrastructure spending often end up making the nation's consolidated balance sheet weaker, not stronger. On the whole, without endorsing every line item, I would count the $1.7 trillion added to infrastructure investment over ten years as a plus for the People's Budget.

On entitlements, the People's Budget recognizes, as every observer must, that any realistic plan for fiscal consolidation must do something about the projected growth of government health care outlays. The Republican budget plan deals with this problem largely by shifting the cost of Medicare from the federal government to senior citizens themselves. There are relatively few cost-saving measures in the Republican plan except for malpractice reform and a vague hope that competition will force costs down in the future, even though it has not done so in the past.

The People's Budget takes cost saving in health care more seriously. Its initiatives include adding a public option to the array of private plans to be offered on health insurance exchanges and allowing the government to bargain with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices. Big insurance companies and big pharmas are terrified of these ideas: They might work!

The experience of countries like France and Germany shows that when a full array of cost-saving strategies are used, it is possible to provide better quality health care at lower cost, and to do so without moving to British-style, single-payer, "socialized medicine." The People's budget picks up some good ideas that have been shown to work elsewhere, although more could be added.

Let's turn now to the revenue side of the People's Budget. Out of $5.6 trillion in projected deficit reduction in the progressive plan, $3.9 billion, or nearly 70 percent, comes from revenue increases. That contrasts with the one-third revenue, two-thirds spending-cut formula of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan, and even more with Republican plans to balance the budget with spending cuts alone.

What disappoints me about the revenue side of the People's Budget is the degree to which it depends on higher marginal tax rates rather than on tax reform. The biggest piece of revenue, an estimated $873 billion, is to come from enacting Representative Jan Schakowsky's Fairness in Taxation Act (HR 1124), which would create several new income tax brackets, ranging from 45 percent on incomes over $1 million to 49 percent for incomes over $1 billion. The second biggest piece, $330 billion, is to come from Senator Bernie Sanders' Responsible Estate Tax Act (S 3533), which introduces estate tax rates up to 65 percent. Some smaller new taxes for the financial sector are added, as well.

The revenue estimates for the tax increases are set out in a technical analysis of the People's Budget prepared by the Economic Policy Institute. Those, in turn, rely on analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation that has not been released to the public. From context, it would appear that we are looking at static estimates, which do not take into account behavioral responses to tax rate changes, in contrast to dynamic estimates, which do. Static scoring tends to overestimate the revenue from tax rate increases, although it is often hard to know by how much.

Popular discussions of dynamic scoring often focus on the idea that corporations and small businesses won't try as hard to innovate and create jobs if their tax rates go up. However, the real damage of higher marginal tax rates comes not from decreased work effort, but from increased efforts to avoid taxes. Given the complexity of the federal tax code, the possibilities for legal tax avoidance are almost limitless. Everyone has heard the horror stories: Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary; the corporate giant General Electric no tax at all.

Tax avoidance does not just reduce revenues; it leads to efficiency-killing distortions when investment decisions or operational strategies are modified to make income from one source look like something else from somewhere else. Raising marginal tax rates only makes the problem worse. Tax reform that keeps marginal tax rates low while closing loopholes is a much better strategy. Reform could raise as much, or more, revenue than boosting rates, while reducing opportunities for tax avoidance rather than increasing them.

 To its credit, the People's Budget does close a few loopholes. For example, it equalizes the tax treatment of capital gains and ordinary income, although it sacrifices potential efficiency gains by raising the marginal rates on both. It leaves most itemized deductions in place, but does take the modest step of capping the degree to which top earners' taxes can be reduced. It eliminates the deductibility of municipal bond interest, although the deduction is replaced with a subsidy to municipal bond issuers that not everyone will like. It broadens the corporate tax base by eliminating oil and gas preferences and taxing foreign corporate income as it is earned, although it leaves the marginal corporate tax rate unchanged at what is already one of the highest in the world.

But these tax reform proposals are half-steps compared with what could have been done, in complete consistency with the progressive agenda. For example, why not repeal the mortgage interest deduction? As I noted in an earlier post, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates the mortgage interest deduction to be worth $5,393 a year for tax units in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (average income $1,302,188) but only $215 per year to those in the middle 20 percent (average income $43,678). For households in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, the deduction has almost no value. Getting rid of the deduction would raise $108 billion in 2012, rising to $162 billion a year by 2019. What keeps the mortgage interest deduction off the progressive hit list? Who knows. Maybe campaign contributions from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.

In all, the People's Budget leaves untouched the entire top half of the dirty-dozen list of tax loopholes. All of those loopholes—from employer-paid health care to mortgage interest to charitable deductions—are regressive in their impact. All of them encourage efficiency-sapping tax avoidance strategies, the effects of which would be even worse if the higher marginal rates of the People's Budget were to be enacted. Collectively, eliminating the top six loopholes could raise close to $500 billion a year in added revenue, enough to pay for a cornucopia of progressive delights.

The bottom line: The People's budget does represent a real alternative to Republican budget plans. It takes on some sacred cows that the Republicans fear to touch, most notably defense spending. It correctly recognizes that cuts to infrastructure investment are false economies that reduce the headline deficit number without really improving the national balance sheet. It also deserves credit for seeing that real cost savings, not just cost shifting, will be needed to make health care affordable.

Finally, the People's Budget is more realistic than Republican plans in recognizing that both spending cuts and revenue increases will be needed to close the budget gap. Sadly, though, the way it seeks added revenue is just plain bad. Its "millionaire's tax" plays to the class warfare instincts of the progressive base, but its efforts fall flat when it comes to tax reform. The People's Budget could have been very much better, and without giving an inch on its progressive principles.

 Follow this link to view or download a short slideshow with graphs, data, and other highlights from the People's Budget.

 

For the latest in politics, visit Politics. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

In previous posts, I have discussed bipartisan attempts to find a fiscal policy compromise (here and here), and also Republican plans for closing the budget gap through spending cuts alone (here and here). Today's post turns to the less widely publicized People's Budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. What is there to like about the progressive fiscal plan, and what not to like?

First what I like. On the spending side, the People's Budget does not limit itself to swinging a meat-ax at tiny targets like NPR and AmeriCorps within the 12 percent of the budget that is made up of discretionary nondefense spending. Instead, it goes after some really juicy chunks, including defense. Not just at waste, fraud, and abuse in the military budget, either. It comes right out and proposes an orderly but swift end to the military adventure in Afghanistan, thereby saving something between $400 billion and $1.6 trillion, depending on what baseline you compare it to. But the progressives do not really have a monopoly here. Concerns that the United States has not gotten its money's worth from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly voiced  on the Republican side of the aisle, including like Ron and Rand Paul, Jason Chafitz, and Walter Jones.

Next, the People's Budget takes aim at the nation's infrastructure deficit. As I argued in an earlier post, cutting infrastructure investment below what is needed to cover depreciation, as has been done in many areas, is an illusory way of improving the national balance sheet. What is saved in terms of reduced financial liabilities is offset by more rapid depreciation of real assets like bridges, dams, and power lines. In fact, since deferral of needed maintenance almost always means greater spending later when something breaks, cuts to infrastructure spending often end up making the nation's consolidated balance sheet weaker, not stronger. On the whole, without endorsing every line item, I would count the $1.7 trillion added to infrastructure investment over ten years as a plus for the People's Budget.

On entitlements, the People's Budget recognizes, as every observer must, that any realistic plan for fiscal consolidation must do something about the projected growth of government health care outlays. The Republican budget plan deals with this problem largely by shifting the cost of Medicare from the federal government to senior citizens themselves. There are relatively few cost-saving measures in the Republican plan except for malpractice reform and a vague hope that competition will force costs down in the future, even though it has not done so in the past.

The People's Budget takes cost saving in health care more seriously. Its initiatives include adding a public option to the array of private plans to be offered on health insurance exchanges and allowing the government to bargain with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices. Big insurance companies and big pharmas are terrified of these ideas: They might work!

The experience of countries like France and Germany shows that when a full array of cost-saving strategies are used, it is possible to provide better quality health care at lower cost, and to do so without moving to British-style, single-payer, "socialized medicine." The People's budget picks up some good ideas that have been shown to work elsewhere, although more could be added.

Let's turn now to the revenue side of the People's Budget. Out of $5.6 trillion in projected deficit reduction in the progressive plan, $3.9 billion, or nearly 70 percent, comes from revenue increases. That contrasts with the one-third revenue, two-thirds spending-cut formula of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan, and even more with Republican plans to balance the budget with spending cuts alone.

What disappoints me about the revenue side of the People's Budget is the degree to which it depends on higher marginal tax rates rather than on tax reform. The biggest piece of revenue, an estimated $873 billion, is to come from enacting Representative Jan Schakowsky's Fairness in Taxation Act (HR 1124), which would create several new income tax brackets, ranging from 45 percent on incomes over $1 million to 49 percent for incomes over $1 billion. The second biggest piece, $330 billion, is to come from Senator Bernie Sanders' Responsible Estate Tax Act (S 3533), which introduces estate tax rates up to 65 percent. Some smaller new taxes for the financial sector are added, as well.

The revenue estimates for the tax increases are set out in a technical analysis of the People's Budget prepared by the Economic Policy Institute. Those, in turn, rely on analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation that has not been released to the public. From context, it would appear that we are looking at static estimates, which do not take into account behavioral responses to tax rate changes, in contrast to dynamic estimates, which do. Static scoring tends to overestimate the revenue from tax rate increases, although it is often hard to know by how much.

Popular discussions of dynamic scoring often focus on the idea that corporations and small businesses won't try as hard to innovate and create jobs if their tax rates go up. However, the real damage of higher marginal tax rates comes not from decreased work effort, but from increased efforts to avoid taxes. Given the complexity of the federal tax code, the possibilities for legal tax avoidance are almost limitless. Everyone has heard the horror stories: Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary; the corporate giant General Electric no tax at all.

Tax avoidance does not just reduce revenues; it leads to efficiency-killing distortions when investment decisions or operational strategies are modified to make income from one source look like something else from somewhere else. Raising marginal tax rates only makes the problem worse. Tax reform that keeps marginal tax rates low while closing loopholes is a much better strategy. Reform could raise as much, or more, revenue than boosting rates, while reducing opportunities for tax avoidance rather than increasing them.

To its credit, the People's Budget does close a few loopholes. For example, it equalizes the tax treatment of capital gains and ordinary income, although it sacrifices potential efficiency gains by raising the marginal rates on both. It leaves most itemized deductions in place, but does take the modest step of capping the degree to which top earners' taxes can be reduced. It eliminates the deductibility of municipal bond interest, although the deduction is replaced with a subsidy to municipal bond issuers that not everyone will like. It broadens the corporate tax base by eliminating oil and gas preferences and taxing foreign corporate income as it is earned, although it leaves the marginal corporate tax rate unchanged at what is already one of the highest in the world.

But these tax reform proposals are half-steps compared with what could have been done, in complete consistency with the progressive agenda. For example, why not repeal the mortgage interest deduction? As I noted in an earlier post, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates the mortgage interest deduction to be worth $5,393 a year for tax units in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (average income $1,302,188) but only $215 per year to those in the middle 20 percent (average income $43,678). For households in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, the deduction has almost no value. Getting rid of the deduction would raise $108 billion in 2012, rising to $162 billion a year by 2019. What keeps the mortgage interest deduction off the progressive hit list? Who knows. Maybe campaign contributions from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.

In all, the People's Budget leaves untouched the entire top half of the dirty-dozen list of tax loopholes. All of those loopholes—from employer-paid health care to mortgage interest to charitable deductions—are regressive in their impact. All of them encourage efficiency-sapping tax avoidance strategies, the effects of which would be even worse if the higher marginal rates of the People's Budget were to be enacted. Collectively, eliminating the top six loopholes could raise close to $500 billion a year in added revenue, enough to pay for a cornucopia of progressive delights.

The bottom line: The People's budget does represent a real alternative to Republican budget plans. It takes on some sacred cows that the Republicans fear to touch, most notably defense spending. It correctly recognizes that cuts to infrastructure investment are false economies that reduce the headline deficit number without really improving the national balance sheet. It also deserves credit for seeing that real cost savings, not just cost shifting, will be needed to make health care affordable.

Finally, the People's Budget is more realistic than Republican plans in recognizing that both spending cuts and revenue increases will be needed to close the budget gap. Sadly, though, the way it seeks added revenue is just plain bad. Its "millionaire's tax" plays to the class warfare instincts of the progressive base, but its efforts fall flat when it comes to tax reform. The People's Budget could have been very much better, and without giving an inch on its progressive principles.

Follow this link to view or download a short slideshow with graphs, data, and other highlights from the People's Budget.

Here is our latest round-up of the more colorful legal settlements made by some US health care organizations.

Cardinal Health

Cardinal Health is a pharmaceutical services company. Per the Kansas City Star:

A pharmaceutical distributor has settled a federal anti-kickback lawsuit by agreeing, in part, to pay $760,000 to former Kansas City Chiefs player Dan Saleaumua and a consultant.

That money is part of an $8 million settlement that Cardinal Health Inc. of Ohio agreed to pay the U.S. government to settle the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleged that Cardinal offered Saleaumua and consultant Kevin Rinne an illegal $440,000 kickback so it could supply prescription drugs to seven Kansas City area Medicine Shoppe pharmacies that Saleaumua owned at the time.

Cerberus Capital Management/ Dyncorp/ Steward Health Care

This will require some explanation. Cerberus Capital Management now owns Steward Health Care, mostly composed of what was formerly known as Caritas Christi hospital system of Massachusetts, and a large group of physician practices now known as Caritas Christi Network Services (see posts here and here). Cerberus Capital Management now also owns DynCorp (see their web-site), which has been called one of the "leading mercenary firms," by an article in the Nation.

As reported by Bloomberg about DynCorp, and hence indirectly about Cerberus, and Steward Health Care:

DynCorp International Inc., the largest U.S. contractor in Afghanistan, agreed to pay $7.7 million to resolve allegations it submitted inflated claims for construction work in Iraq, the U.S. said.

The Justice Department said yesterday that DynCorp and its subcontractor, The Sandi Group, will settle a whistleblower case filed in federal court in Washington. The Sandi Group, accused of submitting false claims on a police-training contract in Iraq, will pay more than $1 million.

'The hard work of stabilizing Iraq is challenging enough without contractors and subcontractors inflating the cost of rebuilding by making false claims at taxpayers’ expense' Assistant Attorney General Tony West, who oversees the department’s civil division, said in an e-mailed statement.

DynCorp inflated the costs of building camps at various locations in Iraq, the U.S. said.

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center is a prestigious medical center. Per the New Hampshire Union-Leader:

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center has settled a case of alleged billing fraud to various federal health programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Affairs.

DHMC, which denied any liability in the matter, agreed to pay $2,227,075. The federal government recovers $1.5 million, Vermont $80,396, and New Hampshire $61,541, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Vermont announced Tuesday.

The investigation began in 2007 following a complaint filed by Dr. Thomas J. Prendergast, who was a physician in the DHMC pulmonary department in Lebanon. The complaint alleged the hospital improperly billed federal health care programs for services performed by resident staff without sufficient supervision by physicians. Regulations allow physicians to bill for certain services by resident staff, but only if the services are performed in the presence of a physician.

The investigation, conducted with the hospital's cooperation, found alleged improper billing in the anesthesiology department, pain clinic and radiology, according to the government. The billings at issue were from 2001 to 2007.

Masonicare

Masonicare is a not-for-profit "senior services provider." Per the Meriden (CT) Record-Journal:

A settlement agreement was reached today where Masonicare Health Center will pay the government almost $450,000 to resolve allegations the facility violated the False Claims Act, according to an announcement from U.S. States Attorney David B. Fein.

Fein explained the allegations against the senior-focused inpatient and outpatient health care facility involved improper billing to Medicare and Medicaid for injections of leuprolide acetate, or Lupron. The medication is used to treat prostate cancer in men and endometriosis and fibroids in women. The billing code for the female-related dosage has a higher reimbursement rate than the code for male-related doses, according to the statement.


The government alleges that Masonicare regularly billed for the female-related code for male patients who were being treated for prostate cancer, so they received a substantially higher reimbursement than it should have received, according to the statement.

Further, the government alleges that in 2009, the company realized it had improperly coded the Lupron injections services but never self-disclosed its improper bulling to the government or made any attempt to pay the money back to the Medicare and Medicaid programs, Fein said.

Summary

So in the last 10 days or so, we have seen legal settlements of charges of kickbacks by a pharmaceutical services provider, submitting inflated claims to the federal government made by a subsidiary of a private equity group which also owns a large hospital system and group of physicians' practices, billing fraud by an academic medical center, and false claims by a senior health care services provider. 

I begin to think that if we keep this blog going long enough, the parade of legal settlements will include the majority of US health care organizations.  Again, such legal settlements serve as markers of the scope of bad behavior by a wide variety of health care organizations, including some of the largest and/or most prestigious, but also including many organizations that work regionally or at the community level.  Bad behavior indicated by these settlements seems so prevalent that it must be an important reason for the chronic problems that afflict US health care, rising costs, diminishing access, and stagnant quality.  However, it still seems to be politically incorrect to discuss such mismanagement, malfeasance and/or corruption as important causes of US health care problems. 

Although sometime in the past there may have been a general societal understanding that health care organizations ought to be held to the highest standards, and ought to be lead by people with the best character and of the best reputation, now one seldom hears an expression of shame when such organizations settle claims alleging fraud, over-billing, etc, etc, etc.

Like nearly all such cases we have previously reported, none of these cases seemed to involve any negative consequences for any persons who authorized, directed, or implemented the questionable acts.  While the fines involved may seem large to ordinary folk, they are not big enough to markedly affect the organizations involved.  So the parade of legal settlements has had little deterrent effect. 

Once again, I say: we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a working lunch with Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa today in Washington, the third such meeting of the Merida High-Level Consultative Group on Bilateral Cooperation Against Transnational Organized Crime. (More on Meridia here and here.) Also in attendance:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of National Drug Policy of the United States Gil Kerlikowske, USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg, Acting Under Secretary of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence of the Treasury David Cohen, and Ambassador of the United States to Mexico Carlos Pascual.

The two governments issued this press release on the meeting and outlined the joint activities for the coming year. Congress has authorized $1.5 billion for Meridia since 2008, most of it for training the Mexican military and law enforcement. (As of December, 2010, $400 million had been provided. Today, the U.S. promised another $500 would be provided in 2011.) [More...]

Under the Merida Initiative, we have put into place an effective bilateral implementation structure that is now accelerating the implementation of our activities. Over $400 million in equipment, training, and capacity-building programs have been delivered, and the Government of the United States is committed to deliver an additional $500 million by the end of 2011. Both Governments welcome this commitment and will work together to ensure its full implementation.

Mexico thinks the U.S. isn't contributing enough money to its war on the cartels.

Washington has pledged just $1.3 billion under the so-called Merida Initiative to help Mexico fight the traffickers. "The Merida Initiative is almost an insult," leading Mexican historian Enrique Krauze told Reuters. "America spends a trillion dollars in Iraq and a hundred million or so on Merida: Beautiful."

"Things aren't moving forward and I have no hope they will. We're looking at ten years of war in Mexico. On our own. The Obama administration has been a huge disappointment for us."

Things don't sound too copacetic between the two Governments:

U.S. attempts to set traps for arms traffickers and money launderers have backfired and Washington has treated Mexico like a "laboratory" for experiments in law-enforcement strategies, former foreign minister Rosario Green wrote in a newspaper column recently.

U.S. officials counter such broadsides by saying Mexico has failed to address rampant corruption in the police and the judiciary, hampering efforts to improve on intelligence sharing.

Meridia apparently is just a drop in the bucket of the $15 billion the U.S. spent on the drug war last year.

White House data shows U.S. federal spending on narcotics control dipped slightly last year to just over $15 billion, even as drug war deaths surged to a record high in Mexico.

Here's the 2012 budget justification for the State Department's Foreign Operations.

The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) request of $1,511.8 million will continue to support country and global programs critical to combating transnational crime and illicit threats, including efforts against terrorist and other criminal networks involved in the illegal drug trade, as well as other illicit enterprises. INCLE programs seek to close the gaps between law enforcement jurisdictions and to strengthen law enforcement institutions that are weak or corrupt.

On a related note:

Benjamin Arellano-Felix, DEA 2002 photo

Benjamin Arellano-Felix, 2011

Was it just a coincidence that just today, 19 years after he became "priority of DEA and Mexican authorities" and 9 years after his arrest in Mexico on an indictment returned in San Diego, Mexico finally got around to handing over Benjamin Arellano Felix? Or was he the price tag for today's meeting and a poster child for what "shared cooperation" by law enforcement can accomplish?

What a tired old trick. In 2009, as part of the new cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico, Miguel Caro Quintero was turned over to the U.S. for prosecution.

We're also funding unmanned drones to track the cartels in Mexico and building new fusion centers.

The demand and availability for drugs is higher than ever. The mammoth expenditures on law enforcement are a waste. The war on drugs in Mexico or anywhere else is not winnable by these strategies. More on that here. Our leaders are tone-deaf. After Mexico, they want to ramp up the war on drugs in Central America.

The U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York patted itself on the back today for its conviction of just 2 of the 4 men charged in the elaborate sting in the DEA African Adventures case. (It lost half the case.) It was a foreign sting that cost millions, had nothing to do with the U.S., and produced no drugs. And just today, some clueless Republicans in Congress called on Hillary Clinton to designate the cartels as "terrorist organization. (Their letter is here.)

Plan Mexico will be another expensive failure. This unwinnable war on drugs is going to bankrupt us. We need to stop, not increase funding for these law enforcement projects with their increased reliance on the military and intrusive electronic surveillance techniques, here and abroad.

News that ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has downgraded its long-term outlook on US Treasury debt should come as no surprise.

For years, Washington has been on a massive spend-a-thon that is now coming back to haunt it.

The United States government is borrowing 40 cents out of every budget dollar it spends and this year will run a mammoth $US1.65 trillion deficit. Add to that decades of overspending by Washington and America’s cumulative federal debt has reached a whopping $14.2 trillion. That figure represents 96 per cent of the $14.8 trillion Gross Domestic Product of the US.

In other words, the US government owes virtually the annual total worth of all goods and services produced by every American company and individual. And that’s not counting another $6.3 trillion in state and local government debt and pension obligations.

Remarkably, military spending plays a relatively minor role in America’s looming sovereign debt crisis. For all its image as a bastion of the free market, the United States has become much more of a welfare state than is commonly perceived. The real culprits in Washington’s fiscal woes are government health and social programs.

Federal and state government payments and subsidies constituted fully one-third of all American wages and salaries paid in 2010. Medicare, the US government healthcare program for senior citizens, consumed 22.5 per cent of GDP that same year.

And as the baby boomer generation continues to retire in record numbers, the cost pressures on Medicare will skyrocket. By contrast, US defence spending - including on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan - constitutes less than 5 per cent of GDP.

The US is clearly on an unsustainable trajectory that is careening towards national insolvency. The $64,000 question that bedevils Washington is what to do about it.

The federal government is currently authorised to borrow a cumulative amount of up to $14.3 trillion. Any increase to this so-called ‘debt ceiling’ must be authorised by Congress.

And driven by its addiction to deficit spending, Washington is on track to bump up against that debt ceiling within a few short weeks. If the borrowing limit is it is not increased through Congressional legislation, the unthinkable will become reality. For the first time in its history, the United States will default on its loan obligations.

Driven by its so-called Tea Party wing, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives intends to use the debt ceiling issue as a lever to exact real and significant cuts to spending. But Obama and Democrats are fighting fiercely to preserve the very social welfare programs that are drowning the US government in red ink.

The president pays lip service to debt reduction, but in reality seeks to balance the books through tax increases on what he’s arbitrarily decided to define as “the wealthy”. Never mind that there aren’t enough people earning over $250,000 in the US to make a serious dent in the deficit.

But as the political haggling goes on in Washington, the clock is ticking towards fiscal Armageddon. And if the politicians can’t summon up the courage to impose the required budget cuts, the only alternative for staving off catastrophe is to reduce the real value of its debt by debasing the US dollar through inflation. Either way, the economic and strategic consequences for the world will be profound.

America’s economic predicament means that its strategic wings will inevitably be clipped. The first instalment of defence cuts came this past January, when $78 billion over five years will be sliced from the $680 billion level spent by the Pentagon in 2010.

But that’s only a casual bit of foreplay to the serious business of getting America’s fiscal house in order. It’s inevitable that far more radical reductions in the US defence budget are in the offing. And in light of that near certainty, it is time for a serious public discussion about what a militarily diminished United States means for Australia.

Since the end of World War II, we’ve enjoyed the benefits of stability provided by a Pax Americana in the western Pacific. Even during the worst Asian flare-ups of the Cold War - Korea and Vietnam - the international sea-lanes upon which Australia is so economically dependent were never threatened.

And as a result, Australia has consistently short-changed its military establishment, getting away this year with spending a paltry 1.8 per cent of GDP on defence.

Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Neil James, executive director of the Australia Defence Association, notes:

“There are three generations of Aussies who’ve grown up under America’s protective wing. They’ve never even had to consider the possibility that one day they might not be able to rely on US strategic supremacy, free of charge.”

But with the United States well down road to economic perdition, Australia can no longer rely on the presumption that America will have our back.

It’s extremely unlikely that a decade hence we’ll see a US Navy of 10 carrier battle groups. Currently projections for US Air Force fleet of 2,400 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will almost certainly never fully materialise.

Costing over $100 million per plane, the F-35 is a real budget buster, as are the new Ford-class aircraft carriers that ring the register at $9 billion a pop. To an increasingly cash-strapped America, they will simply be unaffordable in quantity.

In politics, as in physics, a vacuum will always be filled. And in international affairs, that principle applies with redoubled force. So for Australia the question is who will step in to the breach of strategic equilibrium triggered by the recession of American military power from the Western Pacific.

Will a resurgent China expand its strategic footprint by developing a real blue-water navy? Will Japan, South Korea, India the Philippines and other Asian countries join in coalition to counterbalance the renascent rise of the Middle Kingdom? Or will these nations choose a path of ‘Finlandisation’, opting for neutrality and passive accommodation with their giant neighbour?

These are the questions currently being mooted in Canberra. They form the subtext to the Rudd government’s 2009 Defence White Paper that called for a massive expansion of the Royal Australian Navy and RAAF.

But there are certainties of which we can still be confident, even within the haze of future Rumsfeld-ian ‘unknown unknowns’. Without the intelligence support and military largesse produced by our close alliance with the world’s sole superpower, we’ll have to spend more on our national defence. A lot more.

Australian governments of both major political persuasions will be obliged to fill some of that America-less strategic vacuum with a greatly enhanced Australian Defence Force. On this point, mainstream sentiment within the ALP is in complete agreement with the Coalition.

According to Neil James, the most restrained estimates predict that Canberra’s military spending in such a scenario would need to rise by at least 60 per cent. Other strategic analysts believe that our defence outlay in such circumstances would more than double, or perhaps even triple.

Or course, there’s a great political irony to all this.

In its hatred of all things American, the Left fails to understand that it is the US military umbrella that has enabled Australian governments to spend billions on butter rather than guns. All those schools, hospitals and social welfare programs so beloved of progressives are, in essence, being subsidised by the 82nd Airborne.

So to those who yearn for a humbled and hobbled United States, be careful what you wish for. You may end up getting it after all.

Ted Lapkin is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Affairs.

• Read all responses to this article

Video - Texas Straight Talk - April 18, 2011

AUDIT THE FED - SIGN THE PETITION

--

By Dr. Ron Paul

Congress focused on issues surrounding government spending this week as talk of deficits, the national debt, and the debt limit saturated the airwaves.  This is a positive development.  In years past, there was very little concern over how much was spent here in Washington, how it was spent, or how much of our gross domestic product was being consumed by government.  That blissful ignorance naturally resulted in decades of government spending with impunity, bringing us to where we are today: trillions in debt with astronomical entitlement obligations that will be impossible to fulfill in the not too distant future.  So it is a good thing that there is so much political pressure now on our leaders to actually put the brakes on runaway spending.

However, even the most generous estimate of the spending cut passed this week – $38.5 billion – is a paltry 3.5% of the $1.05 trillion in spending through the next 5 months.  This hardly makes a dent in our government's mountain of debt.  Even worse than that, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stripped away the accounting sleights of hand and scored it as only $352 million in cuts, which works out to less than half of one percent of spending.  Still, the tiniest cut is better than the massive increases we have become accustomed to in federal budgets.

Of course, our disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not even included in this budget as they are considered emergency spending.  They constitute $3.3 billion in spending in the same period of time, so they more than cancel out any small cuts the warmongers may crow about.

I voted against the legislation funding government for the remainder of this year, as well as next year's budget because, as in years past, government spends far too much on unconstitutional programs.  In spite of any rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, a point three percent (0.3%) cut does not suddenly make the rest of the spending constitutional or responsible.  And, if the American people do not continue to hold the politicians' feet to the fire, you can be sure we will see massive spending increases again in the future.

In addition to Congress' spending, many Americans are finally paying attention to the spending done by unelected banking cronies at the Federal Reserve.  Recently the Fed was forced to reveal some details of loans given out during the financial crisis of 2008 and they are truly shocking.  Matt Taibbi points out in a recent Rolling Stone article that two very well-connected Wall Street wives got together and formed a real estate investment company that garnered $220 million in so-called "loans" (free money) from the Fed.  Compare this number to the $352 million in spending cuts the CBO says are in the current budget!  A few months later, one of the wives bought a $13.5 million personal residence with her husband, the CEO of Morgan Stanley. 

The unelected, unaccountable Fed hands out as much or more money this way as our federal government spends, and yet receives hardly any attention.  This is why I believe transparency of the Fed is a critical step to regaining control of our financial situation in this country.  We can never get meaningful reforms if all eyes are on the $352 million so-called cuts, and transactions like the $220 million given to Wall Street cronies are done in the shadows.  This is why I have reintroduced my Audit the Fed bill to this Congress.  HR 1207 is now HR 459 and is essential to true fiscal reform and responsibility.

##

 

Matt Taibbi's article discussed by Dr. Paul:

Matt Taibbi: The Real Housewives Of Wall Street: How Morgan Stanley Wives Christy Mack & Susan Karches Ripped Off Taxpayers In Geithner-Bernanke Bailout Scheme

 

 

 

 

New page: ==<center>Insurance Vehicle Accident Investigator Jobs</center>== . . . . ==<center>[http://signforcover.com/forum/index.php?topic=y7hMjE3fHwxMzAzMDY4NjY2fHwxOTUyfHwoRU5HSU5FKSBNZWRpYV...

New page

The war in Libya; the limits to empathy; err on the side of safety

Political expediency can make for strange bedfellows, especially on occasions of regime change – be they ethical or unethical (Defections and dilemmas, 8 April). Starting from scratch is doomed to failure; this was the US's recipe for Iraq – a "government in a box", completely disenfranchising the tainted Ba'athists, who despite their politics were talented people.

As the second world war wound down in Italy with General Patton marching north, it became critically necessary to install a bureaucracy with the wherewithal to maintain order and resurrect industries. Oddly enough, the state department turned to Lucky Luciano, capo di tutti capi, who – albeit in federal prison – was still actively running his organisation both in the US and abroad, with extensive networks in Italy and Sicily. As "loyal an American as the next guy", Luciano volunteered his contacts to set up an interim government in return for his own paroling and deportation (and thence to Cuba). Lucky for himself and for the allies, the enterprise ran smooth. Sometimes, in extremis especially where time is the critical factor, realpolitik can work wonders.

R M Fransson

Lakewood, Colorado, US

• Having lived outside the US many years, I appreciate Dave Diss's anger at my country and frequently share it (Reply, 8 April). I write often to my president and representatives in government. As an Australian, whose country is also involved in this warring madness in Libya, I hope Diss is doing the same.

Many Americans are confused about why we are involved in Libya, who the "rebels" are, where this is all supposed to be leading. We are already in two wars too many, and war doesn't solve anything in the long term.

Well-coordinated development aid would do better. But in our current budget crisis, Americans are saying "cut foreign aid" because they don't know better. This is immoral, and any of us who do know and aren't speaking up are the truly irresponsible ones.

Isabel Best

Belmont, Massachusetts, US

• Apologise? Why should we apologise? Don't the Libyans understand we want them to have a democracy just as wonderful as ours: that we're raining missiles and bombs on them, and even-handedly, on rebels too, collaterally, for their own good. A bit like old-style medicine: letting blood in order to improve health. Though of course, western medicine and pharmacology have more effective methods now, which we'll also be providing, after the bombing. Just give us a bit more (blood-letting) time.

John Cadet

Chiang Mai, Thailand

The limits to empathy

What seems to be a single empirical phenomenon may actually have two distinct personality drivers ('Evil' is in reality a lack of empathy, 8 April). Empathy in some may have the same effect as duty for others. But the operating mindsets may be miles apart. Duty done can make one feel good or may have the sense of internalised coercion. Empathy may have another sort of depth and another location in the brain that leads one to be helpful or just keenly share the disturbance – or happiness – of the person or situation observed.

The military must be the prime culture of duty. Empathy may even get in the way. But it is certainly what the world needs more of now.

The concept of "the other" – as Barack Obama is seen by Tea Partyers – seems to set a boundary to empathy, where harm to the other – not only physical pain – is at best a matter of indifference, or just as likely, gives satisfaction in observing or even inflicting it.

One suspects that cultures, subcultures and socialisation may affect where a representative individual fits on Simon Baron-Cohen's bell curve of empathy. What do scientists have to say about that?

Al Edgell

St Louis, Missouri, US

• So the Nazis were guilty of "empathy erosion"? So Nazi Germany was borderline? So "immersion experiments" on Jews in Dachau were part of "unethical research"? Sorry, but I don't buy it. Evil is as evil does, and calling it by another, more "civilised" name is in fact a form of denial.

Some things defy explanation. The Holocaust is one of them.

Alexandra Chapman

Paris, France

Regaining Labour's past

After Labour lost its time-honoured purpose and pampered position as democratic and market-friendly bulwark against evil socialism, the threat of which disappeared in 1990, and after the attempt to gain a new role in the years following by doing neoliberalism better and flashier than the Tories proved self-defeating, time has obviously come for Labour to try to regain its past (It's time to regain the past, 8 April).

But apparently we cannot stop around 1914, but have to go back to the middle ages in search of this past. Labour's newly promoted ideologue Maurice Glassman, hailed by Ed Miliband, sees the deep roots of Labour in the Anglo-Saxon villagers' resistance against the baronial conquest in 1066, and endorses the English village with its communitarian and faith-based values and local anchoring as the ideal to regain. This squares with Madeleine Bunting's call for nostalgia, but—thinking of detective Barnaby's Midsomer – she is probably right in saying that much "could go awry with these ideas".

Still, the notion is completely apt. After global finance capital has been given a free rein, wealth erodes democracy and public institutions are taken over by moneyed elites, the economy more and more comes to resemble the feudalism of yore, with the whole package from absentee landlords and local overseers to indentured servants and serfs. So the protection the village may offer is most welcome, but may we suggest that Robin Hood is deterred as well?

Niels Engelsted

Copenhagen, Denmark

Err on the side of safety

Engineering design conventions involve compromising between the probability of failure and the cost of reducing that probability, in both monetary and humanitarian terms (No schedule for nuclear safety, 1 April). All possible causes and their effects, including interactions, must be considered. In coal-, oil- and gas-fired power plants, the effects of a failure do not greatly affect things beyond the plant boundary and its electrical connections, and this is a valid approach.

Nuclear plants are different. Any failure introduces the possibility of radioactive contamination, and some failures can lead to widespread emissions of waterborne and airborne contaminants that can affect food supplies, among other things, as well as being direct health hazards. The effects can persist for years and affect large areas.

In siting a nuclear power plant a catastrophic failure (worst-case scenario) should always be considered, irrespective of any calculated probability. The location should be selected with a view to minimising the impacts. This approach would eliminate sites such as Fukushima and also the siting of multiple units in close proximity.

It is not clear whether all the existing nuclear facilities meet the proper conditions for siting, but it is not too late to make some realistic evaluations.

D Anson

Worthington, Ohio, US

Briefly

• I'm truly impressed with the positive articles that Guardian Weekly has published over the last year or so, for example, New dawn over Africa and When tyrants are toppled (11 March). Perhaps in response to the surveys filled by readers, the paper has also given its front pages to a great variety of issues from around the world in contrast to a few years ago when we were bombarded with page upon page on the US. Now I read it almost cover to cover.

Wendy Lund

Kitwe, Zambia

• It occurred to me how much I appreciate the Guardian Weekly when I noted in a header for Thomas Sotinel's article When nightmares turn real (1 April) that the word "real" had not been punned "reel" to reflect the content. I for one am heartily ill of this distracting journalistic device.

NH Clarke

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

• It is little wonder that all those apartments in Valdeluz and elsewhere in Spain are empty (8 April). With the poor buggers who own them spending "1,775 hours in the office each month" to quote your side-story, they would never have time to live in them. Even those lazy Germans at 1,432 hours a month must be in the office for nearly 48 hours a day. That alone would be the reason for a low birthrate.

Robert C Keogh

Crawley, Western Australia

• Three cheers for the Dutch (1 April). If this "typically Dutch Lutheran and Calvinist backlash" is what it takes to ban banker bonuses, I'm all for it. What's wrong with the rest of us?

Doug Kittle

Wasa, BC, Canada

• David Willetts, the UK universities minister, says that qualified women are taking jobs away from unqualified men (8 April). What a refreshing change. In all of human history, the reverse has been true.

Connie Brown

Montpelier, Vermont, US

Congress focused on issues surrounding government spending this week as talk of deficits, the national debt, and the debt limit saturated the airwaves.  This is a positive development.  In years past, there was very little concern over how much was spent here in Washington, how it was spent, or how much of our gross domestic product was being consumed by government.  That blissful ignorance naturally resulted in decades of government spending with impunity, bringing us to where we are today: trillions in debt with astronomical entitlement obligations that will be impossible to fulfill in the not too distant future.  So it is a good thing that there is so much political pressure now on our leaders to actually put the brakes on runaway spending.

However, even the most generous estimate of the spending cut passed this week – $38.5 billion – is a paltry 3.5% of the $1.05 trillion in spending through the next 5 months.  This hardly makes a dent in our government's mountain of debt.  Even worse than that, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stripped away the accounting sleights of hand and scored it as only $352 million in cuts, which works out to less than half of one percent of spending.  Still, the tiniest cut is better than the massive increases we have become accustomed to in federal budgets.

Of course, our disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not even included in this budget as they are considered emergency spending.  They constitute $3.3 billion in spending in the same period of time, so they more than cancel out any small cuts the warmongers may crow about.

I voted against the legislation funding government for the remainder of this year, as well as next year's budget because, as in years past, government spends far too much on unconstitutional programs.  In spite of any rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, a point three percent (0.3%) cut does not suddenly make the rest of the spending constitutional or responsible.  And, if the American people do not continue to hold the politicians' feet to the fire, you can be sure we will see massive spending increases again in the future.

In addition to Congress' spending, many Americans are finally paying attention to the spending done by unelected banking cronies at the Federal Reserve.  Recently the Fed was forced to reveal some details of loans given out during the financial crisis of 2008 and they are truly shocking.  Matt Taibbi points out in a recent Rolling Stone article that two very well-connected Wall Street wives got together and formed a real estate investment company that garnered $220 million in so-called "loans" (free money) from the Fed.  Compare this number to the $352 million in spending cuts the CBO says are in the current budget!  A few months later, one of the wives bought a $13.5 million personal residence with her husband, the CEO of Morgan Stanley. 

The unelected, unaccountable Fed hands out as much or more money this way as our federal government spends, and yet receives hardly any attention.  This is why I believe transparency of the Fed is a critical step to regaining control of our financial situation in this country.  We can never get meaningful reforms if all eyes are on the $352 million so-called cuts, and transactions like the $220 million given to Wall Street cronies are done in the shadows.  This is why I have reintroduced my Audit the Fed bill to this Congress.  HR 1207 is now HR 459 and is essential to true fiscal reform and responsibility.

For the latest in politics, visit Politics. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Boehner's Job Is On The Line
• Boehner Warms To Ryan Plan
• A Complete Guide To Obama's Plan To Cut The Deficit

This post originally appeared in The Huffington Post on April 14, 2011 and can be accessed here.

Every night in America, at least 107,000 veterans sleep on the streets. Very few Americans know that one out of every three homeless adults has served in our military -- often during times of war. This means those who have served in defense of our country make up a disproportionate share of those who fall into homelessness. This is unacceptable.

At a time when so much has been asked of members of the armed forces, during the last decade of war and in previous conflicts, these sobering statistics beg the question -- why?

Of the 81 soldiers I led in combat in Iraq, each of us experienced the consequences of war differently. Many of us felt out of touch or disconnected from friends and family who made up our support networks. Others had a hard time finding steady work outside of the military, moving from job to job in search of a greater sense of purpose. Sadly, four of my soldiers struggled with drug or alcohol addiction. Six of my men returned to empty homes or empty bank accounts after their marriages fell apart while they were overseas.

 Unfortunately, these types of struggles aren't at all unique to the soldiers I led. Every day, veterans of all of our nation's conflicts experience similar issues, and all of these challenges are difficult to overcome. When more than one of these challenges occur at the same time, the effects are devastating and can easily result in a veteran ending up on the streets.

For years, the federal government has attempted to address the shameful problem of veteran homelessness. The federal approach has generally come in the form of a litany of rent subsidies, transitional housing programs, job training and placement programs, and grants and vouchers administered through departments such as Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services and Labor, and various other agencies.

This January, President Obama renewed his vow to end veterans' homelessness in the next five years by fostering more cooperation within government and maintaining our nation's financial commitment to solving this challenge.

While the government's efforts are commendable and essential, the best solution to helping veterans transition off the streets is one that also increases the number of Americans engaged in volunteer service around this issue. Whether it's providing an AmeriCorps stipend to veterans or their spouses who wish to serve as part of a Veterans Corps, or encouraging every American to volunteer at their local homeless provider, we can all do more.

Volunteer service in support of ending veteran homelessness is a low-cost solution that harnesses the power of those of us who are willing to honor the service of veterans in need of help in our communities.

President Obama has said, "We have to have zero tolerance for homelessness among our veterans... You've been everything we could ask you to be. You have done your duties, and as a grateful nation, we must do ours."

The government has a role to play in ending veteran homelessness, but so do we as citizens. Reach out to your mayor's office and find out who provides homeless services in your community; spend an evening or a Saturday helping them fulfill their mission. It is time for all of us to step up and serve those who have served us.

Spend less time searching for new genre fiction and more time reading it as I watch for newly-released genre fiction in the Kindle Store so you don't have to. Recent genre fiction releases in mystery and suspense fiction include:

Drawing Conclusions: A Commissario Guido Brunetti Mystery by Donna Leon. Atlantic Monthly Press, 2011. Print Length: 256 p. Amazon customer rating: 4 stars (10 reviews). Kindle edition $9.99; Hardcover $13.04. Text-to-Speech: Enabled.

This is Leon's twentieth novel to feature Venetian police Commissario Guido Brunetti. The first in the series, Death at La Fenice, is not yet available in a Kindle edition, but many of the other Brunetti titles are - including Blood from a Stone for $4.80.

"Late one night, Brunetti is called away from dinner to investigate the death of a widow in her modest apartment. Though there are some signs of a struggle, the medical examiner rules that she died of a heart attack. It seems there is nothing for Brunetti to investigate. But he can’t shake the feeling that something or someone may have triggered her heart attack, that perhaps the woman was threatened. Conversations with the woman’s son, her upstairs neighbor, and the nun in charge of the old-age home where she volunteered, do little to satisfy Brunetti’s nagging curiosity. With the help of Inspector Vianello and the ever-resourceful Signorina Elettra, perhaps Brunetti can get to the truth and find some measure of justice. Insightful and emotionally powerful, Drawing Conclusions reaffirms Donna Leon’s status as one of the masters of literary crime fiction." - Amazon.

Bless the Bride by Rhys Bowen. Minotaur Books, 2011. Print Length: 288 p. Amazon customer rating: 5 stars (8 reviews). Kindle edition $11.99; Hardcover $14.21. Text-to-Speech: Enabled.
"Just weeks before she is to marry New York police captain Daniel Sullivan in 1903, private investigator Molly Murphy leaves the sewing of her trousseau in the capable hands of her future mother-in-law (who bemoans Molly's woeful stitchery skills) and takes on one last case, having promised Daniel she'd stop working once they've wed. Powerful Chinatown businessman Lee Sing Tai hires Molly to find his missing bride, a commission she is loath to fulfill upon learning that the bride is actually a concubine obtained from China solely to give Lee (whose holdings include brothels and opium dens) a son and heir. When Lee is found dead after a fall from his rooftop, Molly is relieved of her obligation. But when the death is ruled a murder, initially raising the possibility of tong wars, the bride - being sheltered by Molly - becomes a prime suspect." - Michele Leber for Booklist.

This is Bowen's tenth offering in the Molly Murphy series. It takes place in turn-of-the-century New York where Molly, a recent Irish immigrant, is attempting to get started in the very unusual - for a woman of that time - private investigator business. The first book in the series is Murphy's Law.

Heart of Ice by Lis Wiehl and April Henry. Thomas Nelson, 2011. Print Length: 336 p. Amazon customer rating: 4 1/2 stars (22 reviews). Kindle edition $12.46; Hardcover $13.84. Text-to-Speech: Enabled.

"Elizabeth Avery is a stunningly beautiful woman. But her perfectly managed exterior hides the ice cold heart of a killer. She ingeniously manipulates everyone who crosses her path to do exactly as she wishes - from crime reporter Cassidy Shaw, who thinks Elizabeth is her new best friend, to a shy young man Elizabeth persuades to kill for her. As Elizabeth leaves a trail of bodies in her wake, Federal prosecutor Allison Pierce and FBI agent Nicole Hedges must piece together clues from seemingly unrelated crimes. Can they stop her before she reaches her unthinkable, ultimate end-game?" - Amazon.

Save Me by Lisa Scottoline. St. Martin's Press, 2011. Print Length: 384 p. Amazon customer rating: 4 1/2 stars (7 reviews). Kindle edition $12.99; Hardcover $14.73. Text-to-Speech: Enabled.
"...an explosion rips through the nearly empty cafeteria of Reesburgh (Pa.) Elementary School. Lunch mother Rose McKenna leads two girls to safety before racing to rescue her own daughter, Melly, but Rose soon learns that she may face both civil and criminal charges for her heroics because one of the girls she saved was seriously injured in the resulting fire that killed three school staff members. The tension rises as the united front presented by Rose and her lawyer husband, Leo Ingrassia, begins to disintegrate in the face of media demands, legal maneuverings, and social pressures... Scottoline melds it all into a satisfying nail-biting thriller sure to please her growing audience." - Publishers Weekly.

The Cat, The Lady and the Liar by Leann Sweeney. Penguin Publishing, 2011. Print Length: 288 p. Amazon customer rating: 5 stars (8 reviews). Kindle edition $6.99; Paperback $6.99. Text-to-Speech: Enabled.

"Cat quilter Jillian Hart finds a gorgeous stray cat belonging to the fabulously wealthy Ritaestelle Longworth, who believes she's being drugged. Before Jillian can get to those charges, a body turns up in the lake - and her cat Chablis finds Ritaestelle nearby. Can Jillian's cats aid her in solving a mystery with decades old roots?" - Amazon.

This is Leann Sweeney's third Cat in Trouble cozy mystery, following The Cat, The Quilt and The Corpse and The Cat, The Professor and the Poison.

Treason at Lisson Grove: A Charlotte and Thomas Pitt Novel by Anne Perry. Ballantine Books, 2011. Print Length: 320 p. Amazon customer rating: 4 1/2 stars (5 reviews). Kindle edition $12.99; Hardcover $13.96. Text-to-Speech: Blank.
"The man who lies bleeding to death in a London brickyard is no ordinary drifter but a secret informant prepared to divulge details of a potentially devastating international plot against the British government. Special Branch officer Thomas Pitt, hastening to rendezvous with him, arrives a second too late, preceded by a knife-wielding assassin. As the mortally wounded man’s life slips away, so too does the information Pitt desperately needs. The killer in turn flees on an erratic course that leads Pitt in wild pursuit, from London’s cobblestone streets to picturesque St. Malo on the French coast. Meanwhile, Pitt’s supervisor, the formidable Victor Narraway, finds himself accused of embezzling government funds. With Pitt incommunicado in France, Narraway turns to Pitt’s clever wife, Charlotte, for help..." - Amazon.

This is the twentieth title in Perry's Charlotte and Thomas Pitt series. You will find more information about the series and a complete list of all the titles in the series at the author's website.

One Was a Soldier by Julia Spencer-Fleming. Minotaur Books, 2011. Print Length: 336 p. Amazon customer rating: 5 stars (23 reviews). Kindle edition $11.99; Hardcover $13.15. Text-to-Speech: Enabled.
"On a warm September evening in the Millers Kill community center, five veterans sit down in rickety chairs to try to make sense of their experiences in Iraq. What they will find is murder, conspiracy, and the unbreakable ties that bind them to one another and their small Adirondack town. The Rev. Clare Fergusson wants to forget the things she saw as a combat helicopter pilot and concentrate on her relationship with Chief of Police Russ Van Alstyne. MP Eric McCrea needs to control the explosive anger threatening his job as a police officer. Will Ellis, high school track star, faces the reality of life as a double amputee. Orthopedist Trip Stillman is denying the extent of his traumatic brain injury. And bookkeeper Tally McNabb wrestles with guilt over the in-country affair that may derail her marriage. But coming home is harder than it looks. One vet will struggle with drugs and alcohol. One will lose his family and friends. One will die..." - Amazon.
_______________________

Note to readers: The book prices quoted here are the Amazon.com prices in effect at the time of the blog posting. Please follow the links to the individual book to check the current price.


see more Lolcats and funny pictures, and check out our Socially Awkward Penguin lolz!

The GATR (“Ground Antenna Transmit and Receive) satellite communication system takes about 45 minutes to set up and 15 minutes to take down. It provides Internet access, voice over Internet protocol, broadcast television, and other high-bandwidth communications.

When astronauts go into space, ready communication is a vital need. No one will ever go to Mars, or even low-Earth orbit without reliable and efficient communication technology.

One device currently under development for space communication is the inflatable antenna. Because it is lightweight, easy to deploy, inexpensive, and requires low storage volume, inflatable technology is extremely attractive for space applications.

In 2008, the inflatable antenna was the first-of-its-kind to receive Federal Communication Commission certification, which qualified the antenna for applications within NASA, other government agencies, and commercial entities. In 2010, the system earned recognition as one of the R&D; 100 (a list of the top 100 inventions of the year), granted by R&D; Magazine.

Capable of providing Internet access, voice over Internet protocol, e-mail, video teleconferencing, broadcast television, and other high-bandwidth communications, GATR’s inflatable antenna can be quickly deployed in remote, hard-to-reach areas. The complete system takes only 45 minutes to set up and 15 minutes to take down. When deflated, the system fits in two airline-checkable cases that weigh less than 90 pounds each.

GATR systems have been deployed in the United States, Korea, Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Popular with U.S. military and intelligence agencies, the systems have been used in missile ranges, severe weather, and emergency response situations. On a volunteer basis, GATR has used the communication systems to enable high-speed Internet and phone access during wild fires in southern California. After Hurricane Katrina, Gierow spent a week in Mississippi helping residents and law enforcement officials with their communication needs. In 2010, GATR provided Internet access to first responders and doctors following the earthquake in Haiti.

Since its beginnings, GATR has sold more than 60 ground-based inflatable antenna systems, and revenue has increased from $3 million in 2008 to $5.6 million in 2009.

If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program

Frequently Asked Questions

 

Q: What is the U.S. EB-5 Investor Immigration Program?

A: The 1990 Immigration Act (the “Act”) created an employment creation immigrant investor visa program to be administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). The EB-5 Visa permits foreign nationals to receive conditional resident status in the United States in exchange for making a capital investment in the U.S. that will benefit the economy. Each investment needs to create or save ten full-time jobs for U.S. workers.  The minimum amount of investment is $1,000,000, but that minimum amount is reduced to $500,000.00 if the investment is made in a high unemployment area or qualifying rural region.

 

According to regulations under the Eb-5 Immigrant Visa program (the “Program”), investors meeting one of the following three conditions qualify to obtain an EB-5 immigrant visa:

 

1.    Investment of $1,000,000 in any region of the United States in a business employing at least ten employees;

2.    Investment of $500,000 in a business located within a region of the United States designated by the U.S. Government as an area of low employment and employing at least ten employees;

3.    Invest of $500,000 in a business located within a “Regional Center” as specially designated by the U.S. Government.

 

Of all U.S. Immigration categories, the EB-5 program is the fastest and least restrictive in terms of requirements and conditions. Among the three categories of EB-5 investment, the third category regarding Regional Centers is the fastest, most convenient and least risky.

 

Q: What is the EB-5 “Regional Center” Program?

A: In 1993, the U.s. Government established a special “Region Center Immigration Program” to attract and concentrate foreign investment in specially planned and approved areas in order to stimulate economic development in those areas. Under this program, the minimum amount required for investors who invest within the U.S.-Government approved “Regional Centers” is reduced for $1,000,000 to $500,000. In addition, the original requirement that the investment “must directly create 10 jobs” has been loosened so that the investment may “indirectly or indirectly create 10 jobs.”

 

Q: Is there an annual limit on the number of EB-5 immigrant visas issued?

A: Yes, there is. At present, the U.S. Government may grant a maximum of 10,000 EB-5 investor immigrant visas per year: Of this figure, a minimum 3000 individual slots are especially reserved for persons investing in “Regional Center” projects. While the Program is gaining popularity, there has not been a single year since the beginning of the Program where all 10,000 visas have been issued.

 

Q: Are any countries excluded from eligibility?

A: There are no residents from any country that is excluded from filing for an EB-5 immigrant visa. However, USCIS has to follow all the laws and regulations in adjudicating the applications. Therefore, sanctions on foreign countries and other regulations do make it more difficult for foreign nationals from certain countries to apply.

 

Q: What are the requirements to apply for EB-5 immigrant visas?

A: Requirements placed on investors participating in the US EB-5 Investor Immigration program are quite lenient. There are no special requirements placed upon investors, such as having a business background, age, level of education or language abilities. In most cases, applicants who demonstrate their investment funds were obtained legally will receive an EB-5 immigrant visa.

 

Q: What can disqualify an investor from participating?

A: There are very few disqualifying or exclusionary events under the program. A criminal record involving war crimes or crimes of moral turpitude are disqualifying in most cases. There are also a few major medical problems that can also potentially exclude an applicant.

 

Q: Besides the $500,000 investment itself, what are the costs to file an EB-5 application?

A: In addition to $500,000 used as investment funds, EB-5 applicants generally pay an Administrative Fee to cover fees related to the project’s Region Center designation. The amount of this fee can vary between Regional Centers and projects. There will also be additional legal fees that are not included in the investment amount.

 

Q: How is the EB-5 Visa different from other Visas such as the E-1/2 or L-1 Visa?

A: The EB-5 immigrant visa is a way for applicants to acquire lawful permanent residence with the potential for U.S. citizenship. In contrast, other visas such as the E-1/2 and L-1 allow for non-immigrant status only. Therefore, an individual does not receive a green card. When the qualifying trade or investment ends under other visa programs, the individual must return to their home country. Under the EB-5 visa, the applicant receives a path towards permanent residency and citizenship if they choose.

 

Q: Can an individual apply if the individual is currently out-of-status (i.e., lived in the U.S., but does not have a current visa)?

A: Out-of-status nationals are no longer permitted to apply for permanent residency from within the United States. They must first return to their country of origin and apply through the United States Embassy there. Examples of “out-of-status” individuals are students and tourists who no longer have valid visas because they remained in the United States after their visas expired. In some cases, the “out-of-status” invest may need to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility. Once the petition is approved and individual’s adjustment of status application is filed, the applicant becomes legal and even qualifies for work authorization or advanced parole (permission to travel outside of the country during the conditional green card period).

 

Q: How long does it take EB-5 immigrant visa applicants to obtain their “green cards”?

A: Within the last year, the processing times for EB-5 immigrant visa applications have risen. USCIS would like to set a targeted processing time of 5 months. However, this is not a guaranteed time. The growing popularity of the program has increased the processing time for the applications, with no definite time period available.

 

Q: Can a conditional “green card” be changed into a conventional “green card” without any conditions?

A: Yes. According to U.S. regulations, each investor immigrant is granted a conditional “green card” valid for two years. Three months before the conditional “green card” expires, an additional application is filed with the U.S. Government seeking to remove all conditions on the “green card.” As long as the investor’s investment is still in existence at this time, and the investor can prove that this investment created ten jobs, the U.S. Government will approve the application and the investor will become a permanent resident.

 

Q: What items or documents are needed to apply for an EB-5 immigrant visa?

A: There is a long list of documentation that is needed in order for an application to be submitted. All applicants need to prepare basic biographical information and identification documents such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, and copies of passports. In addition, financial documentation will be needed in order to show the origin of the investment funds along with the path of the transfer of funds to the escrow account. The immigrant investor and accompanying family members will also eventually need to undergo a physical examination. The services of an immigration attorney are invaluable in the application process. And you must hire an immigrant attorney to assist you in the process.

 

Q: Do investors and their immediate family members have to reside in the area where investments are made?

A: No. EB-5 investors and their immediate family members may live anywhere in the United States and conduct their lives as they wish.

 

Q: How long do investors and immediate family members have to wait before they can become naturalized United States citizens and obtain U.S. passports?

A: Five years, starting from the date of initial entry with the EB-5 investor immigrant visa. Time spent with a condition “green card” is credited towards the five-year lawful permanent residency requirement for U.S. citizenship, as long as the holders of condition “green cards” meet U.S. citizenship residency requirements. In other words, after holding a conditional “green card” for two years and thereafter a conventional “green card” for another three years, or a total of five years, the investor and his or her immediate family are qualified to apply to become naturalized U.S. citizens. As soon as the naturalization process is completed, the investor and his or her immediate family members may obtain U.S. passports.

 

Q: Are there any residency restrictions during the period they hold conditional “green cards”?

A: After an applicant receives his or her visa, they must enter the U.S. within 180 days of the visa being issued. The investor is then responsible for establishing residency in the U.S. Evidence of the intent to reside within the United States includes opening bank accounts, obtaining a driver’s license, obtaining a social security number, paying state and federal taxes, and renting or buying a home. The investor may work overseas if required, based upon the nature of his or her business or profession. However, in order to ensure there are no issues with the residency, the investor and his or her family should enter the United States no less than once every 180 days. The longer the investor and family are present in the United States; the less likely the government is to claim that the investor abandoned their permanent residence status.

 

Q: Do investors have to take part in detailed management of their investments to qualify for the EB-5 investor immigration program?

A: No. The U.S. investor immigration program does not require immigrant investors to manage their investments on a daily basis, but rather to “actively engage” in a business enterprise. This means they can be limited partners and pursue other professional or personal ventures. This is helpful because the main applicant may be too busy to monitor the business on a day-to-day basis.

 

Q: What advantages and benefits do investors and their immediate family members enjoy from participating in the EB-5 program?

A: There are many advantages of the EB-5 program, starting with immediate residency rights. The children of Eb-5 investors get immediate access to U.S. educational system as permanent residents. Furthermore, after obtaining permanent residency status, an applicant has the ability to sponsor other family members after filing the appropriate applications. Unlike other avenues of immigration, the EB-5 program has no requirements as to age, business training and experience, or language skills. There is great flexibility in residency requirements.

 

Q: Will an applicant’s investment funds be returned in the event an EB-5 application is rejected by the U.S. Government?

A: The answer depends on the specific agreement signed with the regional center. It is therefore very important for the investor and their attorney to carefully read the agreements, as some regional centers may invest the funds into the project even if the application is denied by USCIS.

 

Q: But what if an applicant receives the approval letter, yet his or her subsequent application for an EB-5 immigrant visa is still ultimately rejected by the U.S. Government? Will investment funds still be returned?

A: No. Once the investment funds leave the escrow account, they are committed to the project. The applicant then has to wait until the investment period ends and will receive the investment funds back as per the terms of the agreements originally agreed to.

 

Q: Are investors guaranteed that their investment funds with be returned in full after obtaining permanent residency in the U.S.?

A: Under U.S. law, some financial risk must be inherent to an EB-5 investment project and third-party investment guarantees are not allowed. As a result, no one is permitted to guarantee the investment return. It is very important that the investor and their attorney carefully read the agreements signed with the EB5 project, as each regional center has different timelines for returning the investment, while some may not return the investment at all.

 

Q: What are the tax implications of U.S. residency and the investment?

A: Any interest that is earned or profits on the investment that result in actual distribution of cash that are in addition to the investment may result in U.S. tax liability. In the event that taxes must be paid, they are generally minimal. Additionally, please note that upon obtaining U.S. residency, the investor’s global income will be subject to U.S. taxation. It is extremely important for the applicant to abide by the laws of the U.S., which include not only immigration laws, but also tax laws.

 

What are the requirements?

1. Must I speak English?

No. However, do try to learn English as it will help in an immigration interview.

 

2. Must I be in good health?

Yes. You must have no communicable diseases and proper vaccinations.

 

3. Must I have previous business experience or education?

The investor is not required to have any prior business experience. Likewise, the investor is not required to demonstrate any minimum level of education. The only requirement for the investor is that he/she has the required net worth and capital. (Accreditations)

 

4. What is meant by the requirement that the investor’s assets be “lawfully gained”?

Under USCIS regulations, the investor must demonstrate that his assets were gained in a lawful manner. This requires the investor to prove his investment funds were obtained through lawful business, salary, investments, property sales, inheritance, gift, loan or other lawful means.

 

5. Can money gifted by a parent or other relative be used for an EB-5 Investment?

Yes, provided that any applicable gift taxes are paid. It must be demonstrated that the gift is an actual arms length transaction and is not a mere ruse that the gifted funds will be given back after permanent resident status is granted.

 

6. Can I apply for an EB-5 if I have been rejected or terminated in the past by USCIS for an L-1, E-2, B, or other visas?

Rejection in the past does not disqualify the applicant, unless the reasons related to immigration fraud or other major problems. It is most important that all criminal, medical, or U.S. immigration history problems be disclosed to the limited partnership and legal counsel in advance of application.

 

7. Can I apply if I am currently without a valid visa?

Out-of-status nationals are no longer permitted to apply for permanent residency from within the United States. They must first return to their country of origin and apply through the United States Embassy there. Examples of “out-of-status” individuals are students, tourists, E-2 treaty investors who no longer have valid visas because they remained in the United States after their visas expired or were revoked. Use extreme caution.

 

8. Are any countries excluded from eligibility for the EB-5 Visa program?

Residents of only a few countries are excluded (e.g. Iran and Iraq). In most cases, however, if the applicant is able to leave the excluded country and has the necessary capital to qualify under the program, legal counsel will be able to help the applicant qualify for the visa approval.

 

9. Is dual citizenship allowed under this program?

Maybe. The U.S. allows dual citizenship, but your original country of origin may not allow it. You will need to investigate this.

www.azitalaw.com, www.divorce-lawyer-in-chicago.com

Elizabeth Drew

As is his custom, President Obama erred on the side of caution in confronting this country’s grave fiscal crisis. On Wednesday he gave a good speech far too late. What if he hadn’t been so dilatory on a subject he inevitably would have to confront?

Consider this picture: in early 2010, the Tea Party was a mere specter, not yet a full-blown movement, much less an election victor, and it was unimaginable that it would, in effect, seize control of one body of the Congress. Even if Obama had addressed the fiscal crisis at the outset of this year, rather than deliver a wan and cautious State of the Union address, he would have set the predicate for the current budget battle rather than leaving an opening for Paul Ryan’s radical (and somewhat nonsensical) proposal to fill the vacuum. In essence, Ryan’s plan would change Medicare and Medicaid almost beyond recognition and sharply lower tax rates for the wealthiest individuals and for corporations. It relies on strange assumptions, such as 2.8 percent unemployment by 2021, and it appears to come nowhere near his claimed savings of $1.6 trillion. Ordinarily, such a proposal would have been laughed out of town, but now it’s been transformed into respectability.

The possibility of a bipartisan “Grand Bargain” has grown dimmer, given the lines that have now been drawn, and the Republicans’ perhaps inevitable hyperbole about the President’s speech, which they denounced as “partisan” (Heavens!) and a campaign gimmick. They could not entertain the possibility that Obama’s was a serious, thoughtful offering. The House’s adoption Thursday of the deal made between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner last Friday offers a glimmer of a possibility of compromise on much larger issues, but if the past is prologue, they would be compromises essentially on Republican terms.

For Obama, this struggle has always been about two things. Politically, he has to show that he is more fiscally responsible than his Republican opponents. He also has to get results that are substantively sound. The two issues he must now grapple with are drastically reducing the size of the huge annual deficits (the difference between spending and revenues in any given fiscal year), officially projected this year to reach a staggering, once inconceivable $1.5 trillion. His second challenge is to persuade the Congress to raise the limit (the so-called debt ceiling) on the national debt, now estimated to be over $14 trillion, nearly rivaling the nation’s GDP. The limit is now predicted to be reached in mid-May (though the deadline is fluid because the Treasury can employ tricks for a while to keep the government liquid).

The Republicans have threatened to oppose raising the limit unless “structural” changes are made to the government’s budget, so it’s possible that the two issues will in effect be combined. Catastrophic effects have been predicted if the nation were to default on the national debt, which is no longer entirely out of question. The difficulty is that a vote against raising the debt ceiling is a cheap way to purchase political protection and to make a point—even Senator Barack Obama of Illinois voted against doing so in 2006. And the radicals who control the House seem willing to let the nation go into default in order to get across their message.

This long battle raises big questions: one is who we really are, what we want the relationship between the government and the people to be, and whether in the current political circumstances, this country can be governed in any rational way.

The last-hour deal Obama reached with Boehner on April 8, to cut domestic spending for this fiscal year by $39 billion, was a worse defeat—nearly an abject failure—for the President than was generally understood (which suggests that he hasn’t lost his political skills). When that $39 billion worth of cuts was added to the $40 billion he had already conceded without a fight earlier in the year, it amounted to a total of $80 billion in cuts below his own original proposal for this year’s budget. This was eighty percent of the way toward the $102 billion in cuts that the Tea Party-dominated House had proposed in February.

But the fact that such a huge fight occurred over spending for a mere twelve percent of the federal budget for just the remaining six months of this fiscal year was absurd. It was a situation made for political drama (and hoked-up television), since if an agreement hadn’t been reached by midnight, the federal government would have had to shut down. The fight over this spending bill was the budgetary Spanish Civil War: both sides were testing their skills and their weapons—and each other.

This relatively minor skirmish, in comparison to the ones that were to come, was nevertheless revealing about how Obama handles his role in shaping domestic policy with a divided Congress, one chamber dominated by conservative true believers. Tea Party members and other freshmen elected with its strong backing, were originally written off (and laughed at) as political amateurs, but, with the help of senior colleagues who joined up with them out of shared beliefs or opportunism, they ended up dominating the new Congress’s agenda, partly by default on Obama’s part. The Tea Party turned out to be a formidable political force because they are amateurs, inflexible and uncompromising.

The President tried to portray his near-rout as a success by employing theater—he stood in front of a window through which the viewing audience could see the Washington Monument, now kept open as the result of a deal having been reached—and extolled the agreement as “the biggest annual spending cut in history,” This wasn’t the sort of “victory” his most passionate supporters had expected when they elected him. The rapidity with which Obama took ownership of a budget deal that was so clearly a major coup for Boehner and the Tea Party gave him a chameleon-like aspect.

In some ways, Obama and the partisan but pragmatic Boehner, neither of whom wanted a government shutdown, are up against the same forces. According to Vin Weber, a former House member and now a prominent and well-wired lobbyist, most of the House Republicans are conservative, with about two-thirds of them belonging to the conservative Republican Study Committee chaired by Jim Jordan, a third-term congressman from Urbana, Ohio. Weber said, “These folks are conservatives across the board and want to win on both social and fiscal issues. But the majority cared more about fiscal issues, as has always been the case in the Congress.” In the fight over the spending bill, Weber told me, “I think it’s true that most junior members care more about spending and a handful of members insist on getting some victory on social issues.” Boehner had to contend with, and pacify, both factions.

While the fiscal conservatives were demanding large spending cuts, the smaller group of social conservatives, led by Jim Jordan, was focused on cutting off federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Though the long-ago adopted Hyde amendment forbids the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, the pro-life forces are constantly on patrol against any possible ways of getting around the ban. (The fact that abortions account for just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s care, which focuses mainly on reproductive health issues among lower income women, and are set apart, often in another building, and are paid for by private funds, was of no interest to the pro-life forces, who also, contradictorily, opposed birth control—which was their real target this time.)

But Boehner no doubt understood that the fight over the funding of Planned Parenthood would not hold up as a rationale for closing down the government. In the end, he dropped the defunding of Planned Parenthood in exchange for another couple of billion dollars in cuts. The pro-lifers did win a provision in the final agreement that restricted the District of Columbia—the one place it could reach into and despite hard-won home rule in 1973, still treats essentially as its plantation—from using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Thus they sought to punish defenseless poor women—because they could. (And Obama went along.) According to Weber, the majority of members on both sides would prefer not to take on the highly contentious abortion issue, so the outside groups that feel strongly about it rely on a small clutch of members. And the leaders don’t want to alienate such an intense and vocal part of the Republican base. In any case, the Republican effort to defund Planned Parenthood is likely to recur again and again as the budget battle continues. These forces don’t give up easily.

Though they are feeling triumphant, the Republicans are running a real risk by catering to their base—and in many cases trying avoid primary challenges from the right next year. The astute political analyst Charlie Cook, who was the first to call attention to the Republican wave of 2010, warned in a recent column in the National Journal that the Republicans are misreading their mandate—a not uncommon tendency of both parties in the euphoria of victory. The conservative base and the Tea Partiers may want “to take a meat axe to the government,” Cook wrote, adding, “It would be a blunder, however, to think that such views drove the election.” The Republicans won in 2010, Cook argues, essentially because independents and swing voters wanted to punish the Democrats for the state of the economy, and (Republicans: take note) because they feared that their Medicare benefits would be reduced. The Democrats won in 2008, Cook argues, because those same groups wanted to punish Republicans for George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, and party members’ personal scandals.

Moreover, despite the Republicans insistent claim that they were sent to Washington to “cut government spending,” a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll taken in mid-October 2010 revealed that people selected “job creation and economic growth” over “the deficit and government spending” by a substantial margin as the most important issue in the following month’s election.

But if the Democrats lull themselves into thinking they can just sit back while the Republicans destroy their own reelection chances, they could awaken some day to find that there has been an abrupt reversal of the direction that, with a few brief interludes, this country has been going in since the l930s, and an upending of longstanding assumptions about the relationship of the state and individuals.

So, with the House in the hands of the beyond-radical, almost nihilistic, right, and the Senate Democrats cautious and concerned that they could well lose control of the chamber in the 2010 elections, that left the President. One odd feature of the Obama presidency is the frequency with which his aides offer explanations of why the President handled an issue this way or that. I know of no precedent for this. Each time, the explanation is intended to portray a solid belief on Obama’s part that this is the right way to govern, a fixed point on the compass, but the compass needle keeps swinging about. Early in his presidency, aides said that Obama wanted to travel the country, that he wasn’t sent to Washington to get involved in the nitty-gritty legislative process—which is usually taken as a given in the role of a President.

But during the past couple of weeks they explained that Obama had been standing aside from the congressional budget fight because “the public” prefers to see the President as a compromiser. Obama’s aides also gave, perhaps unintentionally, a raw political reason for why the President stood aside so long: they said that his poll numbers had dropped after the health care bill was passed last year because, they said, the public saw him as too involved in the legislative struggle. Perhaps; but for one thing the President wasn’t all that involved, and for another it’s also possible that his poll numbers went down because, inexplicably, the White House lost the war over the definition of one of the greatest social advances in fifty years.

In any case, it didn’t necessarily follow that a President should stand on the sidelines while Congress determines how much money should be spent on federal programs, or which ones should be killed—a fateful set of decisions, affecting every citizen’s life. There may have been little Obama could do to fend off the $61 billion in spending cuts adopted by the House. (Since Boehner couldn’t get enough Republican support for it—notably, fifty nine conservative Republicans voted against the deal because it didn’t go far enough—it was salvaged by Democrats. It was, after all, their President’s deal as well.) But he could have been a voice, setting the direction for the Democrats in Congress, who were knew which way he’d go.

But then, after coming under considerable criticism for failing to lead, Obama suddenly reversed course following the April 8 deal, and the White House announced that he would give a major speech in the coming week. So on Wednesday at George Washington University, he called for Republicans and Democrats to join in trying to reach an agreement on a broad plan that would include savings in entitlement programs, and tax increases on the wealthiest taxpayers (contrary to the extension of Bush tax cuts he had agreed to in the lame duck session), and also cuts in defense spending.

Oddly, it wasn’t until four days later that it was made known what the negotiators had agreed to. (As it happens, a Congressional Budget Office report now said that because the proposal contained so many gimmicks, mainly counting money that the government wasn’t going to spend anyway, the actual amount cut was—get ready—$352 million.) This makes one wonder how much of a deal Boehner and the Democrats had actually made. Inevitably, Democrats howled at cuts in programs dear to them, and Republicans carried on that the cuts hadn’t gone far enough. But because the subject of the fight was domestic discretionary programs—programs that largely help the middle class and the poor—that was where the cuts were going to be made. In the end, about half the cuts hit education, health, and labor programs, as well as job-producing programs such as building highways and high-speed rail.

Obama should be in a better political position as he enters into the upcoming negotiations about the debt ceiling than he was when he negotiated the April 8 agreement: since that didn’t go so well for him, he should have learned some lessons. He could begin with correcting an odd tendency, displayed throughout his presidency, to make premature concessions, perhaps to appear “reasonable”—he must have learned by now that an opponent simply pockets the concession and keeps demanding more. But the Republicans’ proposal to in effect destroy Medicare is always a very unpopular idea. Republicans seem to have a tin ear about entitlement programs. (George W. Bush’s proposal to partially privatize Social Security went nowhere fast.)

Still, the Democrats now have to deal with the fact that the Ryan proposal, which the House was expected to pass on Friday afternoon, will be on the table as the only serious alternative to the President’s proposal—unless a bipartisan deal comes to Obama’s and the Democrats’ rescue.

The federal government is no longer in danger of shutting down. Today Congress approved a bill to fund operations through fiscal year 2011, which ends on September 30. In the House of Representatives, the bill passed by 260 votes to 167 (roll call). The bill needed bipartisan support, because only 179 House Republicans voted yes, including Iowa's Tom Latham (IA-04). Steve King (IA-05) was among the 59 Republicans who voted against; that's about one-fourth of the House GOP caucus. Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was among the 81 House Democrats who voted for the budget bill; Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against it.

After the bill passed, the House voted for two "corrections" to the bill, which passed on nearly party-line votes (roll calls here and here). One of those resolutions would defund the 2010 health care reform measure, the Affordable Care Act. The other would eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Latham and King voted for both "corrections," while Boswell, Loebsack and Braley voted against them.

The Senate quickly took up the spending bill. The House measure to defund health care reform went down first; all 47 Republican senators voted yes, but all 53 senators who caucus with Democrats voted no. Then senators rejected the measure to defund Planned Parenthood. On that resolution, 42 Republicans, including Iowa's Chuck Grassley, voted yes, while a few GOP moderates and the whole Democratic caucus, including Tom Harkin, voted no. The Senate then voted 81 to 19 to pass the spending bill. Most of the no votes were Republicans. Both Grassley and Harkin voted for the compromise to fund the government through the current fiscal year.

After the jump I've posted statements from some members of the Iowa delegation. I will update those as more become available. I noticed that Leonard Boswell did not issue a statement on his vote today; he also didn't send out a press release Friday night about voting for the stopgap one-week spending measure. King's press release today glossed over his vote against the budget deal; instead, he emphasized the House vote on language to block funding for "Obamacare."

There's some confusion about how much federal spending will be cut in the current fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "while the agreement cuts almost $40 billion in budget authority, the near-term reduction in the federal deficit is only about $352 million." Philip Rucker explained some of the accounting gimmicks in this Washington Post article. Many of the cuts will hurt, however.

Of the $38 billion in overall reductions in the budget that funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year, about $20 billion would come from domestic discretionary programs, while $17.8 billion would be cut from mandatory programs. [...]

Although the pain would be felt across virtually the entire government - the deal includes a $1 billion across-the-board cut shared among all non-defense agencies - Republicans were able to focus the sharpest cuts on areas they have long targeted. The Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments, which represent about 28 percent of non-defense discretionary spending, face as much as a combined $19.8 billion, or 52 percent, of the total reductions in the plan.

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency, long a target of conservatives, will see a $1.6 billion cut, representing a 16 percent decrease from 2010 levels. At the Department of the Interior, affected agencies include the Fish and Wildlife Services ($141 million cut from last year), the National Park Service ($127 million cut from last year) and "clean and drinking water state revolving funds" ($997 million cut from last year).

Democrats were able to beat back the most severe cuts originally proposed by House Republicans and protect funding for some cherished programs, such as Head Start, AmeriCorps and the implementation of the new health-care and food safety laws.

This pdf file lists the program cuts, grouped by department. There are basically no Defense Department cuts, although spending has been reduced on military construction and a few veterans' programs. In other areas of domestic spending, there are too many ill-advised cuts to list in this post. Some terms in this deal are merely short-sighted: reducing spending on various literacy and conservation programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and a big cut to high-speed rail projects. Other provisions are immoral, like slashing spending for community health care centers and the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program's contingency fund. It depresses me that a Democratic president and Senate majority leader agreed to make the largest USDA spending reduction apply to the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.

The bill also contains provisions that have nothing to do with federal expenditures. For instance, it removes gray wolves from the endangered species list in Montana so that farmers and ranchers can shoot them.

At the end of this post I've added reaction from the Iowa Congressional delegation to President Barack Obama's April 13 speech on bringing down the national debt. I didn't watch the speech, but I read through the full text, as prepared. It contained some nice words for liberals and some Republican-bashing. The trouble is, based on the president's handling of budget negotiations in the past few months, I believe Obama will end up agreeing to almost all the spending and entitlement cuts Republicans want. Despite his promises yesterday, I very much doubt he will block a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for all income levels.
Statement from Senator Tom Harkin, April 14:

"This bill makes some painful cuts. But it could have been a lot worse, especially when you compare it to the alternative from the tea party extremists in the House, which would have killed far more jobs and concentrated its funding cuts on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans. This bill protects community services for those most in need while providing funding for education, medical research, and other programs that are critical to our economic future.

"Now that this debate is over, Congress can refocus on the budget for the next fiscal year and the long term.  It remains my hope that the next proposal will include spending cuts and necessary revenue increases, while making room for critical investments in education, job training, infrastructure, and research - things that are essential for jobs now and for economic expansion and job creation in the years ahead."

Statement from Bruce Braley, April 14:

"This job-killing spending bill is bad for Iowa, period. It kills jobs and threatens programs that are crucial to Iowa's economic growth. While I support some of the cuts in this legislation, and have previously voted for hundreds of billions in spending cuts, I have serious concerns with the increase in funding for unexplained military operations, while simultaneously cutting job-training programs. American taxpayers should not be forced to sacrifice important programs here at home while covering the bill for a third undefined, military conflict overseas."

Statement from Dave Loebsack, April 14:

"There is no doubt that putting our nation back on a fiscally responsible path demands serious, bipartisan work.  I do believe that cutting spending is one part of the solution and I have already supported over $11 billion in difficult but necessary spending cuts from the FY 2011 budget. But, we must promote an economy that works for Iowa families, moves our economic recovery forward, and ensures an adequate safety net is in place for our most vulnerable.  Unfortunately the bill considered today did not meet those standards.

"I support many of the measures included in the bill, including funding for equipment for the National Guard and funding for Head Start. But, I cannot support cutting programs that are critical to Iowans in the Second District.

"The bill that passed today would make significant cuts to education and job training, which are critical to Iowa families' ability to prepare for and pursue good-paying jobs. It would also cut essential improvements to our nation's infrastructure that residents and businesses rely on and that are critical to economic development, including transit, highway funding and passenger rail.

"By eliminating access to year-round Pell grants and cutting funding for job training programs, this bill would make it harder for deserving students to afford the quality education Iowa colleges and universities provide and for Iowa workers to receive the education and training they need to compete in the 21st century.

"I have worked with many local Police Chiefs and Sheriffs in Southeast Iowa to help them get the equipment and hiring resources they need, and I very much oppose cuts to the grant programs that help them keep our communities safe.  

"Communities across Iowa are already struggling as a result of the economic downturn, and I have seen first-hand the benefit that Community Development Block Grants have had, especially for those areas ravaged by the Floods of 2008. This funding is critical for rehabilitation and development projects across Iowa and numerous cities have expressed strong concerns about further cuts to these programs.

"There is no question that getting our fiscal house in order is going to require tough choices and shared sacrifice. The time is long past due for Congress to come together to make thoughtful decisions that do not set back our economic recovery or put our children at a competitive disadvantage, but instead pave the way for ongoing economic growth and a strong future for our children."

Statement from Steve King, April 14:

House Passes King's Language to Defund ObamaCare

Washington, DC - Congressman Steve King (R-IA) released the following statement today after the House of Representatives passed language he introduced to block the continued funding of ObamaCare. King's language blocks any funds contained within the FY 2011 continuing resolution from being spent on the implementation of ObamaCare, and it shuts off $105.5 billion in automatic appropriations for the law's implementation that were included in the ObamaCare legislation itself.

"The House has now gone on record in support of my efforts to eliminate $105.5 billion in automatic appropriations built into ObamaCare," said King. "The funding prohibition passed by the House today would not only block funding contained within the FY 2011 continuing resolution from being spent on ObamaCare, but it would also shut off $105.5 billion in automatic funding for its implementation that was contained in the law itself.

As I have long argued, blocking ObamaCare's automatic funding is necessary to prevent the Obama administration from putting the pieces of this unconstitutional law into place. It is important that the majority of Americans who support repealing and defunding ObamaCare know where their Member of Congress stands, and today's vote should make that clear."

As background, on February 14, the Washington Times published an op-ed by Congressman King in which he called for the inclusion of language in the continuing resolution to block all funding for ObamaCare. With today's vote, the House has gone on record in support of King's initiative to defund ObamaCare.

The vote on King's language took place as a result of the compromise that was struck last week by Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid and President Obama over legislation to fund the federal government for the remainder of the current fiscal year, FY 2011. The agreement provided for an up or down vote on King's language as an "enrollment correction" to the FY 2011 continuing resolution that the House passed earlier in the day.

Statement from Steve King, April 9:

Washington D.C. - Congressman Steve King (R-IA) issued the following statement regarding the deal that was reached to fund the operations of the federal government through the remainder of the current federal fiscal year, Fiscal Year 2011.

"There is no question that the cuts offered in the forthcoming long-term CR are needed and are long overdue. We must get government spending under control and rein in our skyrocketing deficit. But, while $39 billion in cuts is better than the status quo, it's a long way from where we need to be," said King.

"Today the American people were given a $39 billion cut in federal spending in exchange for continued funding for ObamaCare. For months I have said that the CR would be the key leverage point in the effort to stop the implementation of ObamaCare. I am disappointed that we have surrendered this leverage without taking a stand to shut off the funding for this unconstitutional law. We have now ceded a significant amount of ground on this issue, and I fear that we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to regain it any time soon."

"More than $105 billion in automatic funding for ObamaCare is already on the books, and over $23 billion of this total is in the pipeline to be spent. Every day ObamaCare's roots reach deeper and deeper. In November, the American people charged us with stopping ObamaCare in its tracks, and today we made it much harder to do so."

REACTION TO OBAMA'S BUDGET SPEECH

Statement from Chuck Grassley, April 13:

"From World War II through 2009, every dollar of new federal tax revenue resulted in $1.17 in new spending.  Tax reductions in 2001 and 2003 resulted in more revenue to the federal Treasury.  The expanding economy spurred by this tax relief helped to reduce the annual budget deficit from $412.7 billion in 2004 to $160.7 billion in 2007.  Even the most sincere argument that raising taxes will reduce the deficit and debt doesn't have history to back it up.  Outside of Washington, it's obvious that the  problem isn't that people are under-taxed, but that Washington over spends.  They said so loud and clear in the last election.  Government spending increased by 22 percent during the last two years.  If we follow the budget proposed this year by President Obama, we'll add another $13 trillion to our national debt over the next decade.  This debt gets in the way of the economic activity that creates jobs, and it's a terrible burden to leave future generations.  Washington needs to get behind policies that clamp down on spending and grow the economy.  Increased economic activity increases revenue to the federal Treasury, enabling deficit and debt reduction.  The answer is not defending ways to grow the government."    

Statement from Steve King, April 13:

"It should be clear that President Obama doesn't view the nation's debt crisis as a problem to be solved, but as a tool to be used to advance his own reelection hopes," said King. "In one speech, the President managed to hit all the notes that his demoralized liberal base wanted to hear: he played the class warfare card, he endorsed cutting defense spending, he demagogued Paul Ryan's 'Path to Prosperity,' he touted the unconstitutional ObamaCare law, and he even blamed Bush for the nation's current debt problems. While the speech may excite some on the far-left, it should be viewed with disappointment by Americans who were hoping that the President would put politics aside to work on behalf of cutting spending and lowering the nation's debt."

Statement from Tom Latham, April 13:

"I'm glad President Obama has joined the debate on how we can repair our country's fiscal standing.  We simply cannot continue to spend money we don't have, and it will take a truly bipartisan effort to cut spending, reduce the debt and improve the environment for job creation.  But raising taxes on anyone while the economy is in such a fragile condition will put us in an even deeper hole.  Congress must realize that the government doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem.

"I am fully committed to working with the White House and any of my colleagues in Congress - regardless of party affiliation - who are willing to boldly stand up and address our country's fiscal crisis and do the right thing for American families, farms and main streets."

Reaction from Iowa Democrats in Congress:

TOM HARKIN, Iowa's Democratic U.S. senator:

"One thing is clear: our country cannot continue down the economic path we are on. We must reduce our deficit. But that is not a call for Congress to pass budget proposals that are wholly unequal, forcing cuts upon the most vulnerable Americans while at the same time, continuing to given tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and special interests. That is why it was so refreshing to hear the President talk about the need for balance and shared fiscal responsibility in the framework unveiled today. This framework combines spending cuts and necessary revenue increases, while still making investments that will expand our economy and will create jobs in the years ahead. I am especially encouraged that it builds on the down payment made to reduce health care spending and the deficit under the Affordable Care Act, and it rightly rejects the Ryan plan to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid. In the coming days, my staff and I will fully examine this and other proposals. While I may not agree with every detail, I do agree that we need to make tough choices that move our country forward. This framework is on the right path."

DAVE LOEBSACK, a Democratic U.S. representative from Iowa's 2nd District:

"Over the last few weeks we have witnessed political games at their worst. This kind of brinksmanship and grandstanding is doing nothing to help Iowa families and businesses who are continuing to struggle and are worried about their children's future. While I may not agree with every proposal put forward, I strongly believe we must move forward. The days when our nation could afford Washington's political posturing are long since over. It's time to get to work. That is why I was disappointed last year when Republicans walked away from real accountability so they could preserve their strategy of privatizing Medicare. We need to get serious about getting our fiscal house in order and promote our economic recovery. We're not going to get there through proposals that make seniors, families, and students pay for what must be a shared sacrifice, and I hope that the President's speech today will mark the beginning of a national dialogue about the future of our nation."

BRUCE BRALEY, a Democratic U.S. representative from Iowa's 1st District, sent a letter to President Barack Obama expressing concern over the proposed $157.8 billion in taxpayer funds for an "Overseas Contingencies Operations Fund" in the 2011 spending bill:

"Just earlier this week, the Defense Department announced that operations in Libya have cost taxpayers as much as $608 million to date, and it seems that this money came out of the 'Overseas Contingencies Operations Fund.' Now, taxpayers are being asked for even more money for this fund - presumably to fund additional operations in Libya. It's unacceptable for us to engage in yet another overseas mission without a clear understanding of how much we plan to spend, and I believe Americans deserve a clear answer from the President on what this fund will be used for and how much will be spent."

LEONARD BOSWELL, a Democratic U.S. representative from Iowa's 3rd District, commented on House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen's release of the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget and President Barack Obama's budget statement:

"I am encouraged that both Ranking Member Van Hollen and President Obama are tackling cuts to spending and ways to generate revenue by ending tax expenditures like oil and gas subsidies and mortgage deductions for vacation homes and yachts. Their plans reflect a desire to grow our country through wise investment in those programs and activities which generate income and reduce overall expenses, while balancing a freeze in discretionary spending. It is time we make smart spending cuts with revenue generating measures such as ending billions in tax giveaways to corporations and special interests. Prioritizing is critical in budgeting, and my vote will always be to preserve Medicare benefits for seniors, instead of extending tax cuts for millionaires. Ending Medicare as we know it by privatizing seniors' health care and doubling their premiums is just cost-shifting and it is the wrong solution to deficit reduction. We need a multi-pronged attack that cuts domestic spending, phases out the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ends some of the tax subsidies that cost Americans $1 trillion a year.  My priority is to bring our budget back into balance with programs and strategies which protect our citizens, strengthen our country, and grow our economy."

On April 5, Mexican newspaper El Universal reported that a row of concrete Jersey barriers was being emplaced in front of the U.S. Consulate General in Monterrey, Mexico. The story indicated that the wall was put in to block visibility of the facility, but being only about 107 centimeters (42 inches) high, such barriers do little to block visibility. Instead, this modular concrete wall is clearly being used to block one lane of traffic in front of the consulate in an effort to provide the facility with some additional standoff distance from the avenue that passes in front of it.

Due to the location and design of the current consulate building in Monterrey, there is only a narrow sidewalk separating the building’s front wall from the street and very little distance between the front wall and the building. This lack of standoff has been long noted, and it was an important factor in the decision to build a new consulate in Monterrey (construction began in June 2010 and is scheduled to be completed in January 2013).

The U.S. Consulate in Monterrey has been targeted in the past by cartels using small arms and grenades. The last grenade attack near the consulate was in October 2010. However, the Jersey barriers placed in front of the consulate will do little to protect the building against small arms fire, which can be directed at portions of the building above the perimeter wall, or grenades, which can be thrown over the wall. Rather, such barriers are used to protect facilities against an attack using a car bomb, or what is called in military and law enforcement vernacular a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED).

That such barriers have been employed (or re-employed, really, since they have been used before at the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey) indicates that there is at least a perceived VBIED threat in Mexico. The placement of the barriers was followed by a Warden Message issued April 8 by the U.S. Consulate General in Monterrey warning that “the U.S. government has received uncorroborated information Mexican criminal gangs may intend to attack U.S. law enforcement officers or U.S. citizens in the near future in Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon and San Luis Potosi.” It is quite possible that the placement of the barriers at the consulate was related to this Warden Message.

The Mexican cartels have employed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in the past, but the devices have been small. While their successful employment has shown that the cartels could deploy larger devices if they decided to do so, there are still some factors causing them to avoid using large VBIEDs.

Some History

The use of IEDs in Mexico is nothing new. Explosives are plentiful in Mexico due to their widespread use in the country’s mining and petroleum sectors. Because of Mexico’s strict gun laws, it is easier and cheaper to legally procure explosives — specifically commercial explosives such as Tovex — in Mexico than it is firearms. We have seen a number of different actors use explosive devices in Mexico, including left-wing groups such as the Popular Revolutionary Army and its various splinters, which have targeted banks and commercial centers (though usually at night and in a manner intended to cause property damage and not human casualties). An anarchist group calling itself the Subversive Alliance for the Liberation of the Earth, Animals and Humans has also employed a large number of small IEDs against banks, insurance companies, car dealerships and other targets.

Explosives have also played a minor role in the escalation of cartel violence in Mexico. The first cartel-related IED incident we recall was the Feb. 15, 2008, premature detonation of an IED in Mexico City that investigators concluded was likely a failed assassination attempt against a high-ranking police official. Three months later, in May 2008, there was a rash of such assassinations in Mexico City targeting high-ranking police officials such as Edgar Millan Gomez, who at the time of his death was Mexico’s highest-ranking federal law enforcement officer. While these assassinations were conducted using firearms, they supported the theory that the Feb. 15, 2008, incident was indeed a failed assassination attempt.

Mexican officials have frequently encountered explosives, including small amounts of military-grade explosives and far larger quantities of commercial explosives, when they have uncovered arms caches belonging to the cartels. But it was not until July 2010 that IEDs began to be employed by the cartels with any frequency.

On July 15, 2010, in Juarez, Chihuahua state, the enforcement wing of the Juarez cartel, known as La Linea, remotely detonated an IED located inside a car as federal police agents were responding to reports of a dead body inside a car. The attack killed two federal agents, one municipal police officer and an emergency medical technician and wounded nine other people. Shortly after this well-coordinated attack, La Linea threatened that if the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Federal Bureau of Investigation did not investigate and remove the chief of the Chihuahua state police intelligence unit — who La Linea claimed was working for the Sinaloa Federation — the group would deploy a car bomb containing 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of explosives. The threat proved to be an empty one, and since last July, La Linea has deployed just one additional IED, which was discovered by police on Sept. 10, 2010, in Juarez.

The Sept. 10 incident bore a striking resemblance to the July 15 Juarez bombing. The device was hidden in a vehicle parked near another vehicle that contained a dead body that was reported to police. The Sept. 10 device appears to have malfunctioned, since it did not detonate as first responders arrived. The device was noticed by authorities and rendered safe by a Mexican military explosive ordnance disposal team. This device reportedly contained a main charge of 16 kilograms of Tovex, and while that quantity of explosives was far smaller than the 100-kilogram device La Linea threatened to employ, it was still a significant step up in size from the July 15 IED. Based upon the amount of physical damage done to buildings and other vehicles in the area where the device exploded, and the lack of a substantial crater in the street under the vehicle containing the device, the July 15 IED appears to have contained at most a couple of kilograms of explosives.

Seemingly taking a cue from La Linea, the Gulf cartel also began deploying IEDs in the summer of 2010 against law enforcement targets it claimed were cooperating with Los Zetas, which is currently locked in a heated battle with the Gulf cartel for control of Mexico’s northeast (see the map here for an understanding of cartel geographies). Between August and December 2010, Gulf cartel enforcers deployed at least six other IEDs against what they called the “Zeta police” and the media in such cities as Ciudad Victoria in Tamaulipas state and Zuazua in Nuevo Leon. However, these attacks were all conducted against empty vehicles and there was no apparent attempt to inflict casualties. The devices were intended more as messages than weapons.

The employment of IEDs has not been confined just to the border. On Jan. 22, a small IED placed inside a car detonated near the town of Tula, Hidalgo state, injuring four local policemen. Initial reports suggested that local law enforcement received an anonymous tip about a corpse in a white Volkswagen Bora. The IED reportedly detonated when police opened one of the vehicle’s doors, suggesting either some sort of booby trap or a remotely detonated device.

The damage from the Tula device is consistent with a small device placed inside a vehicle, making it similar to the IEDs deployed in Juarez and Ciudad Victoria in 2010. The setup and the deployment of the IED in Tula also bear some resemblance to the tactics used by La Linea in the July 2010 Juarez attack; in both cases, a corpse was used as bait to lure law enforcement to the scene before the device was detonated. Despite these similarities, the distance between Tula and Juarez and the makeup of the cartel landscape make it unlikely that the same group or bombmaker was involved in these two incidents.

Car Bombs vs. Bombs in Cars

The IEDs that have been detonated by the Mexican cartels share a very common damage profile. The frames of the vehicles in which the devices were hidden remained largely intact after detonation and damage to surrounding structures and vehicles was relatively minor, indicating the devices were rather small in size. The main charges were probably similar to the device found in a vehicle recovered from an arms cache in Guadalajara, Jalisco state, on Sept. 10, 2010 — a liquor bottle filled with no more than a kilogram of commercial explosives.

In fact, most of the devices we have seen in Mexico so far have been what we consider “bombs in cars” rather than “car bombs.” The difference between the two is one of scale. Motorcycle gangs and organized crime groups frequently place pipe bombs and other small IEDs in vehicles in order to kill enemies or send messages. However, it is very uncommon for the police investigating such attacks to refer to these small devices as car bombs or VBIEDs. As the name implies, “vehicle borne” suggests that the device is too large to be borne by other means and requires a vehicle to convey it to the target. This means the satchel device that prematurely detonated in Mexico City in February 2008 or the liquor-bottle charge recovered in Guadalajara in September 2010 would not have been considered VBIEDs had they been detonated in vehicles. None of the devices we have seen successfully employed in Mexico has been an actual VBIED, as defined by those commonly used in Iraq, Pakistan or Afghanistan — or even Colombia in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The only explosive device we have seen that even remotely approached being considered a VBIED was the 16-kilogram device discovered in Juarez in September 2010. This means that those who are referring to the devices deployed in Mexico as VBIEDs are either mistaken or are intentionally hyping the devices. Claiming that the cartels are using “car bombs” clearly benefits those who are trying to portray the cartels as terrorists. As we’ve discussed elsewhere, there are both political and practical motives for labeling the Mexican drug cartels terrorists rather than just vicious criminals.

That said, the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes organization and the Gulf cartel have demonstrated that they can construct small devices and remotely detonate them using cellphones, Futaba radio-control transmitters and servos (as have the still unidentified groups responsible for the Tula attack and the radio-controlled device recovered in Guadalajara in September 2010). Once an organization possesses the ability to do this, and has access to large quantities of explosives, the only factor that prevents it from creating and detonating large VBIED-type devices is will.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s in Colombia, powerful Colombian drug trafficking organizations such as the Medellin cartel used large-scale terrorist attacks in an effort to get the Colombian government to back off on its counternarcotics efforts. Some of the attacks conducted by the Medellin cartel, such as the December 1989 bombing of the Colombian Administrative Department of Security, utilized at least 450 kilograms of explosives and were incredibly devastating. However, these attacks did not achieve their objective. Instead, they served to steel the will of the Colombian government and also caused the Colombians to turn to the United States for even more assistance in their battle against the Colombian cartels.

A U.S. government investigator who assisted the Colombian government in investigating some of the large VBIED attacks conducted by the Medellin cartel notes that Medellin frequently employed Futaba radio-control devices in its VBIEDs like those used for model aircraft. A similar Futaba device was recovered in Guadalajara in September 2010, found wired to the explosives-filled liquor bottle inside the car. This may or may not provide the Mexican authorities with any sort of hard forensic link between the Mexican and Colombian cartels, but it is quite significant that the Futaba device was used in an IED in Mexico with a main explosive charge that was much smaller than those used in Colombia.

On April 1, 2011, the Mexican military discovered a large arms cache in Matamoros. In addition to encountering the customary automatic weapons, grenades and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, the military also seized 412 chubs (plastic sleeves) of hydrogel commercial explosives, 36 electric detonators and more than 11 meters of detonation cord. (The Mexican government did not provide photos of the explosives nor the weight of the material recovered, but chubs of gel explosives can range in size from less than half a kilogram to a couple of kilograms in weight.) This means there were at least a hundred kilograms of explosives in the cache, enough to make a sizable VBIED. Given that the cache was located in Matamoros and appears to have been there for some time, it is likely that it belonged to the Gulf cartel. This, like other seizures of explosives, indicates that the reason the Gulf cartel has used small explosive devices in its past attacks is not due to lack of explosives or expertise but lack of will.

Assessing the Threat

When assessing any threat, two main factors must be considered: intent and capability. So far, the Mexican cartels have demonstrated they have the capability to employ VBIEDs but not the intent. Discerning future intent is difficult, but judging from an actor’s past behavior can allow a thoughtful observer to draw some conclusions. First, the Juarez cartel has been hard-pressed by both the Mexican government and the Sinaloa Federation, and it is desperately struggling to survive. Despite this, the leaders of that organization have decided not to follow through with their threats from last July to unleash a 100-kilogram VBIED on Juarez. The Juarez cartel is not at all squeamish about killing people and it is therefore unlikely that the group has avoided employing VBIEDs for altruistic or benevolent reasons. Clearly, they seem to believe that it is in their best interests not to pop off a VBIED or a series of such devices.

Although the Juarez cartel is badly wounded, the last thing it wants to do is invite the full weight of the U.S. and Mexican governments down upon its head by becoming the Mexican version of Pablo Escobar’s Medellin cartel, which would likely happen should it begin to conduct large terrorist-style bombings. Escobar’s employment of terrorism backfired on him and resulted not only in his own death but also the dismantlement of his entire organization. A key factor in Escobar’s downfall was that his use of terrorism not only affected the government but also served to turn the population against him. He went from being seen by many Colombians as almost a folk hero to being reviled and hated. His organization lost the support of the population and found itself isolated and unable to hide amid the populace.

Similar concerns are likely constraining the actions of the Mexican cartels. It is one thing to target members of opposing cartels, or even law enforcement and military personnel, and it is quite another to begin to indiscriminately target civilians or to level entire city blocks with large VBIEDs. While the drug war — and the crime wave that has accompanied it — has affected many ordinary Mexicans and turned sentiment against the cartels, public sentiment would be dramatically altered by the adoption of true terrorist tactics. So far, the Mexican cartels have been very careful not to cross that line.

There is also the question of cost versus benefit. So far, the Mexican cartels have been able to use small IEDs to accomplish what they need — essentially sending messages — without having to use large IEDs that would require more resources and could cause substantial collateral damage that would prompt a public-opinion backlash. There is also considerable doubt that a larger IED attack would really accomplish anything concrete for the cartels. While the cartels will sometimes conduct very violent actions, most of those actions are quite pragmatic. Cartel elements who operate as loose cannons are often harshly disciplined by cartel leadership, like the gunmen involved in the Falcon Lake shooting.

So while the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey may be erecting Jersey barriers to protect it from VBIED attacks, it is likely doing so based on an abundance of caution or some bureaucratic mandate, not hard intelligence that the cartels are planning to hit the facility with a VBIED.

This post originally appeared at STRATFOR, the world's leading private intelligence firm. To get access to more intelligence from STRATFOR, click here.

For the latest in politics, visit Politics. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• The One Striking Thing Missing From The Middle East Uprisings
• Restaurants And Jewelry Stores Are The Hot New Money Laundering Spots In Mexico

On a wintry mid-March afternoon at a sparsely attended  meeting  of a House Financial Services subcommittee, a handful of legislators heard testimony on five bills that would repeal or replace parts of last year’s sweeping financial services reform legislation, better known as Dodd-Frank after its chief congressional sponsors. 

Each bill had a different goal: One would release some derivatives transactions from margin rules; one would exempt private equity advisers from registration requirements; another would void an executive compensation disclosure regulation contained in the new law.

The commonality among the five bills? They were all sponsored by freshman Republican legislators holding coveted committee spots, who were showered with campaign donations from financial industry groups immediately after the November elections, according to an analysis by The Fiscal Times and the Center for Responsive Politics.

The freshmen – Steve Stivers of Ohio, Robert Hurt of Virginia, Michael Grimm and Nan Hayworth of New York, and David Schweikert of Arizona -- all hail from swing districts. Each won with 54 percent of the vote or less and will likely face tough reelection battles in 2012 when Republicans seek to maintain control of the House.

Long-time Republican operatives say freshmen legislators with scant legislative experience were anointed by GOP leaders and wound up sponsoring bills that would clearly benefit the bottom lines of firms in the financial services industry.

“It’s orchestrated. The leadership is trying to take care of them,” said Ed Rollins, a Republican campaign consultant at The Dilenschneider Group, who rose to national prominence during the Reagan years and most recently ran former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign. “A lot of that bill isn’t popular, and it’s a good way to get close to people who want it repealed.”  As expected, both legislators and industry representatives deny any connection between the money and legislative outcomes.

Donations by PACs and special interests have always flowed most generously to members of committees that consider legislation or regulatory issues.

The sizeable financial industry PAC contributions – Stivers alone raised at least $220,500 since the Nov. 2 election with nearly half coming from the finance, insurance and real estate industries known as FIRE –also illustrate how campaign contributions buy access to senior as well as junior members of key committees. Campaign finance experts say that donations by PACs and individuals associated with special interests have always flowed most generously to members of committees that consider legislation or regulatory issues germane to their interests.

The new chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., an avowed critic of Dodd-Frank, took in more than $1.4 million in FIRE-related contributions to his personal and leadership campaign committees over the past two years, with 84 percent of it coming from industry PACs. It was the most of any member of the committee. Yet Rep. Barney Frank, D- Mass., one of the main architects of the legislation spawned by the 2008 financial meltdown, also used his campaign and leadership committees as magnets for financial sector PAC money. He brought in $1.25 million in FIRE-related donations, with 42.4 percent from PACs and 57.6 percent from individuals working in financial services.

Other top-ranking legislators on the committee pulling in more than $600,000 for their campaign and leadership committees during the 2010 election cycle from FIRE-affiliated PACs and individuals included capital markets subcommittee chairman Scott Garrett, R-N.J., and Jeb Hensarling, R-Tex., a fifth-term legislator who also chairs the House Republican Conference. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Michael Capuano, D-Mass., the ranking minority members on the financial institutions and oversight and investigations subcommittees, respectively, also pulled in more than $600,000 from companies and employees from industries that their subcommittees oversee.  (See chart for top ten FIRE recipients.)

Any suggestion that bill sponsorship is related to campaign finance is flatly rejected by the legislators.   Stivers, for instance, said through a spokeswoman that he “is influenced by the people of Ohio’s 15th Congressional District” and that he is “focused on creating jobs and improving the economy in the district.”

The banking industry, which has fared poorly in public opinion polls in the wake of the financial crisis and recession, denies their campaign contributions can buy votes or get bills introduced or passed. Their donations only give them access so they can voice their concerns about pressing economic matters. “We believe that it is our responsibility to participate in the political process to ensure that we protect our shareholders’ investment in our firm,” Goldman Sachs says in its annual report to stockholders.

Goldman Sachs spent more than $1 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter of last year in addition to its campaign contributions.

The politically influential investment bank spent more than $1 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter of last year in addition to its campaign contributions. Since the last election, it has stepped up its contributions to freshman Republican legislators in particular, giving at least $8,000 to Stivers, $6,000 to Hayworth, and $1,000 to Grimm. The average member of the Financial Services Committee received more than three quarters as much in contributions from industries under their jurisdiction than the average member of Congress. The Law that Tipped the Scales
In July 2010, Congress passed a major financial services reform bill, co-sponsored by Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., that imposed a sweeping overhaul of banking regulations and numerous new disclosure requirements on corporate America and derivatives traders. Almost immediately, the affected industries attempted to water down the new rules by paying millions of dollars to lobbyists, many of whom previously worked on the Hill either as legislators or as staff to key committees, to pressure agencies such as the Treasury Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which are writing the new rules.

But with Republicans now in control of the House, the groups affected by the bill are also mounting a campaign to pass legislation that would either eliminate or dilute key provisions and funneling campaign contributions to the key legislators on the committee, including the dozen Republican freshmen, many of whom scored surprising upsets and received minimal contributions from the sector prior to the election.

• Grimm, 41, a Tea Party-backed candidate who entered politics after working as an undercover FB I agent exposing financial fraud, narrowly won his Staten Island seat despite being heavily outspent by incumbent Democrat Michael McMahon. During the race, just 25 percent of Grimm’s $1.3 million in contributions came from people or PACs associated with the finance, insurance or real estate industries compared to 20 percent of McMahon’s $2.7 million. Since the election, however, Grimm has raised 61 percent of the donations reported through the end of February from financial PACs with major donations coming from Goldman Sachs ($6,000), the American Bankers Association ($5,000) and the Investment Company Institute ($3,000), which represents the mutual fund industry.
  
  
• Stivers, a 46-year-old stock broker turned career politician from the Columbus, Ohio, suburbs, was a one-man financial juggernaut in the 2009-2010 election cycle, raising $2.7 million for his successful campaign to unseat Democratic incumbent Mary Jo Kilroy, who raised a similar amount. During the race, only 19 percent of his contributions came from individuals and political action committees associated with FIRE firms compared to less than 6 percent for Kilroy. In the first two months of this year, according to FEC filings, 85 percent of Stivers' $92,000 in receipts came from FIRE political action committees, including $5,000 from the Investment Company Institute and $4,000 from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
  
  
• South central Virginian Robert Hurt, a 41-year-old lawyer and state legislator, narrowly defeated incumbent Democrat Tom Perriello with 51 percent of the vote despite being outspent $3.8 million to $2.5 million. Neither man in the largely rural district received much from financial service firms during the race – about 10 percent for Republican Hurt compared to 6 percent for Perriello. In the four months after Election Day, however, a third of Hurt’s nearly $100,000 in PAC contributions reported thus far came from FIRE firms or trade groups, including $5,000 from the National Association of Realtors, $3,000 from the Independent Community Bankers and $2,500 from the American Bankers Association.

During the March hearing, which was heavily stacked with industry witnesses favoring the bills, each sponsor used very similar language to describe why the bill was important to their constituents. Requiring registration of advisers to private equity funds that provide capital to “struggling companies” will “impose an undue burden on small and mid-sized private equity firms and decrease capital available for job growth,” said Hurt, who sponsored the bill exempting them from that requirement in Dodd-Frank.

Damon Silver, a lawyer for the AFL-CIO, called Hurt’s bill the “no accountability for leveraged buyout funds act.”

Nan Hayworth, a physician representing well-off Westchester, Putnam and Orange counties north of New York City, sponsored the legislation repealing the requirement that publicly-traded companies include a salary comparison between top officers and average employees. “This bill eliminates irrelevant and confusing disclosure information . . . that diverts resources from job creation,” she said. Silver referred to it as the “promote CEO pay secrecy act.”

Grimm, who is sponsoring legislation that could exempt from Dodd-Frank’s new margin requirements two-party derivative transactions between highly regulated banks and firms that hedge currency and interest rate risk in their normal course of business, also sounded the jobs theme.

“We all want to create jobs. There was a meltdown. A lot of regulations weren’t enforced. There was a lack of oversight,” he said. But “the pendulum has swung so far that we could be over-regulating industry.”

Grimm’s bill should be called the “help create another AIG act,” Silver said.

Second Round Fund-Raising
Grimm has been particularly active on the money-raising front since the last election. He has held at least six fundraisers, according to the Sunlight Foundation, which keeps track of fundraising invitations. At an early February outing dubbed “Festa di compleanno” at Carmine’s just off Capitol Hill, a Washington outpost of the well-known New York City eatery, the suggested contributions for his birthday celebration were $2,500 to co-host; $1,000 for PACs; and $500 for individuals.

The monthly corporate PAC filings with the Federal Election Commission contained no individual donations from the intimate dinner, which a restaurant staffer said was held in a private dining room near the main bar, a room with its own overhead TV screen and lined with expensive bottles of wine. PAC contributions reported so far for that day included $1,000 from Goldman Sachs, KMPG Partners, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors.

Grimm, a former Marine who served in the first Iraq war, has been tapped as a future leader in the Republican Party. He’s one of 12 regional co-chairs for the National Republican Congressional Committee responsible for helping candidates throughout the Northeast in the next election.

While New York City would seem to be ripe territory for an adroit Wall Street fundraiser, the role is somewhat at odds with Grimm’s experience prior to entering politics. In 2002, Grimm went underground for nearly two years as a hedge fund manager in an FBI sting dubbed Operation Wooden Nickel.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission eventually brought civil charges against at least 15 hedge fund operators for engaging in fraud and receiving ill-gotten gains from the sale of foreign exchange derivatives, which in some circumstances could become exempt from margin requirements should Grimm’s proposed bill become law.

This post originally appeared at The Fiscal Times.

For the latest in politics, visit Politics. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• The Global Cost Of A U.S. Government Shutdown
• More Schools = Less Value

It's not very often that I get to know the person that Blue America PAC is endorsing for Congress years before they actually decide to run, but that's the case here as I now welcome Norman Solomon to the Blue America and Progressive communities and wholeheartedly put my support behind his campaign. I'm really pleased that he's coming here to help launch his fight to represent the true left when it comes to matters like the vast war machine and the many unnecessary nuclear energy power plants that our country's elites has embraced.

We meet in 2007 for coffee after he released his book entitled Made Love Got War, which is an autobiographical look at his life's work and that's when I found out that he's a very serious and principled man who has a history of standing up to the military industrial complex along with the nuclear power juggernaut and who stands strong with all working class Americans.

(Please donate to his campaign here.)

Unfortunately we are witnessing in real time the agonies that Japan is facing after suffering an 9.0 earthquake followed by a massive tsunami followed by severe aftershocks and power losses which has wreaked havoc to their Fukushima nuclear plant to the point where it's now at least on par with the great disaster in Chernobyl. There's an outcry from Japan now because many people feel that the government has been hiding the facts from them, while media elites in our country try to tell Americans that nuclear power is so nice and cozy and safe and we shouldn't worry. Even as we speak, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Seeks 20-Year Extension in California.

No shock there, right?

He's also been outspoken against needless and endless wars, supports a woman's right to choose and equal rights's for the LGBT community so what's not to like?. Norman has all the qualities that make up a great progressive candidate from Marin/Sonoma county. The right kind of Progressive candidate. The candidate that will buck the party system and fight for real progressive values and will be an outspoken leader on these issues. He's not just a cookie cutter politician that bows down to the party leadership. He's independent minded in a good way, but will not compromise his values.

Here's some of his accomplishments from his About Norman Solomon page on his website:

*Co-Chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for North Bay

*Organized and went on three missions to Baghdad prior to the invasion of Iraq seeking alternatives to war.

*Health-care Not Warfare National Co-Chair (with Congressman John Conyers and Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association

*Recipient of numerous awards including the George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language, and the Annual Ruben Salazar Journalism Award

*From 1997 to 2010, as founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, oversaw policy research and liaison with thousands of experts on global warming, foreign policy, labor rights, “welfare reform,” economic equity, lax enforcement of federal regulations, civil liberties and a wide range of other topics related to federal, state and local government policies nationwide

*One of the lone voices on national television against invading Iraq before the start of the Iraq war in early 2003, appearing on CNN and other major TV networks more than a dozen times to argue for diplomacy instead of a U.S. attack

*Co-chair of the state Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus foreign policy committee

*Organized and went on fact-finding trip to Afghanistan in 2009

*The New York Times Magazine has called him “a leading progressive activist.” The Los Angeles Times has called him “a formidable thinker and activist.”

That's a tremendous record of achievements so please join us in welcoming to C&L and Blue America PAC, Norman Solomon.

Please don't forget donate to his campaign at our Blue America act blue page here. He'll need your help to win this race.

Goettge Memorial Field House
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

10:02 A.M. EDT
 
DR. BIDEN:  Good morning.  I’m Jill Biden and I am a proud military mom.  I’m delighted to be back here at Camp Lejeune, and I’m especially fortunate to be here today with General Dunford and Bonnie Amos, wife of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
 
Looking out at this crowd of Marines and their amazing families, one word comes to mind:  Oo-rah!
 
AUDIENCE:  Oo-rah!
 
DR. BIDEN:  I love that.  (Laughter.) 
    
When I visited two years ago, I was struck by what an amazing community you have here.  I’ve had the honor of spending precious time with some of the Marines and family members of the 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion who were about to deploy to Afghanistan. 
 
I shared their pride, their concern and even their tears.  And as always, it was the mothers who sought me out.  They knew that I understood the powerful mix of emotions they were feeling at that moment.
 
As I greeted the mother of a young Marine, she gave me a tight hug.  I encouraged her to hang in there, hang in there.  And in that strong way only a Blue Star mom could, she said something to me I'll never forget.  She said, “Every day.  Every day.”
 
I understood exactly what she meant because my son, Beau, has been a member of the Delaware Army National Guard for the last 10 years.  In 2009, he served a year in Iraq.  I’m very proud of him, but I also know how tough it can be when a family member is in a war zone thousands of miles away.  I know how much you worry.  I know how much you pray. 
 
So to each of you and to your families, please accept our heartfelt thanks for your service to our nation. 
 
While I was here, I also had the privilege of visiting the Wounded Warrior Battalion where I met injured Marines whose overriding concern was when they could return to their units.  And while we can never repay these brave soldiers for their sacrifice, we can and must always make sure that we never forget them.
 
And I visited some dedicated students at Coastal Community College just down the road -- students like Julia Frost who in addition to being a former active duty Marine and a wife of a current Marine, was taking courses to become a teacher.
 
Every person I met demonstrated that you are real heroes, servicemembers and families alike, from the moms and dads who keep your families together while your loved ones are serving overseas, to the grandparents who step in with much needed support, to the children who are so strong and brave while their mom or dad is away from home.  
 
You go about your business every day, lifting up your communities, volunteering at your schools, lending a hand to your neighbors.  And you do it all while carrying a heavier burden than most folks can imagine.  You are truly remarkable.
 
And you are not doing it alone.  The people in the surrounding Lejeune community who are supporting our troops and their families are showing all Americans that there are countless ways to help -- some large and many small, but all are important.
 
And I can tell you, from personal experience, all appreciate it.  We can all join forces. 
 
That's why the First Lady and I are here today, because we need all Americans to support our military families the way you do it here. 
 
With that, I'd like to introduce my dear friend, my Joining Forces partner, and our amazing First Lady of the United States of America, Michelle Obama.  (Applause.)
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you all.  Thanks so much.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  And thank you, Jill.  I am so grateful to have such a magnificent friend and partner in Jill.  She’s just been amazing in so many ways.  And I am grateful, grateful.
 
I also want to recognize General Dunford; Major General Jensen; Mrs. Bonnie Amos, the wife of the Commandant of the Marine Corps; Mrs. Liz Kent, the wife of the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps.  I also want to recognize Senator Kay Hagan who is here with us today.  Please, Kay, stand, because she flew all the way back here from Washington to be here.  (Applause.)  And I am so grateful to Kay for all her support.  And of course North Carolina’s First Gentleman Bob Eaves, as well, thank you so much for taking the time to be here.  (Applause.)  And thank you for your work on behalf of the military and their families.
 
And of course, I want to thank all of you -- all of you -- here at Camp Lejeune. 
 
Now, the stories like the ones that Jill told are exactly why we’re here today.  We can’t tell you how much it has meant to us to have the chance to meet all of you, to hear your stories, and quite frankly to steal a few hugs from your kids, because they’re all so cute!  It’s usually the best part of the visit. 
 
All of you -– the Marines, the Sailors, the spouses, the children, the grandparents and everyone else out there –- you all are incredible.  You all are incredible.  Your strength and spirit inspire me every single day.  And I mean that.  And I’m so thankful that I’ve had the opportunity to learn from so many of you over the past few years.
 
No matter whether it’s been meeting with soldiers and families at Fort Bragg or other military bases, or sitting down at policy meetings with your commanders, or seeing the courage of our wounded warriors in hospitals all over this great nation, or feeling the strength of the families of one of our fallen heroes, you all have opened your arms, you’ve opened your hearts.  You’ve shown me what being in a military family is all about. 
 
And I know that every single member of a military family is serving this country, whether you’re wearing fatigues or whether you’re wearing hospital scrubs or a business suit or an elementary school uniform. 
 
For all of you out there who might be spouses or moms or dads, I know that you’re doing it all.  I know that you’re cooking breakfast before dawn.  I know that you’re shuffling the kids off to school and heading off to work for a full day yourself. 
 
I know that you’re trying to balance your own career.  Many of you are hitting the books, trying to complete your own degrees at the same time. 
 
I know that you’re getting your kids off to their Little League teams, helping them with their school projects, hosting birthday parties.
 
And while all of this is enough to fill any family’s plate, yours is also full of so much more.  It includes everything that comes with having a family member in the military.  And America needs to know. 
 
With each move, you know that means yet another school for your kids.  You know it means another new job for yourselves.
 
With each deployment, you run your household by yourself and you watch as your kids grow up just a little bit faster because mom or dad is away. 
 
And night after night, you pray, you pray that the next newscast or the next knock on the door will bring only good news.
 
And you do it all with such dignity, with such grace that most Americans don’t even realize what you’re going through. 
 
Military families are so good at keeping everything together that it’s almost like you’re wearing camouflage, even though you’re not the ones on the battlefield.  People can’t always see your special brand of service because you don’t wear it on your sleeve. 
 
Take Tanya Queiro, for instance, from right here at Camp Lejeune.  A Marine for 12 years herself, Tanya is married to another Marine who’s still on active duty.  Together, they have three kids between the ages of 10 and 14.  And she’s pursuing a doctorate in organizational psychology.  She works full-time as a human resource specialist, while also volunteering as a mentor to other military spouses.  And she’s done it all through at least eight of her husband’s deployments, which last more than six months at a time.
 
But even with all these achievements and contributions, do you know what Tanya says?  And these are her words.  She says, “I don’t think I’m a super-woman and I don’t think I really do anything extra-ordinary.”
 
And that’s just it.  That's just it.  Your ordinary is extraordinary.  Your ordinary is extraordinary for anyone.
 
And that’s why Jill and I are here today.  We want everyone in this country to know just how extraordinary military families are.
 
And that’s why we’ve launched the Joining Forces campaign.  Now, this is a nationwide effort to bring Americans together to recognize, honor and serve our nation’s military families.  And we’re going to focus on the things that military families like yours have told us that you care about most; things like employment and education and wellness and mental health.  These are the issues military spouses brought up as we’ve been traveling around the country.  They’re the concerns we’ve heard from troops who just want to make sure their families are taken care of when they’re deployed. 
 
And so we’ve put out a call; a call to action to every sector of our society so that everyone mobilizes to do what we can to make a real commitment to support military families like yours.
 
And our motto is simple:  Everyone can do something.  Everyone can do something.  Everyone can ask themselves, “What can I do to give back to these families that have given our country so much?”
 
And I am pleased that Americans of all kinds are already stepping up to answer that call.  And you all should know that.  People are excited to help.  They’re pumped up.
 
We’re joining forces across the federal government.  My husband directed his federal agency -- all of them; not just the Departments of Defense and the VA, but all of them, to identify ways that they could make life easier for all of you.  And in January, they came back with nearly 50 commitments –- everything from improving access to mental health care and childcare, to helping spouses and veterans find jobs.
 
We’re joining forces with businesses and non-profit organizations across the country.  Companies like Sears, and Kmart and Sam’s Club, they’ve promised us that if a military spouse who works at their stores has to move to a new duty station, they’ll do their best to have a job waiting for those spouses.
 
Siemens told us that they’ll set aside 10 percent of their open positions for veterans. 
 
The SCORE Foundation and partners like Wal-Mart, and Cisco, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft said that they’ll provide materials and services to 16,000 veterans and spouses to help them start successful small businesses. 
 
Reach Out and Read will distribute 400,000 books to military kids. 
 
The PTA and the Military Child Education Coalition have committed to help schools across the country better understand the unique challenges that military children face. 
 
And let me tell you, the list goes on and on and on.  And after today’s launch, we’ve gotten even more calls from more businesses and more non-profits across this country.
 
We’re joining forces with individuals and communities, so that each of us finds our own way to serve the military families who are our neighbors and our co-workers and our classmates, because mostly, this is about joining forces with you.  We want to make sure that these commitments make a real difference in your lives. 
 
And this isn’t going to be a one-way street, because we really need to hear back from you so that we can keep finding ways to work together and lighten the load for our military families.  We need to hear from you.  This doesn’t matter if it’s not hitting you where you live.  So we’re going to need to know.
 
And that’s something that all of you here in Jacksonville know a whole lot about, stepping up in a community, because the military and civilian communities here have been joining forces for decades.  We’re here because this is a model of what can happen.
 
I’ve heard about how the Beirut Memorial outside of town was built.  I’ve heard about how, in the face of a tragedy, the citizens and businesses of Jacksonville came together to raise funds and gather donations in order to honor our fallen heroes and their families.
 
And in the decades since that time, this community’s commitment has never wavered.  That's what I’ve been told.
 
To this day, this community is holding fish fries and selling hot dogs out of backs of trucks to raise money for military causes.  I hear that the local businesses here give donations to military families in need.  The car dealerships sponsor scholarships for kids of Marines.  I know that the YMCA here has worked with your schools on programming to help children adjust to the transitions of military life.
 
And I know that your own young people are getting involved in very special ways, like 17-year-old Margaret Rochon, who was honored as one of the nation’s military children of the year just last week.  I got to meet her.  Very special young woman.
 
Margaret single-handedly convinced six nationally recognized experts to come lead a seminar for some of your schoolteachers about the effects of PTSD on military families.  This young girl did this.  Now it’s part of the formal annual training for teachers in Onslow County, I’m told.  And she did it all while volunteering more than 500 hours right here in this community.  That's what Margaret did.  And she’s a kid.
 
So, all these stories -- and there are so many more -- all these stories are beautiful.  They’re inspiring.  And they show something very important.  They show the rest of the nation that you don’t have to be the First Lady of the United States, you don't have to be a CEO, you don't have to be a General to get involved in this effort. 
 
And that’s exactly what we want to accomplish with Joining Forces.  Our goal is for every community in America to feel like this one feels.  This is the model -- for every school to understand the challenges of being a military child.  We want every business to do something, to do anything, to show their support; for community groups, and faith communities, and individuals to take every step they can so that military families know that they never have to go it alone.
 
And we want to make sure that these commitments last, no matter who the President is, who controls Congress, no matter if we’re in a time of war or in a time of peace, because the truth is, showing our gratitude to those who serve this nation, whether they’re on the battlefield or right here at home, is something that every single one of us, as an American, can and should get behind. 
 
This is something that we all can believe in –- as neighbors, as community members, but most importantly, as Americans.
 
So I truly hope that this initiative makes a real impact in your lives.  I really hope it does.  And I hope that this is worthy of the strength and the service and the commitment that your families demonstrate every single day.  That is our hope.
 
And so to all of you here, I just want to say thank you.  Thank you for setting that example for the rest of us.  And thank you for being so extraordinary. 
 
May God bless you all, and may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you.  (Applause.)
 
END
10:23 A.M. EDT

Ali Abdullah Saleh, the President of Yemen, has proved himself to be a consummate political tactician from his earliest years. The illiterate soldier got an education, fought his way to a commission and thence to power. He has since played off, co-opted and compromised his political opponents (and allies) in a way which would have Machiavelli nodding approvingly. Ruthlessness, too, is alleged – rumours persist of fortuitous fatal accidents – even outright assassination - befalling stubborn political enemies.

However this network of patronage and balances seems finally to have enmeshed the great survivor, giving him little political room to manoeuvre as the greatest crisis of his career breaks. Having given all the ground he can afford, President Saleh and his regime are likely to resort to ever increasing levels of violence to retain their positions.

Yet as recently as early January, the Joint Meeting Parties (an umbrella group of 6 opposition parties) alleged that Saleh was confident of changing the Constitution to allow him to be president for life, with the aim of handing over the Republic to his son. This came in the context of a gradually (though at the time seemingly controllable) deteriorating domestic situation in which the central government faced increasing unrest both in the north and the south. Hirak (the Southern Mobility Movement) had led frequent protests across the former South since 2005, in protest against their political and economic marginalisation after the Civil War of 1994. These protests had been controlled by a mixture of overt and secret policing of varying intensity. (With that exception, mass civic protest was rare and usually over specific issues, such as the petrol riots in July 2005, during which 12 people were killed.) Instead, tribal custom was to take a hostage as a bargaining chip and to denote seriousness. When that failed, groups – such as the Zaydi revivalist Huthis - would mount an insurrection. In the case of the Huthis, their main demands (an end to government enabled Salafism and corruption) have gone unmet, and the rebellion has lasted for six seasons of fighting.

Yet when Tunisia spontaneously combusted in mid-January 2011, student-led demonstrations sprang up in Sana’a. (Like most Arab countries, Yemen has a huge and poorly educated youth population with few economic prospects.) Initially, the protests were relatively amicable and checked by the simple ploy of hiring large numbers of tribesmen mostly from the Hashid Confederation (to which Saleh belongs) to occupy the central Tahrir Square so that protestors had little space in which to demonstrate – a nuanced and non-aggressive tactic. But the protests did not dissipate, and indeed grew both in size and intensity. They were met with a combination of police lines and baltajiyya (rent-a-mob), ultimately resulting in violent clashes with the police. With concern rising among politicians on all sides, Saleh quickly offered pay raises to government employees, a tax-break to civilians, and fee-amnesties and an employment fund to students. Nevertheless, the protests continued.

On 2nd February, Saleh declared that he would not stand for re-election in 2013, and that he was against inherited rule. Given his track record of unkept promises, the people did not believe him – and called for him to go straight away. Throughout February, the demonstrations (and counter-demonstrations) increased in locations, participants, stridency – and deaths, ultimately reaching Ta’iz, the intellectual capital of north Yemen.

Concerned, Saleh made the rounds of the political, military and tribal elites, offering presents and soliciting support. This appears to have angered Husayn al-Ahmar (one of the brothers of the paramount Shaykh of the Hashid tribal confederation) who felt that Saleh had trampled on his turf. Al-Ahmar quit the ruling General People’s Congress party on 26th February and joined one of his other brothers in opposition (cynics noted that he had done this before.) A minister and several other politicians also resigned the GPC whip during February, most in protest at the way the demonstrations had been handled. Later, Abdal-Majid al-Zindani, a Salafi cleric and periodic ally of the President, declared that he was with the people, and that an Islamic state was coming to Yemen. Protests continued.

Possibly as significant as the defections was the beginning of co-ordination between previously disparate groups: the Huthis in the north and Hirak in the south linked up with the people in the central mountains – a uniting front that presents a credible threat to the regime. On the 28th February, the President announced a government of National Unity – which was rejected by the wary JMP.

The JMP – the mostly loyal opposition – have struggled to ride the whirlwind of the people, sometimes even to keep up with it. On 3rd March, the JMP proposed a way forward whose five points were: for President Saleh to leave office by the year-end, for his relatives to leave their posts before then; for the right of peaceful protest; inquiries into the crackdowns; and revised electoral procedures. The people were not impressed with what they saw as a political fix. Regardless, Saleh asserted his intention to remain in power for the remainder of his tenure.

By 8th March, the protests had spread to Dhamar, home of several Cabinet ministers, and anti-Government graffiti was seen in the President’s own village, Bayt al-Ahmar. On the same day, the Army were deployed onto the streets for the first time. On 10th March, Saleh announced “the transition from presidential system of government to parliamentary system of government, and to move all powers to the elected government by the end of 2011.” Too late, said the opposition, while the people re-iterated their call for the President to go immediately. Protests continued: 100,000 turned out at Sana’a University on 11th March.

So what’s next?

In the short term, it is likely that President Saleh will attempt to ride out the calls for an immediate departure with assurances that he will go at the end of his term. While the northern element of the JMP may be satisfied with achieving more advantageous positions, the people, the Huthis and Hirak are unlikely to accept a continuity of the same system. A violent confrontation is thus increasingly likely.

Ominously, internet connectivity – and thus the people’s communications – has been temporarily cut off in Sana’a. On 14th March, four foreign journalists were expelled, a Yemeni journalist working in English received a threatening message, and other English language websites have been disrupted. Threateningly, officials have branded attacks on political and security personnel in Ma’rib and al-Jawf provinces as the work of JMP supporters, rather than the more likely continuation of a tribal grievance. Increasingly violent suppression has continued, with pro-government groups inflicting hundreds of injuries in Ta’iz and Hudaydah (the main Red Sea port), and shooting dozens of protestors in Sana’a. For Saleh (and his Sanhani cabal) have no way forward other than to try to stay in power. The score-settling alone (not to mention the loss of assets) accrued from 30 years rule means that they cannot afford not to stay in power. Thus the regime will likely increase the use of force to suppress dissent and bear down on journalists covering it, as they have shown against the Huthis and Hirak over the last five years.

Saleh will not go down without a fight. Unlike Ben Ali and Mubarak, he has ensured that the military and security forces are controlled by close, loyal family members. Further, although the role of the tribes has reduced over recent decades, Yemen remains a tribally based society, in which loyalty to one’s leader often trumps – indeed replaces – one’s political view. When the tribes’ arsenals are taken into account, they become not only a potent political influence, but a capable and rapidly mobilised military force – as they showed in the February 1979 conflict with South Yemen. Saleh has been assiduous in courting tribal leaders during the past few months. Further, Washington sees Saleh as a critical ally against al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsular (AQAP), an organisation recently described comparatively to Congress as “probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland." This has compromised Obama’s ability to speak out more forcefully against Saleh’s repression.

After Saleh?

The opposition are united in one thing – to get rid of Ali Abdullah Saleh, and his immediate family. Beyond that there is no agreement. Indeed, divisions abound in Yemen, and the current struggle is actually many struggles:

• the intra-regime competition to succeed Saleh;
• the arguments among the political elite:
  • the al-Ahmars vs the rest of the JMP over replacing the system, or just the regime;
  • between the JMP parties over the future direction of Yemen – tribal / religious, or southern / secular;
• an intra-Islah debate over Islah’s identity (whether more tribal or more religious);
• intra-Hirak as to whether to devolve, federate or secede;

and finally, the universal conflict between the people and the political elite.

President Saleh has hitherto successfully played upon these internal divisions, and on the fact that many in Yemen – particularly within the politico-economic elite – fear “Post-Saleh” chaos (and loss of privilege). Similarly, he has exploited foreigners’ (read U.S.) fears that Post-Saleh is chaos, confusion and al-Qa’ida. Nevertheless, while these divisions have been temporarily subsumed in the struggle to oust Saleh, they will quickly re-emerge post-Saleh.

This does not necessarily mean that the country will not be able to be managed. Those who believe that a post-Saleh Yemen necessarily means chaos and terrorism often also argue that the Government’s writ runs thin outside the cities. Indeed, while Yemen's formal institutions are relatively weak, its informal ones are strong. The tribes – which effectively constitute independent states (with their own laws, courts, militia, social security, etc) - manage their own affairs, and will outlast the Saleh government, as they have every other central government, including the Ottoman and British Empires.

Moreover, AQAP’s physical capability is relatively limited in Yemen; as happened in Iraq, if the tribes are empowered and encouraged they can deal with the issue effectively. The government has paid some tribes to conduct anti-al-Qa’ida operations, while other tribes do so for their own reasons: there have been two recent tribal killings of jihadis, and this is likely to increase as AQAP find that it is one thing to try to overthrow the Yemeni state - and quite another to try it on with the Yemeni tribes. Already, the bigoted ideology of the salafi jihadis has begun to bring them into conflict with the heavily armed, traditionalist Zaydi Shi’a tribesmen of the mountains.

Given the tribesmen’s plentiful weaponry, developed legal system and vigorous independence, this means that it is highly unlikely that Yemen will either collapse into chaos, or become al-Qa’idastan merely because there is a weak federal government. In the event that the regime is ejected, it is likely that President Saleh’s tangled skein of alliances will come to pieces, and a re-balancing of political forces will occur. However, given Yemen’s remarkable affinity for decision by consensus, together with the (currently) reducing importance of the tribes, it is unlikely that civil war will result. Rather, a more technocratic, more democratic system will emerge, with more power devolved to the regions.

The challenges which confront Yemen remain daunting: oil and water rapidly declining, population and unemployment rapidly increasing. With a more transparent, more accountable government (and pragmatic assistance from the international community), both these domestic concerns, and foreign terrorist threats, are likely to be managed more effectively and to the satisfaction of more parties than is currently the case. Post-Saleh does not necessarily mean chaos in Fortunate Arabia.

In Mike Allen’s morning newsletter, we read: “Huge three days ahead, with the sharpest intersection of high-stakes politics and government since the midterms: President Obama’s 1:35 p.m. address on his long-term plan for deficits will be covered as the first speech of the 2012 campaign. Team Obama wants the American public to see the president as ‘the adult in the room,’ and views this is a chance for POTUS to steal beyond-the-Beltway momentum from House Republicans.”

1. I’m pleased to hear it, but do you remember reading anything recently in the mainstream media about House Republicans having “beyond-the-Beltway momentum”? We heard a great deal of credit to Paul Ryan for having a serious and detailed plan. But somehow, we never hear much about Republican advantages or momentum until the narrative is that Democrats are “making their comeback.”

2. If your staff has to leak that you’re the “adult in the room,” you’re not actually being the adult in the room.

3. How revealing is that metaphor? The deficit and debt are huge. Despite the allegedly improving economy, this year’s “deficit is on track to set a new record, with economists at the Congressional Budget Office forecasting an imbalance of $1.5 trillion this year, exceeding the old record of $1.41 trillion in 2009.”

Congressional Democrats insist the problem can be dealt with by raising the top tax rate to 47 percent and ending all U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2012, cutting defense by $674 billion over four years. Congressional Republicans are by and large backing the Ryan plan: entitlement reform, repealing Obamacare, simplifying the tax code, replacing the corporate income tax with a business consumption tax, and a binding cap on total federal spending in proportion to GDP. Choices ranging from the politically difficult to the politically impossible. Ideas ranging from the insane to the innovative.

The Obama response? “Oh, you crazy kids. What a mess you’ve made. Don’t worry, Daddy’s here to straighten this all out.”

Sorties over Eastern Afghanistan?  Check.  Convoys through Iraq?  Got it.  A federal government shutdown?  That might be a problem

Members of the Massachusetts Air National Guard 's 104th Fighter Wing have earned a reputation for facing challenges head on but the looming government shutdown on April 8 nearly grounded the unit during their Weapons System Evaluation Program deployment here. The pilots and maintenance teams were poised, ready to employ their air-to-air arsenal at WSEP.
more...

We just spent an agonizing few months in which the prospect of a government shut down was averted for five more months by a "deal" to cut roughly $38 Billion Dollars from Discretionary Spending. As you well know (those of you that have been paying attention) last December, when Democrats still controlled the Congress, the Bush Tax Cuts (and more besides!) were extended. The cost this year of maintaining those tax subsidies? Roughly $85.8 BILLION per year.

Well, we know the vast majority deficit hawks vultures are hypocrites.

What many keep forgetting however is the true third rail of American politics, the one item (now that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are back on the menu for for the Deficit vultures). And what might that be? US Defense Spending.

The Problem of Expanding Defense Budgets:

Let's begin shall we with the overall costs of the US military budget, shall we?

Since 1998, the military spending by the Federal Government has increased from a little over $350 Billion to present non-war related defense expenditures for 2011 of $698 Billion. Here's a little chart that shows non-war Defense Spending from 1998 through 2008:

Since 2001, of course war operations in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq make up a significant component of that amount. Indeed, as of 2010, those costs represented 1.15 Trillion Dollars. Yet the base budget for the Defense department is still significantly high than the war related expenses. In 2011, President Obama proposed a military base budget (i.e., not including Iraq, Afghanistan or other war related supplemental spending) of $533 Billion and for 2011 a base budget of $549 Billion.

So even without war spending, the Defense Department has increased its operational costs from $350 Billion (which included enforcing the No Fly Zone over much of Iraq) to half a Trillion Dollars this year. Here's another little chart that compares our current levels of defense spending (adjusted for inflation) to those since 1945, the last year of WWII:

As you can see from the chart, our core, non-war defense spending these last few years is the equivalent of total defense spending for 1953, the last year of the Korean War, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, and 1989, in the midst of the Reagan/Bush 1 military buildup. When you add in the cost of the war expenditures, only total defense costs 1945 exceed our current outlays for military spending.

Of course, in the 1950's Eisenhower raised the tax rate on the wealthiest American to 91%, in large part to pay for the cost of those wars. Those tax rates remained as high as 70% under Nixon and even 50% under Ronald Reagan. In the past decade, however, taxes on the wealthiest Americans were reduced to below the 39.6% rate under Bill Clinton's years in office even as Defense spending increased dramatically. Another little chart demonstrates these facts:

So what caused the rise in the federal deficit on which the Deficit Vultures so love to harp, and blame the costs of our social safety net, essential government agencies 9IRS, SEC, FTC, EPA, FDA, etc.) and modest funding for groups such as Planned Parenthood and PBS? Two things in my view:

1. Tax subsidies that overwhelmingly favored the wealthiest Americans and Corporations
2. Increased Defense Spending (including the utterly unnecessary War in Iraq)

Well, we know that the Deficit Vultures, especially those in the Cracked Teapot wing of the Republican Party will never agree to raise taxes to pay for all this increased military spending. Indeed, their leading Deficit Vulture, Paul Ryan, has proposed a plan that eliminates Medicare, slashes Social Security, etc., all while lowering the tax rate on the upper 1% of Americans to 25%. Ryan would also eliminate the estate tax and the corporate income tax. In their place he would impose a federal value added tax or VAT (he calls it a business consumption tax but it's really just a VAT) of 8.5%. This tax would disproportionately effect people in the middle and lower classes according to an analysis of Ryan's proposals by Citizens for Tax justice:

Congressman Ryan would repeal the federal estate tax, which affects only the very largest estates (less than one percent of estates, in recent years). He would also repeal the corporate income tax and replace it with an 8.5 percent “business consumption tax,” the same thing as a value-added tax (VAT).

Retail businesses would collect the full VAT from consumers, so it would have the same regressive effects as a sales tax. Low- and middle-income families spend most or all of their income on consumption, since they have little or no money left to save after paying for basic necessities. High-income families are able to save much more of their income. This means that if Congress enacts a tax that applies only to consumption (like a VAT or national sales tax), it would eat up a much larger percentage of total income for poor and middle-class families than for wealthy families.

... [T]he 8.5 percent VAT is (almost) the entire reason why the bottom 90 percent of taxpayers would pay more under Congressman Ryan’s plan than under President Obama’s plan.

Oh and Ryan also plans to eliminate popular tax deductions for the middle class such as the mortgage tax deduction, the charitable deduction and the home residence property tax deduction.

My Plan, or how to solve the so-called "deficit problem."

If the Deficit Vultures really want to get serious about reducing the Federal deficit they can either raise taxes, or find ways to cut a bloated US military that is fraught with fraud and waste, and the expense of fighting three (and counting) wars in the Middle East.

First, begin with government fraud and waste in defense contracting.

The GAO filed a report in 2009 that listed the reasons why the current system of procurement is designed to increase the costs of our military spending without actually getting much value for that upon which we spend our precious tax dollars:

The GAO study of defense weapons acquisitions finds that the Department of Defense "commits to more programs than resources can support."

Translation: It doesn't say "no" often enough.

What's more, the report notes that the DOD "fails to balance the competing needs of the services with those of the joint warfighter."

Translation: The services do not coordinate their needs, so they often duplicate systems and run up costs.

There is a body—with the fantastically bureaucratic name of Joint Capabilities and Integration Development System—that is supposed to prevent such duplication, but it reportedly approves nearly all of the proposals it receives from the services rather than prioritizing them. The services are supposed to coordinate with each other, but, according to the GAO, nearly 70 percent of the time they don't.

The study, released today, points to the Pentagon's "acceptance of unreliable cost estimates based on overly optimistic assumptions."

Translation: Defense officials wink at unrealistic price tags for complex weapons systems, leaving their successors—and taxpayers—to pay the full costs sometime in the future.

Moreover, the study adds, "DOD officials are rarely held accountable for poor decisions or poor program outcomes." [...]

The GAO report raised a case in point: Last year alone, the DOD's portfolio of weapons programs went $295 billion over original cost estimates. What's more, the programs were running, on average, 21 months behind schedule. And when they were completed, they provided less than they promised.

In GAO parlance, the final products "delivered fewer quantities and capabilities to the warfighter than originally planned."

Jacques Gansler, the chairman of the Defense Science Board's Task Force on Industrial Structure for Transformation, testified that the Defense Department needs more acquisition officials who are qualified to review defense contracts. Currently, he said, they are short-staffed and their importance to the Pentagon's workforce is undervalued.

This, Gansler added, introduces opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. He testified that there are currently 90 acquisition fraud cases under review from the war zones.

In fact, a panel of respected civilian and military experts, the Department of Defense Panel on Contracting Integrity, has already issued a report on how to cut waste and fraud in our military budget. You can find a copy of their 171 page report, including their recommendations and conclusions at to eliminate Defense contracting waste and fraud, this link. The report is entitled the "Panel on Contracting Integrity's 2009 Report to Congress."

I'm not going to list all their recommendations and conclusions here. That would make this diary far too lengthy. However if you are interested I suggest you peruse the report. Most of what they recommend is simple common sense, the same sorts of procedures and policies that any major business would employ to eliminate waste and prevent fraud and abuse in their procurement processes. Recommendations such as these:

1. Hire more procurement officials nad train them better to recognize signs of fraud, waste and abuse.
2. Reduce Conflicts of Interest by requiring more disclosure of contacts and prior relationships between the defense contractors and the officials in charge of the contracting process
3. Increase Penalties and Fines for fraud and streamline the process of enforcement of existing laws.
4. Allow DOD to retain funds recovered from fraud actions rather than permitting the Treasury to receive and retain such monies. As the panel stated:

   Currently, DoD must “pay” twice for the value of goods or services lost through fraud. Though it has no appropriated funds for paying liabilities properly chargeable to cancelled accounts, DoD is required to pay such liabilities from current appropriations. Accounts for lost funds recovered by the government under the False Claims Act have usually expired, thus the funds generally go to the Treasury Department rather than the defrauded agency.

   The law currently requires funds for expired accounts to be deposited as miscellaneous receipts under the control of the Treasury Department. This opportunity cost is a considerable disincentive for agency personnel to expend time and effort assisting with fraud investigations. The subcommittee believes individuals would be more willing to participate in fraud investigations if their organizations retained some of the recovered funds.

5. Create a DOD Ethics Program for all procurement employees
6. Better documentation of contracts regarding potential conflicts of interest, reasonableness of prices, better assessment of contractors' ability to satisfy production requirements in a timely manner, and more market research by reliable to inform decisions on the need for the item in question and which companies have a better track record and should be awarded contracts.
7. Fewer No-Bid Contracts.

Second, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which are costing us $171 Billion this year alone. Even reducing our war efforts in th e Middle East by one half would reduce the deficit by $85 Billion. Add that number to reduced waste, fraud and abuse in defense contracting and pretty soon we are talking about real savings, not just superficial yet painful cuts that harm many many Americans for the sole benefit of politicians who can perform their Kabuki dance to proclaim how "serious" they all are on cutting the deficit.

Yes, I know the Deficit Vultures won't do anything to reduce Defense Spending.

The Deficit Vultures aren't going to discuss eliminating tax subsidies for the richest Americans either, but that does not mean we, liberals, progressives and especially Democrats should not be advocating in every public forum we can that if people want serious deficit reduction through spending cuts the place to find it is where the most waste and unnecessary spending is occurring: The US Military and our endless wars that do little to reduce the risk of terrorism but do much to promote the interests of Big Oil and defense contractors (i.e,., war profiteers).

If the Cracked Teapot Republicans want to put the programs that have best served ordinary Americans on the Chopping Block (unemployment insurance, disability benefits, Medicare,Social Security and agencies that insure are food, drugs, water and air are safe and that our financial markets are not merely casinos where Massive Financial Institutions rake in all the profits while forcing the rest of us to bear all the risks they take), than we need to put their sacred Cows up on that same block.

And the way to begin is to do what The Cracked Teapot Republicans like Paul Ryan have done. In other words we need someone in the Democratic Party to boldly assert a plan that proposes major Defense cuts and the elimination of tax subsidies for the rich.

Ryan has shown us the way. He wants to cut programs that most Americans depend upon and support. We should be willing to advocate for the elimination of War Spending (already very unpopular among most Americans) and wasteful and fraudulent Military Spending (an easy sell to make in my mind). After all, who supports fraud, abuse and wasteful military spending that delivers inferior weapons and services and does little to help our troops do their job when it is necessary for them to do so.

We should also be talking up a plan to eliminate special tax favors for corporations and the "one percenters," as well, but that's the subject for another day and another diary.

Discuss

Washington, DC – President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden today launched Joining Forces, a national initiative to support and honor America’s service members and their families.  The initiative aims to educate, challenge, and spark action from all sectors of our society – citizens, communities, businesses, non-profits, faith based institutions, philanthropic organizations, and government – to ensure military families have the support they have earned.

Joining Forces is spearheaded by Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden, who have been leaders in supporting our nation’s military families and advocating for their priorities.  Joining Forces was created to address the unique challenges and needs of military families that Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden have heard firsthand during meetings with military spouses, briefings with military leaders, and many visits to military communities at home and abroad, and through their work on military family priorities.  Building on this groundwork, the initiative will focus on key priority areas – employment, education, and wellness, while engaging in a comprehensive effort to raise awareness about the service, sacrifice, and needs of military families.

“Joining Forces was created to recognize and serve our nation’s extraordinary military families who, like their loved ones in uniform, serve and sacrifice so much so that we can live in freedom and security,” said Mrs. Obama.  “This is a challenge to every segment of American society not to simply say thank you but to mobilize, take action and make a real commitment to supporting our military families.”

“There are so many ways that every American can lend a hand and make a difference,” said Dr. Biden. “We have met individuals and groups across this country who are supporting our troops and their families and showing all Americans that there are countless ways to help – some large and many small.  But all important.  And I can tell you from personal experience, all appreciated. That is why we are here today – and why Michelle and I are trying to rally American communities to join us.”

Joining Forces also builds upon President Obama’s landmark Presidential Study Directive to establish a coordinated and comprehensive Federal approach to supporting military families.  Released this past January, Strengthening Our Military Families:  Meeting America’s Commitment aims to improve the quality of life of our military families, veterans, and survivors of the fallen.  The report details nearly 50 commitments from Cabinet Agencies to reform, strengthen, and better coordinate the Federal Government’s support for military families.  For example, the Department of the Treasury has established an Office of Service Member Affairs in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to address the financial challenges that confront military families. The Departments of Labor, Commerce, Defense and the Small Business Administration are partnering with the business community to make it easier for veterans and their spouses to build a career.

President Obama said, “We’re here today because these Americans in uniform have never served alone.  Not at Lexington and Concord, not in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Behind every American in uniform stands a wife or husband; a mother, a father; a son or daughter; a sister or brother.  These families – these remarkable families – are the force behind the force.”

“I have always said we have lots of obligations as a nation – but only one truly sacred moral obligation:  to prepare and protect those we send into harm’s way, and to give them every bit of care they, and their families, need when they return,”  said Vice President Biden.

The Administration has made military families a priority across the federal government, but Joining Forces recognizes that this can’t be the work of government alone.  Joining Forces will reach out broadly to include commitments and efforts from outside government across many different sectors.  As an initial step, the White House convened and worked with leading employers, non-profits and media companies to kick off Joining Forces with meaningful commitments to address military families’ unique needs in employment, education, wellness and public awareness.  Some examples are below:

In employment, Sears Holdings, Walmart and Sam’s Club, Siemens Corporation, Goodwill, the Society for Human Resource Management, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Cisco, and Indeed.com have all committed to major hiring and training initiatives for veterans and family members, and/or transportable job options for military spouses.

In education, the National Math and Science Initiative, Discovery Education, National PTA, the Military Child Education Coalition, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Reach Out and Read, Best Buy’s Geek Squad, McGraw Hill, the Better Business Bureau’s Military Line, and Intel have all committed to major initiatives to support academic achievement of military children, and to expand education and training opportunities for veterans and military spouses.

In wellness, Joining Forces has engaged associations and organizations representing primary care and mental health specialists across military and civilian health services to promote collaboration, sharing of best practices and expansion of exemplary models of care to reach all military families.  WebMD, the American Heart Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, YMCA, National Military Family Association, Sierra Club, and the U.S. Tennis Association have all committed to expand access to wellness programs and resources for military families.

Commitments also include public awareness activities to ensure that Americans know more about the unique challenges and needs of military families and their strength, resilience and service.  Joining Forces will work with Sesame Street, NASCAR, A&E Lifetime Networks, AOL, USO, Viacom’s Nickelodeon and Country Music Channel, Disney ABC, Pixar, Major League Baseball, and the four major entertainment guilds on ongoing public awareness campaigns about military families.  And, Blue Star Families, the Red Cross, and ServiceNation: Mission Serve have developed an initiative enabling people to honor military families by making pledges of service.

As part of the initiative, a new website – JoiningForces.gov – provides ways for all Americans to step up and show their gratitude to our service members and their families. Visitors can send messages of thanks, find opportunities to get involved and share stories of service. The website will highlight Federal Government support and the outstanding American citizens, communities, and businesses that are serving our nation’s military families.

In response to the White House’s call to action, one of the nation’s leading nonpartisan institutions focused on national security, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), has announced it will be coordinating commitments already made and mobilizing ongoing support for the initiative.  The effort at CNAS will be led by a board of distinguished Americans with a life of experience in the armed forces, military families and the private sector.  The two initial members of board will be General Stanley McChrystal (Ret.), and Patty Shinseki.

A full fact sheet is available HERE.

Remember last week when the troops were told that if the government shut down, that they'd only get half a paycheck on payday, then no more until the government reopened? Of course, they'd still be expected to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Remember last week when President Obama vowed to veto the continuing resolution that would have funded the military for the rest of the year?

Kudos to Navy Federal Credit Union, who announced that any military member who had a direct deposit account (translation: virtually all) would get a full paycheck. In other words, the Credit Union would front the rest of their pay and members could settle up with the Credit Union when the regular paychecks started again and the retro pay was in hand.

Glad it wasn't needed, but very cool nonetheless.

If it were up to me, and if I did not care about the wider political consequences, I would allow all asylum seekers who arrive spontaneously on Australian shores by boat to live in the community after a short period of detention for health and security checks.

I would only ask of them that they report to authority until their cases for permanent residence have been assessed by a scrupulously independent tribunal operating on the basis of strict adherence to the international refugee conventions that Australia has signed. For those asylum seekers found not to be refugees, I would support their repatriation, but only when it was clear beyond reasonable doubt that this was safe. 

Unhappily, the question of asylum seeker policy cannot be rationally discussed purely on the basis of personal preference, mine or anyone else’s.

Having observed Australian attitudes to the arrival by boat of unauthorised asylum seekers since the mid 1970s, I have arrived at three main conclusions.

1. Australian public opinion is troubled by the spontaneous arrival of asylum seekers on boats.  It is not troubled by government programs to re-settle offshore refugees.

During the period of the Fraser government, the uninvited arrival of 2,000 Vietnamese asylum seekers on boats caused some alarm. By contrast, the government’s decision to settle more than 70,000 Indo-Chinese refugees from the detention camps across South East Asia between 1978 and 1983 was more or less uncontroversial.

Thirty years later, a Monash University study, Mapping Social Cohesion by Professor Andrew Markus, discovered that two-thirds of people had a positive attitude to refugees whose cases had been assessed by our authorities overseas. By contrast, in every recent opinion poll, almost two-thirds supported a tougher policy towards unauthorised boat asylum seeker arrivals.

2. With spontaneous boat arrivals, the maintenance of an even remotely humanitarian policy is reliant on bi-partisan political consensus. Fraser was only able to treat the boat arrivals of 1976 and 1977 humanely because the ALP opposition did not in general exploit the issue in the way it might have. In more recent times, the humanitarian option broke down when Labor introduced mandatory detention for a small number of Cambodian asylum seekers who arrived by boat in 1992. It was altogether destroyed when, prior to the 2001 election, Howard decided on an asylum seeker policy of military repulsion and indefinite detention on Nauru and Manus Island for those who could not be militarily repelled.

The policy of the Howard government was overwhelmingly popular by every poll and estimate I’ve seen. In addition, by now the asylum seeker issue had been thoroughly politicised. The question of asylum seekers was important, even perhaps vital, to Howard’s 2001 election victory. As a consequence of the events of 2001, a poison was injected into the political culture whose antidote has not yet been discovered.

3. In terms of its clear deterrent objective, mandatory detention did not work.  Under this system, between 1999 and 2001, 12,000 asylum seekers - mainly from Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran - arrived by boat. Unlike mandatory detention, military repulsion and detention on Nauru, the so-called Pacific Solution, did however prove to be a successful deterrent. Between the institution of the Pacific Solution in the spring of 2001 and its dismantling under Rudd in the spring of 2008, virtually no asylum seekers came to Australia by boat. Since the dismantling, the boats have returned. In 2010, there were more than 6,000 boat asylum seeker arrivals, a higher number than in any year in Australian history. The trend has continued this year.

For some reason, the friends of asylum seekers continue to resist almost self-evident fact. This resistance is not without political cost for the broad Left.

While Malcolm Turnbull was leader of the Opposition, the asylum seeker issue was merely a headache for the Rudd government. Under Tony Abbott, an unscrupulous populist conservative, it became a nightmare. Abbott understood and exploited to the full the political potential of the issue by supporting the re-introduction of temporary protection visas and the restoration of the Pacific Solution. In this he had the support of about two-thirds of the Australian people.

Rudd’s honourable refusal to compete in what he called a race to the bottom was one of the reasons he was removed from the leadership of the Labor Party. In the words of his Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, the issue was thought by many inside the Labor Party to be killing the Government.

During the 2010 election campaign, following Rudd’s removal, the promise to stop the boats by re-instituting the Pacific Solution was one of the three or four most important items of the Abbott election pitch. To neutralise the issue, Julia Gillard proposed the establishment of a regional processing centre in East Timor, to which asylum seekers who reach Australian territory by boat would be able to be sent to have their claims for refugee status assessed. This is best described as the Pacific Solution with a human face.

Eight months after the election it is almost clear that East Timor will not accept an offshore processing centre.

The asylum seeker issue now poses an acute dilemma for the friends of asylum seekers. Most argue that as both mandatory detention and even more so, the Pacific Solution, are immoral, the Gillard Government should abolish mandatory detention and should not contemplate the establishment of an off-shore processing centre on East Timor or anywhere else.

This position is morally right but altogether unrealistic from the political point of view.

There is virtually no political possibility that the Gillard Government will accept this advice. Moreover if miraculously it did adopt an asylum seeker policy of the kind the friends of the asylum seekers support, three things would most likely follow. The number of asylum seekers arriving by boat would increase substantially, perhaps very substantially in the coming years. Public opinion, which has remained extremely hostile to the spontaneous arrival of boats since 2001, would harden even further against the asylum seekers. The government judged responsible for facilitating their arrival would be harmed. In such a situation the Abbott leadership of the Liberal Party in particular and the force of populist conservatism in general would be strengthened greatly, perhaps even very greatly.

There is however, in my opinion, a practical and humane solution to the Gillard Government’s present asylum seeker problem which could be implemented before the next federal election. For various reasons - some good and some bad - it will not be a solution that is easy for the friends of asylum seekers to accept.

The first step would be to make a speedy assessment of all asylum seekers presently on Australian soil with the aim of emptying the detention centres by the end of this year. Those asylum seekers who are found to be refugees should be given permanent homes. Those who are found not to be refugees should be repatriated but only on the strict condition that their safety is assured. If that is not clear, they should be provided with a form of temporary protection. With human life at stake, it is morally mandatory to err on the side of caution.

The second step would be to approach Papua New Guinea with a proposal to re-open the offshore processing centre on Manus Island. Unlike Nauru, Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention. In addition, Manus Island does not carry the kind of contested political symbolism and malign historical baggage that Nauru now does.

If the offer is successful - and it will probably need an increase in Australian foreign aid to PNG - it is vital to insist that the asylum seekers who are transferred to Manus Island after arriving on Australian territory are treated with humanity. They should be housed in comfortable open accommodation, not behind barbed wire. They should be provided with an appropriate and healthy diet; good medical care; education for the children; leisure activities and reading materials for the adults. All this should be directly administered and entirely funded by Australia.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees should be invited to assess the asylum seekers’ claims. Those who are found not to be refugees should be repatriated but again only when it is certain that they will be safe. Those who are found to be genuine refugees should be provided with new homes. It will need to be accepted that most will probably eventually have to be offered homes by Australia.

In order to make this system not only truly just but also to appear so in the eyes of the Australian public, it is important that in the offshore processing centre a real queue be created. Re-settlement places to those found to be refugees should, in general, be offered according to the date of arrival.

In order to prevent Australia and Manus Island becoming a magnet of attraction, it would need to be made crystal clear that no more than a specified number of asylum seekers from Manus Island would be offered re-settlement in Australia each year.

There are several advantages for the Gillard Government of a scheme such as this.

After establishing an offshore processing centre, the Australian people would soon become convinced that the Government had regained control of the country’s borders. This would prevent the Coalition from using the asylum seeker issue for its populist political purposes at the next federal election.

Once the political sting was taken out of the issue, the Government would be able to increase its annual refugee/humanitarian intake from the present 13,750 to something like 20,000 without political cost, as the Fraser government was able to do in regard to the re-settlement of the Indo-Chinese refugees between 1978 and 1983.

An increase in the annual refugee quota should help ensure for the Gillard Government the eventual support of the Greens. It would, more importantly, help save the lives of a larger number of desperate human beings.

It seems to me that friends of asylum seekers are now placed with an uncomfortable but unavoidable choice.

They can maintain their support for a policy involving the end of mandatory detention and the rejection of offshore processing. This is morally compelling but almost certain to continue to be rejected by the majority of the Australian people and by any future Australian government it is possible to imagine.

Or they can choose to support a policy centred on the idea of an offshore regional processing centre of the kind advocated here. This option is morally troubling. It may turn out to be unrealisable. It is however far more politically realistic. Moreover without the implementation of a scheme such as this, it is possible that the asylum seeker issue could play a significant part in defeating the Labor-Greens alliance and in handing power to the Coalition at the next federal election.

The position I have outlined here is certain to be misrepresented by enemies of asylum seekers on the Right like Andrew Bolt or Miranda Devine, who argued falsely and foolishly in the Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Herald Sun last week that I now believed Howard’s cruel and brutal solution to the asylum seeker problem was politically and morally right. This is a complete distortion of my view. What I have argued consistently is that with his asylum seeker policy Howard poisoned the political culture and destabilised both Labor and the Left for which a real and not fanciful antidote has not yet been found.

The position outlined here will also be attacked by the friends of the asylum seekers for readily understandable reasons. My plea to them is not to vilify its author but to demonstrate with evidence and reason which part of this argument is wrong and to offer an alternative in the present circumstances which is not merely morally attractive but also realistic from the political point of view. 

Robert Manne is Professor of Politics at La Trobe University. His new book, Making Trouble: Essays against the New Australian Complacency, will be published by Black Inc. on May 3. (This is a revised version of a talk delivered last year at a forum at La Trobe University.)

• Read all responses to this article

Back when there were discussion about what the Democratic Congress could do to require President Bush to end combat operations in Iraq, one of the main arguments I made was that the Democrats needed to announce a date certain when they would no longer fund combat operations in Iraq. (It goes without saying that no one listened to me. They never do.) So I am intrigued by Matt Yglesias' strategy proposal for the coming debt ceiling "hostage situation:"

It’s a two pronged strategy. The first one is a credible, repeated commitment not to surrender anything in exchange for getting congress to agree to the debt ceiling being increased. After all, why should anything be given up. [. . .] The second prong, important for credibility, is to move to thinking about what happens as we reach the ceiling.

This isn’t a sudden “shutdown.” Nor is is true that we have to default on obligations to our bondholders. Rather, it means that government outlays are now limited by the quantity of inbound tax revenue. But for a while, the people administering the federal government [. . .] will be able to selectively stiff people. So the right strategy is to start stiffing people Republicans care about. When bills to defense contractors come due, don’t pay them. Explain they’ll get 100 percent of what they’re owed when the debt ceiling is raised. [. . .]

I like this strategy. Chances of it being adopted? Precisely zero. The confidence fairy must be fed after all.

Speaking for me only

Americans, apparently, are unaware of how the federal government’s illegal, foreign wars sap the economy and rob every household. The Iraq war cost alone is 20 percent of the size of last year’s entire U.S. economy. Instead of investing that sum at home, “which would have produced income and jobs growth and solvency for state and local governments, the US government wasted the equivalent of 20% of the economy in 2010 in blowing up infrastructure and people in foreign lands.

There are remarkable continuities in the United States’s wartime policies since the 1960s. The context of the conflicts in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have been very different, but successive leaders in Washington seem to operate on similar ideological assumptions and to repeat their mistakes. The costly wars of the post-9/11 decade have exposed both the United States’s loss of legitimacy as a superpower and the limits of its military might and economic prosperity.

Some lessons of this history are revealed in a reading of four recent books They provide an opportunity to reflect on the state of American power in 2011 - when it is engaged in another military campaign in the Arab world, in Libya, albeit with far less complete exertion than before.

The consensus

The research in three of these works includes access to declassified information, notes from decision-makers and personal testimonies. The exception is Andrew J Bacevich’s Washington Rules: The Path to Permanent War (Metropolitan Books, 2010),  which is a historical interpretation. Yet the subtitle of this book is a good starting-point for a larger survey, for it reveals a core theme of the history of these four decades: that the US’s pursuit of global military domination has inflicted massive destruction in disastrous wars that have accelerated the decline of the United States as a global power.

A primary focus of these books is on the domestic civilian and military elite, an approach that reveals much about the role of inner-circle decision-makers in several administrations: from the the Ivy League technocrats (such as McGeorge Bundy) and cold-war generals who advised the John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson administrations, to the neo-conservatives that influenced George W Bush and the new military figures (such as David H Petraeus) pressing Barack Obama to continue the war in Afghanistan.

But Bacevich extends the range by arguing that a group of interlocking institutions drives the United States's imperial impulse. “Military-industrial complex”, he writes, “no longer suffices to describe the congeries of interests profiting from and committed to preserving the national security status.” This wider group consists of government agencies, think-tanks, the media and corporations. There is a continuity here between actors and their interests; corporations have a profit motive in selling weapons, for example, but also have to persuade Congress to free funds for that purpose. The period of Ronald Reagan’s administrations was notable for the formation of private foundations that funded rightwing research and media, part of a domestic contest in which the conservative side has been increasingly dominant.

These institutions too are actors and instruments in the ideology of “permanent war”, which generates a political economy of war (the “Washington consensus”, as Bacevich calls it). The author also criticises American society for kowtowing to its government's war policies. “The citizens of the United States”, he says, “have essentially forfeited any capacity to ask first-order questions about the fundamentals of national security policy.”

This Washington consensus, according to Bacevich (himself a former US army colonel), is not going to recede any time soon - even though the United States “no longer possesses sufficient wherewithal to sustain a national security strategy that relies on global military presence and global power projection.” Americans, he says, “can ill afford to indulge any longer in dreams of saving the world, much less remaking it in our own image.”

The ruin

Andrew J Bacevich sees a connection between the “permanent war” policy and the profound economic, political and civilian crisis that has affected the United States since 2008. The idea that an overstretched military power could contribute to the fall of an empire was proposed by Paul Kennedy in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987). The United States's reaction to 9/11 and the international community's acceptance of this nation as the sole superpower for the foreseeable future initially was seen to invalidate Paul Kennedy's argument. But as George W Bush's presidency endured, the argument that US global influence is indeed declining gained renewed impetus.

The inability of the coalition forces to settle the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the perception that the “global war on terror” is unwinnable, reinforce doubts about the purposes and efficacy of the US military machine. The gross violations of detainees’ human rights in Guantánamo Bay and Iraq contribute further to questioning of the legitimacy of US power. In this context, the financial crisis of 2008 can all too plausibly be seen as a tipping-point into a new era where Washington’s diminished status is matched by the rising influence of other states in an emerging “multipolar” world.

The war in Iraq may have replenished the idea of American decline, though many subsequent studies analysing the phenomenon omit reference to Paul Kennedy's theory of overstretched military power as the agent of imperial fall. Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World (WW Norton, 2008), focuses more on international and domestic economic factors, such as trade wars with emerging powers.  A key domestic moment of decline is hurricane Katrina’s devastation of much of New Orleans in 2005, when the Washington government's response exposed mismanagement, contempt for and fear of the poor, and failed leadership. Around the world, people saw news images of what looked like an underdeveloped country whose agencies of state seemed inadequate and unfeeling.

Bacevich does echo Paul Kennedy's argument in pointing to the United States’s pursuit of “ruinous military and fiscal policies”. George W Bush doubled the military budget in 2001-08 and left his country with a structural debt of $10.6 trillion. The successor Barack Obama administration is sustaining very high levels of military spending. The Congressional Budget Office, the federal agency in charge of providing Congress with economic data, calls the long-term budget outlook “daunting”, and forecasts a steady trillion-dollar deficit for the next decade.

President Obama has assumed a prominent public role during what is now acknowledged as a crisis of US global power. He has stressed that his country is now operating in a very different environment than during the cold war and post-cold-war eras, in which severe domestic problems - the collapse of financial institutions and the real-estate market, resulting in high unemployment, evictions and foreclosures - constrain its international power at the very time that emerging states such as India and China are expanding.

Obama has signalled the need to develop a multilateral response to global challenges such as the environmental crisis and poverty; his response to the Libya conflict has also mixed limited military intervention (under the “no-fly zone” sanctioned by the United Nations) with a pronounced emphasis on the need for international cooperation and for Washington to avoid a directive role. In all this, Obama implicitly presents himself as the US’s first post-imperial president. At the same time, vast sectors of American society vehemently reject his leadership and views; even worse, he is entrapped in the country’s political and military inertia.

The legacy

Lyndon B Johnson's escalation of involvement in the Vietnam war overshadows (and partly undermined) the advances he was responsible for in civil and social rights. In a comparable way, Afghanistan could end by damaging Barack Obama's domestic social programme. The dramatic parallel is extended  by Bob Woodward in Obama's Wars (Simon & Schuster, 2010), which suggests that the effect of the anti-Taliban war may do to Obama’s presidency what Vietnam did to Richard M Nixon (as well as LBJ) and Iraq to George W Bush (see Neil Sheehan, "Woodward's Book Shows Parallels to Vietnam", Washington Post, 3 October 2010).

Obama’s campaign promises in 2008 included withdrawal from Iraq and an end to the war in Afghanistan. Woodward argues that the president was under pressure from the military establishment from his first day in the White House to postpone the deadline for final drawdown in Afghanistan - and to authorise a military “surge” there. The portrait of a president surrounded by powerful voices in the military establishment recommending a hard line indicates makes clear the difficulty faced by any US president seeking a change of policy in this area.

Gordon M Goldstein's Lessons in Disaster (Henry Holt, 2009) is a brilliant account of the decision-making process that drove the United States into the quagmire of Vietnam. It describes how an elite group of advisors - led by McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk and the generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland - convinced LBJ to escalate the war in southeast Asia. Any voices against an air-bombing campaign and deploying combat-troops and in favour of settling the conflict through negotiations were dismissed; the diplomat George Ball, “the administration's prescient and articulate advocate of caution”, was one.

Johnson inherited the dilemma from John F Kennedy, who in 1961 had strong reservations about increasing the number of US troops in South Vietnam. After Kennedy's assassination, Johnson sought to resist involving his country in “that bitch of a war”. But the presidential system had a pyramid structure whose inner advisors could influence the president in a way that other officials (including the US ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge) could not. These advisors dismissed reports that contravened their vision, as George W Bush and Dick Cheney’s did CIA reports that questioned Saddam Hussein’s possession of  weapons of mass destruction. President Johnson was eventually won over, and took the decisive steps towards Americanising the war.

The LBJ administration's policies were overall driven by ideas firmly entrenched in cold-war ideology. The domino theory, for example, aligned countries without taking into account their distinct histories or present realities; the credibility factor held that the strongest power in the world was simply not capable of losing a war; the global war against communism in the 1950s-1960s completely missed the vigorous nationalism behind many insurrections, from Cuba to Vietnam.

The My Lai effect

A common feature of the conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is that failure is not an option for the United States. Indeed, Bernd Greiner’s War Without Fronts: The USA in Vietnam (Yale University Press, 2010) shows that the concept of military victory in the country is associated with an almost religious sense of destiny. The United States believes it is a country chosen by God to lead other countries on the road to freedom and democracy.

The writer Graham Greene captured some of this in his prophetic novel The Quiet American (1955; Penguin, 2004), whose vivid character portraits include an idealistic anti-communist CIA officer during the French war in South Vietnam after 1954; Alden Pyle’s conviction in the rightness of the cause leads to an endorsement of forces capable of wreaking death and destruction on innocent civilians.

Bernd Greiner casts new light on terrible episodes of destruction such as the My Lai massacre, when in March 1968 an American platoon murdered around 500 civilians in two Vietnamese hamlets. He argues that such incidents were an ultimate consequence of two factors in combination: the asymmetry between the North Vietnamese forces and US military power during the war; and the culture of victory, profoundly embedded in American culture, and always mythically reserved for exceptionally strong powers.

The less likely it looked that Washington would win the Vietnam war, however, the more it adopted a “total war” strategy that failed distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. If victory is unattainable, goes the logic, the United States would lose its credibility - and as a result the world would fall: to communism during the Vietnam era, to terrorism today. But Greiner also stresses that the Vietcong used this lack of distinction in its favour, exposing and sacrificing thousands of civilians for the sake of delegitimising the United States.

Gordon M Goldstein and Bernard Greiner show how decision-makers in the 1960s disregarded advice about sending troops to Vietnam. Bob Woodward describes a contemporary situation which indicates that the lessons of Vietnam have not been learned. Goldstein’s depiction of Bundy, security advisor during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, has a wider resonance: “he marched ahead with the expectation that an undefined degree of coercive military pressure would extract an undefined form of political capitulation over an undefined period of conflict.”

This attitude prolonged the Vietnam war and cost the lives of millions. It has also prolonged the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, where well over 100,000 lives have been claimed. The opposition to the Vietnam war in the United States grew after news of the My Lai massacre reached the public. The equivalent effect today on the domestic public has yet to arrive, though there are other signs that the appetite for “permanent war” among the American people is far weaker than it still is - Libya notwithstanding - among the elite.

Sideboxes

'Read On' Sidebox: 

Norwegian Peacebuilding Centre (Noref)

The Broker

Andrew J Bacevich, Washington Rules: The Path to Permanent War (Metropolitan Books, 2010)

Gordon M Goldstein, Lessons in Disaster (Henry Holt, 2009)

Bernd Greiner, War Without Fronts: The USA in Vietnam (Yale University Press, 2010)

Graham Greene, The Quiet American (1955)

Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (Random House, 1987)

Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World (WW Norton, 2008)

Bob Woodward, Obama's Wars (Simon & Schuster, 2010)

Sidebox: 

Mariano Aguirre is managing director of the Norwegian Peacebuilding Centre (Noref) in Oslo. He is a fellow of the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam

An earlier version of this article appeared in The Broker, to which kind thanks are due for permission to republish

Also by Mariano Aguirre in openDemocracy:

"America underneath New York" (18 November 2004)

"The many cities of Buenos Aires" (16 February 2005)

"Exporting democracy, revising torture: the complex misions of Michael Ignatieff" (14 July 2005)

"Mr Rogers 'democracy by force': America goes to war" (4 August 2005)

"The hurricane and the empire" (4 September 2005)

"Failed states or weak democracies? The state in Latin America" (17 January 2006)

"Spain: 11-M and the right's revenge" (10 March 2006)

"Bush's security's strategy: defend the nation, change the world" (30 March 2006)

"Bolivia: the challenges to state reform" (14 September 2006) - with Isabel Moreno

"Power and paradox in the United Nations" (7 November 2006)

"Tony Blair: farewell letters" (27 June 2007)

"Mercenaries and the new configuration of world violence" (16 October 2007)

"Annapolis: how to avoid failure" (12 November 2007) - with Mark Taylor

"Haiti: unravelling the knot" (2 September 2008) - with Amélie Gauthier

"Barack Obama and Afghanistan: a closer look" (8 April 2009)

"Torture: America's policy, Europe's shame" (19 June 2009) - with Jan Egeland

"Democracy-promotion: doctrine vs dialogue" (14 July 2009)

"Haiti: the politics of recovery" (with Tone Faret) (28 January 2010)

"Israel-Palestine: a frontline report" (26 March 2010)

 "Brazil-Turkey and Iran: a new global balance" (17 June 2010)

Related stories: 

America’s fiscal-political trap

America in Iraq: power, hubris, change

The war for American minds

Afghanistan’s Vietnam portent

Torture: America's policy, Europe's shame

America’s world: salesman and missionary

Days of rage: the Tea Party & America's right

Pakistan and America: costs of militarism

Afghanistan: limits of military power

A new order in “greater west Asia”: AfPak to Palestine

The AfPak war via WikiLeaks

America’s new-old military thinking

Brazil, the United States and Chile: military ghosts

America: the panoptic shiver

America right or wrong

The American right is on the verge of imploding. Yet on the budget as in healthcare, the president punched below his weight

The recently elected Republican governor of Maine, Paul LePage, is no art critic. Indeed subtlety and nuance seem to elude him at almost every turn. While campaigning he promised a group of fishermen he'd tell Barack Obama "to go to hell", and responded to one reporter's questions with a demand to "stop the bullshit". When LePage, a Tea Party candidate, heard that the country's oldest civil rights organisation, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, had complained about his refusal to attend their Martin Luther King Day function, he told them to "kiss my butt".

So it was a shock that his first major dispute revolved around the role of art in the public sphere. Last month LePage ordered the removal of a mural depicting scenes from the state's labour history from Maine's labour department, claiming it made businessmen feel uncomfortable. Predictably, the unions objected. But so did eight Republican senators, who penned a letter to the Portland Press Herald chiding him. "We are not the enemy of labour and labour is certainly not an enemy to us," they wrote. By the time the federal government asked him to reimburse the $60,000 it had given to sponsor the mural, LePage's fickle temper was beginning to conflict with his desire for fiscal rectitude.

LePage was no consensus candidate. He won the governorship in a five-way race with only 38% of the vote, and by just a 2% margin. His greatest achievement since taking office appears to be becoming an even more divisive figure than he was during the campaign. Not only do 80% of Democrats disapprove of his performance, so do 50% of independents and 52% of women – the very groups Republicans need to win back a state like Maine. The state has two moderate Republican senators and Obama's approval ratings hover at just 51%.

The extent of Republican hubris, the potential fallout from their overreach and the scale of electoral volatility is beginning to become clear just five months after the mid-term rout. What struck some voters as the single-minded clarity of rightwing Republicans in opposition now strikes even more as simple-minded simplicity in government. The number of those with an unfavourable view of the Tea Party has doubled in the last year to 50%. And Sarah Palin's negatives have never been higher. Having gained power, the right are losing influence.

Challenges from unions and a broad swath of progressive activists suggest their agenda lacks consensus not only in society as a whole, but even within the Republican party. The only force, it seems, that can rescue the Republican right from imploding under the weight of its ideological fervour are the Democrats. And with Obama at the helm, that is precisely what they are doing.

The nature of the overreach was clear last week when Republicans almost forced a government shutdown because they wanted to cut funding to women's health programmes and prevent the enforcement of clean air standards.

The consequences have been most evident in Wisconsin, where the governor's attempts to do away with collective bargaining met stiff and sustained resistance. Last week in an election for a state supreme court justice, Republicans appear to have eked out a slender victory (Democrats may contest the results) against a Democrat who wasn't supposed to have a prayer. Meanwhile, the seat on the Milwaukee county executive left vacant by the governor was won easily by a Democrat.

It's not difficult to divine the source of Republican confidence. Their victories in November were emphatic. Nationally, it was the biggest swing against a governing party since 1948. Locally, the GOP took 11 governorships – five in key swing states – and 19 state legislatures from Democrats.

Nor is it difficult to see why that confidence is misplaced. For those who mistook November as a mandate for slashing budgets, repealing healthcare and attacking unions are now becoming victims of their own wishful thinking. A CNN poll on election night revealed that when asked whom they blamed for the state of the economy, Americans said bankers (34%), George Bush (29%) and Obama (24%). Polls show people are far more worried about jobs and inflation than they are about the budget deficit. Broadly, people didn't vote for austerity, they voted against unemployment or they didn't vote.

The Republican victory in November would better be described as a Democratic defeat in which the bottom fell out of the coalition that carried Obama to victory, as youth, black, Latino and progressive voters stayed at home. Sadly, on the week when he relaunched his re-election campaign, the president seems to be doing everything in his power to demotivate them from turning out again.

For if Wisconsin has shown how Republicans can be forced into retreat through collective action, then last week's budget negotiations illustrated how they can be emboldened by capitulation. Once again Obama absented himself from the debate, thereby allowing Republicans to frame the debate and ceding many of the substantive points. Then he clinched a deal that will do least for those who elected him, and declared victory.

While he lacks a clear ideology, this is most definitely his style. Like a canny long-distance runner, he hangs back and lets the pack exhaust itself before stirring. The distance he allows to build between him and the frontrunner at times seems unbridgeable. Since he does not set the pace, the terrain on which he joins battle is chosen for him by others. Then, finally, comes the sprint – the final dash to the finish line in which he just manages to reach the tape first. But when he gets to the podium the medal is not gold but tin. His presidency thus far is littered with partial victories. Not quite universal healthcare; troops not yet out of Iraq; a stimulus bill that coincided with rising unemployment.

Having campaigned in the declarative, Obama governs in the subjunctive. "Yes we can" has become "Perhaps we could have". Having evoked the late June Jordan's phrase "We are the ones we have been waiting for" on the stump, he now leads with the attitude "We are the ones who will wait for whoever might join us."

So it was with healthcare reform and tax cuts for the rich. So it has been with the budget. Each time he has punched below his weight.

His original proposal was a mild stimulus that would add $40bn to 2010 funding levels. The country ended up with a cut of $38.5bn – the largest spending cuts in history, slashing budgets for community programmes, infrastructure investment and healthcare provision, among other things. Left to his own devices, the Republican House Speaker, John Boehner, would have settled for less. But the Tea Party would not allow it.

This was by no means inevitable. There is no question that Obama had to compromise, but the deal that he eventually struck did not reflect the balance of power either in the polity – where Democrats have the Senate and the presidency – or the country. With the Tea Party dictating terms to the Republican leadership, who then got Obama to blink first, the tail wagged the dog and then the dog dragged the owner into a ditch.

BY ALANA YOUNG
ANCHOR JENNY MECKLES

You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy.

Government shutdown. You might have heard these two words a lot lately on the evening news -- but what does it actually mean? After months of negotiations - six temporary funding measures - and a shutdown looming again, lawmakers have been quick to start - and continue - the blame-game.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI), CBN: “Up here in Washington, we have no partners to negotiate with. The other side of the aisle is just choosing to walk away from this fight.”
REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD), CNN: “What you have right now is the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party in the House saying, it’s our way or a shutdown.”
REP. TIM GRIFFIN (R-AR), FOX NEWS: “You see a bill that came out of the House, you see nothing from these guys. It’s a charade. They’re acting like they’re in good faith..."
REP. KAREN BASS (D-CA), MSNBC:... “...will the Republican leadership act in a responsible manner and fund the government until the end of the year? …. we need to stop the silliness frankly.”

But the public isn’t buying into the finger-pointing, and a recent Pew poll shows people are divided on whether the Republicans - at 39 percent - or the Obama administration - at 36 percent -- will be at fault for a government shutdown.

If the shutdown does happen, it wouldn’t be the first time. The federal government shut down on four other occasions in history -- most recently a 21-day shutdown in December of 1995. But what would happen this time?

CNN: “If it happens this time around, it's U.S. troops we're talking about, including those fighting in Iraq, in Afghanistan, who could see their paychecks interrupted. Tax returns could be stalled if you haven’t filed yet. And for federal workers, during the two government shutdowns in the 1990s, hundreds of thousands of them were sent home. That's what this all means.”

In 2008, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service outlined the effects government shutdowns have on the economy. But in an interview on MSNBC, correspondent Dan Stone says a shutdown is not as bad as it sounds.

DAN STONE: “...A good way to put it is about half of the government shuts down. One of the key differences here, is that OMB is going to make the determinations about what is essential and what's not... The social security checks will still be going out, but the people who answer the calls from people who have questions about their social security checks will probably not be considered essential, at least for the week or two of a shutdown that's looming here. ... What isn't going to operate right now it looks like anything related to tourism is going to be taking a hit here. We're talking about museums, parks, national monuments, Visa and passport applications."

And Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros agrees - shutdown affects with be minimal -- and says, “Bring on the shutdown."

ANDREA TANTAROS: “I don't think a lot happens. I mean, we talked about this. Unless you want to go to a national park, not a lot is gonna happen. People will continue to get their checks. The post office is self funded so you will still go to the post office. Nothing major. It might take a short hit on consumer confidence. You look back, what happened during the Clinton shutdown. Not a lot.”

But a writer for PBS says people are forgetting - there are slight differences between 1995 and now -- namely several federal organizations that weren’t around before -- like the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration.

A House rule requires legislation be made public 3-days before a vote. That means Congress has until Wednesday afternoon to find a budget solution before the current resolution expires midnight Friday.

Follow @Newsy_Videos on Twitter.

Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy.

Transcript by Newsy.

NakedValue submits:INTRODUCTION Defense suppliers like General Dyanmics (GD) and Lockheed Martin (LMT) are some of the market's most undesirable stocks . Sales to these companies jumped following the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2011 and have escalated because of operations in Iraq and Afganistan. As the financial crisis of 2008 falls farther back into the recesses of our minds, the American public has shifted their attention to the latest headlines, including this country's soaring per capita debt, growing health care costs and unfunded liabilities. A natural consequence of this increased attention is talk of national budget reductions. With 20% of federal spending in 2010 going towards defense, there is reason for investors to speculate about affected companies. We think the concerns could present opportunities. VALUATION AND EXPOSURE It's easy to fall in love with a macro thesis. They are easy to recite and can be constructed with minimal effort. For example,Complete Story » ...

It may have come as a surprise to many people that Germany—the lynchpin of the NATO alliance on the European continent and a close ally of the United States since 1949—voted to abstain from the U.N. resolution authorizing force against Muammar Qaddafi. The country was a staunch advocate of humanitarian intervention in the Balkans, and it is most definitely not led by a government of leftists who are given to denunciations of American imperialism. Indeed, Chancellor Merkel’s affinity for American values is so pronounced that President Obama recently awarded her our highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Why, then, has Germany been so adamant in its opposition to the Libya intervention?

The answer begins with the fact that two competing narratives of history are currently jostling for supremacy in German politics—each of which presents a dramatically different approach to the memories of World War II and the Cold War. One important thing to note about these narratives is that they are not simple matters of left and right: They cross both ideological and party lines.

The first narrative downplays the connection between force and freedom. It deemphasizes the fact that only Allied arms defeated the Nazi regime, while tending to accentuate the role of Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik, the West German and West European peace movements, and Mikhael Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost as the causes of the end of the Cold War. In some accounts, the hard line taken by the Western alliance before and during the 1980s and the role of Eastern European dissidents who delegitimized Communist ideology get less attention or are mentioned only as factors that endangered peace.

In the 1980s, the University of Bonn political scientist Hans-Peter Schwarz captured the essence of this political culture when he spoke of the shift from the “obsession with power” in Nazi Germany to a “forgetting of power” in the West German peace movements and in the political language of détente articulated by Brandt. Since the bitter disputes over nuclear weapons in the 1980s, elements of the mood that Schwarz described on the West German left have become part of a much broader consensus in the German foreign policy establishment. For its adherents, this mood is a civilized and decent response to the aggression and crimes of the Nazi regime. It means the replacement of primitive nationalisms of the past with multilateral principles of an integrated Europe. And it assumes that webs of interdependence created by the global economy will make problems solvable through negotiations and dialogue.

These views have dominated German politics since at least summer 2002, when Gerhard Schröder emphatically opposed the coming Iraq war—but the ascension of this worldview went beyond just Iraq. As Andrei Markovits has convincingly demonstrated in his book Uncouth Nation, Schröder’s opposition to Bush’s policies stoked anti-American sentiments in German society. While Germany did send 7,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, their rules of engagement are far more restricted than are those of American and other coalition forces, and their presence remains unpopular in Germany. The massive support for Obama in the summer of 2008—when 200,000 people turned out to cheer him in Berlin—rested partly on the belief that, as the “anti-Bush,” he would turn away from American military intervention, especially in the Middle East. Moreover, in the long and drawn-out negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program, there has been a powerful establishment current opposing tougher economic sanctions and certainly any hint of a military option. Indeed, in a 2009 book about Germany and Iran, the German political scientist Matthias Küntzel referred to the emergence of a “new constellation. On the one side, the Western powers, the USA, France and Great Britain and on the other side, Russia, China and the Federal Republic of Germany.”

The current government of Chancellor Angela Merkel and Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle is steeped in this intellectual consensus. The government is a center-right coalition of the conservative Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union, along with the market-oriented liberal Free Democratic Party. On March 18, Westerwelle (who has spent his entire career in the Free Democratic Party, a small but influential party whose base lies in the country’s professional, economic, and academic elite) laid out the government’s position on Libya before the German parliament in Berlin. On the one hand, he said, “We condemn the crimes of the dictator Qaddafi. One can no longer work with this man. He must go.” But, on the other hand, he argued that there are “no such things as surgical strikes. Every military engagement will also produce civilian casualties. We know that from painful experience. We have often talked about this regarding operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Hence, German soldiers would not be participating. He did not explain why or how Qaddafi could be compelled to “go” in the absence of military intervention.

The government’s position has awakened many critics, who can be said to represent the opposing narrative in German politics. Their responses hearken back to the interventionism of the 1990s, when—as described by Paul Berman in this magazine and in his book Power and the Idealists—then-German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and other left-wing members of the 1968 generation, such as Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Peter Schneider, made common cause with conservative advocates of armed intervention in the Balkans. At the time, Fischer argued that only armed intervention could prevent ethnic cleansing. “Never again Auschwitz” had to trump “never again war” if Germany was to play a role in defending human rights. This time around, critics of Germany’s non-interventionist stance have included one of the CDU’s leading foreign policy experts, Ruprecht Polenz; a former Social Democratic cabinet minister for economic development, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul; the leader of the Green Party, Cem Ozdemir; and Fischer himself.

The government’s approach has also met with sharp criticism in the German press. In Die Welt, Richard Herzinger—for years the most articulate critic of the foreign policy consensus represented by Westerwelle—criticized “the shameful way that Germany emerged as the party seeking to delay action” on the part of the Americans, British, and French. Daniel Brossler declared that the decision had eliminated Germany as a serious candidate for permanent Security Council membership, in a piece for the liberal Süddeutsche Zeitung titled “On the side of the dictators.” In the mass circulation tabloid Bild Zeitung, Michael Backhaus referred to the West’s military action as a “just military intervention against Colonel Qaddafi, who has terrorized his own people and the whole world for far too long.” Backhaus offered a remarkable historical comparison: “Just as the resistance against Hitler and his band of murderers hoped for the Allied landing in Normandy, so the rebels in Benghazi hope for fighter jets from the democracies.”

German public opinion, meanwhile, seems to have settled into an awkward place somewhere between these two competing narratives. According to a poll conducted by the mass circulation Bild Zeitung, while 62 percent of Germans supported the use of military force against Qaddafi, only 29 percent supported participation by German troops. Germans, in other words, seem to accept that force can be necessary to avert catastrophe; but they don’t want to use it themselves.

For many decades, the world feared a Germany that forgot its Nazi past or had visions of reviving old dreams of empire. But as Berlin’s current stance makes clear, the true problem—at least for those of us who believe that overseas intervention is sometimes necessary—is not that Germans fail to remember the past; it’s that a particular interpretation of the past (and present) has led one side in this debate to entertain illusions about the diminished role of force in international affairs and thus to rigidly oppose its use for humanitarian ends.

Jeffrey Herf, a professor of modern European history at the University of Maryland in College Park, has published extensively on memory and politics in postwar Germany. He is the author most recently of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.

WikiLeaks may spawn new sedition act
The infamous Sedition Act, which criminalized speech critical of the federal government and which was passed by the Federalists during another of America’s undeclared wars (that time, against France), lasted only three years, from 1798 to 1801.  However, if the congressional critics of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have their way, a new and revised version of the Sedition Act may be in the offing... 
(The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

IDF warns troops: Enemies, terrorists can use Facebook
The IDF has stepped up its war on Facebook, warning officers throughout the military that the social network site could be used by the country’s enemies to glean classified information...
(The Jerusalem Post)

Top Blog Posts on DoDLive in 2010
Listed below are the 10 most popular posts according to the number of visitors to DoDLive.mil in 2010...
(DoD Live)

Airman left WWII bowed, but not broken
Veteran survived plane wreck, ship wreck, 47 days on the open sea and a brutal Japanese prison camp...
(StarTribune)

The best New Year’s resolution is to say thanks to U.S. military
Of the 310 million Americans, 1,445,000 are on active duty in the uniformed services of the military, and another 833,000 are in the reserves.  Less than 1 percent of the country protects the rest of us against every threat across the globe, whether North Korean nutters, Somali pirates, Islamists in Afghanistan and Iraq, fanatics in Iran, drug cartels in Mexico, or old-fashioned near-peer powers with nukes, fleets and air forces...
(Washington Examiner)

Covering Marines at War, Through Facebook
Basetrack is a Web-based reporting initiative with the photographers Teru Kuwayama, Balazs Gardi and Tivadar Domaniczky. Its “forward crew” is embedded with the First Battalion, Eighth Marines in Afghanistan. The rest of the team tracks regional news and relevant information, adding it to material transmitted from Afghanistan. Michael Kamber spoke with Mr. Kuwayama last month. Their conversation has been edited and condensed...
(NYTimes)

KANDAHAR CITY -- In its bid to win the hearts and minds of Afghanistan’s teeming population, the United States has spent more than $55 billion to rebuild and bolster the war-ravaged country.

That money was meant to cover everything from the construction of government buildings and economic development projects to the salaries of U.S. government employees working closely with Afghans.

Yet no one can say with any authority or precision how that money was spent and who profited from it. Most of the funds were funneled to a vast array of U.S. and foreign contractors. But according to a recent audit by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), there is no way of knowing whether the money went for the intended purposes. 

“The audit shows that navigating the confusing labyrinth of government contracting is difficult, at best,” SIGAR said in releasing the audit. “USAID, the State Department and the Pentagon are unable to readily report on how much money they spend on contracting for reconstruction activities in Afghanistan.”

One large part of the problem is that the United States is not demanding accountability for outgoing funds from U.S. companies which have little incentive to fully disclose where the U.S. money is going. Add to this the many Afghan companies that have minimal accounting capabilities and you have a recipe for a massive misappropriation of funds. The money flows from Washington to Afghanistan, with little oversight and accountability, and at every step along the way someone else takes a cut.

“There’s no mechanism to track where this money is going,” said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, an independent, nonprofit group that investigates government corruption. “Security problems persist and this money doesn’t seem to be accomplishing a real mission.”

As staggering amounts of U.S. tax dollars virtually vanish down a black hole, many of the government projects designed to foster improved relations with the Afghan people and undermine the appeal of the Taliban have fallen far behind schedule or simply aren’t completed. In October, SIGAR found that six Afghan National Police buildings were so poorly built that they are unusable. They were constructed at a cost of $5 million by Basirat Construction, an Afghan construction company.

Another report found that the United States has spent nearly $200 million on Afghan security service buildings that cannot be used. SIGAR also found that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) couldn’t account for nearly $18 billion that was paid to some 7,000 U.S. and Afghan contractors for development projects. Afghan contractors often pay kickbacks to local warlords, like Ahmad Wali Karzai, the president’s brother and the so-called “King of Kandahar.” Their actions often undermine the work of the coalition.

Botched construction projects aren’t the only U.S. failures. Earlier this summer, coalition forces cleared Malajat, a longstanding Taliban stronghold in the eastern flatlands just outside of Kandahar City. But after they were forced out in September, many of the residents of Malajat remained sympathetic to the Taliban’s cause.

In an effort to project provincial and national authority and strengthen Afghan infrastructure, Canada’s Commander's Emergency Response Program and the USAID ordered the construction of four government buildings in Malajat where local residents could meet with government officials to air grievances. The complex was meant to symbolically supplant Taliban power and influence.

In accordance with U.S. General David Petraeus’ plan to expand contracting awards to Afghan firms, Afghan companies were hired late in September. The contractors then hired Afghan subcontractors to begin construction in the shadow of a fortress built by Alexander the Great around 330 B.C.

Since then, however, little work has been done and the project has fallen behind schedule. As of early November, Afghans earning about a dollar a day had only dug holes for the foundation of the building complex, which was optimistically scheduled to be completed by July.

Work Habits, Cultural Mandates

Most Afghans do little work in the winter months. Despite numerous inquiries, U.S. and Canadian officials could not estimate the cost of the project. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former top U.S. commander in Kandahar, told The Fiscal Times that the success of the Kandahar offensive will depend in part on the United States and its allies building Afghan economic, political and security infrastructure over the winter. Projects like the Malajat government building are essential to keeping the Taliban out once the fighting season resumes next spring, especially as the U.S. strategy review has shown tenuous progress here. But there is little confidence among soldiers and development workers that this project will be completed in time.

“We can pour as much money as we want into this and it’s not getting done by the spring,” said an official with the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (KPRT), a civilian and Canadian-led organization jointly operated with the United States. “These people [Afghan contractors] have no accountability.” Thomas Ford, a spokesman for the KPRT project, said he could not reveal the identities of Afghan contractors involved because of security concerns. He also said he did “not have the exact cost figures in front of [him]”and declined to provide them. Canadian forces, along with KPRT, are scheduled to leave next summer. The United States is expected to assume sole responsibility for their projects.

Petraeus, commander of the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, acknowledged in a September memorandum that the contracting process in Afghanistan has been deeply flawed for years and needed to be changed if the Afghan war is to be won.

“With proper oversight, contracting can spur economic development and support the Afghan government and NATO's campaign objectives," wrote Petraeus. "If, however, we spend large quantities of international contracting funds quickly and with insufficient oversight, it is likely that some of those funds will unintentionally fuel corruption, finance insurgent organizations, strengthen criminal patronage networks and undermine our efforts in Afghanistan."

At Kandahar Airfield, a base the size of London’s Heathrow Airport located just outside of Kandahar City, contractors provide transportation, food service, sanitation and construction, among other services. According to a July 2010 Congressional Research Service report, as of last March private contractors made up 57 percent of all personnel in Afghanistan employed by the Department of Defense. "This apparently [represents] the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by DOD in any conflict in the history of the United States," the study found.

According to the report, there were 68,197 Pentagon contractors in Afghanistan, compared with 52,300 uniformed U.S. personnel. Of the Pentagon contractors, 9,300 were U.S. citizens, 52,000 were Afghan, and 7,000 were third-country nationals. There has been a 300 percent increase in contractors since 2007, according to the Defense Contract Management Agency.

Outside of U.S. bases, Afghan firms are primarily employed due to security concerns in places like Kandahar City. As with the Malajat buildings, locals are hired for construction projects that U.S. military commanders have said are key to demonstrating Kabul’s central authority, especially in provinces reluctant to recognize Afghan President Harmid Karzai as their ruler. Afghan contractors have also been hired to help train Afghan police.

As a result of U.S. pressure, the Afghan government recently arrested American Roy Carver, CEO of Red Sea Engineers and Constructors, a company that has received $500 million in Pentagon contracts to construct buildings at U.S. bases. Carver is charged with not paying his Afghan subcontractors.

Amey, of the Project on Government Oversight, said the situation in Afghanistan mirrors the U.S. experience in Iraq: Security concerns made it difficult for foreign contractors to work on the battlefield, forcing reliance on local contractors with little accountability. It’s an endless cycle of frustration and failure.

“It seems as if there wasn’t a lessons- learned approach carrying into Afghanistan, which is not to waste federal taxpayer dollars on contracting projects like this,” Amey said in an interview with The Fiscal Times. “We can build an embassy and things can work around that, but what are we doing around the rest of country? If our money is going to security and the rest is going to impractical projects that aren’t being completed, then the government has to reevaluate the model.”

This article originally appeared on The Fiscal Times.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• A Smarter Bailout Could Have Shortened This Recession
• Steven Rattner: Here's How We Bring Down Our $1.3 Trillion Deficit
• The 10 Industries With The Most Job Cuts In November

Print publication: Monday, Dec. 27 Tired of the killing What will it take to stop the killing? The federal government remains engaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where death and destruction dominate the bombed-out landscapes.

File this under talking points gone awry: Fox anchor Rick Folbaum asks fellow anchor Stuart Varney to explain why it's no big deal that Republicans are threatening to shut down government when the debt ceiling increase comes up for a vote, but Varney goes off script and not only says a government shutdown would be a big deal, but admits that the GOP is playing a political game by threatening to take America hostage over the debt limit vote.

RICK FOLBAUM: A liberal economist says that this is not a good thing for the economy. That if this actually happens, and the Republicans do freeze the debt ceiling, it would be the immediate cessation of more than forty percent of all Federal government activities including Social Security, military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, homeland security, Medicare, unemployment insurance. This would threaten the safety and economic security of all Americans. Why is he wrong about this?

STUART VARNEY: Oh, he’s not wrong. What we’ve done here is to raise the possibility of that happening if Republicans don’t get their way on spending. It is a political contest between Republicans and Democrats and President Obama. Who is going to win it? What’s the price that Republicans will extract for raising the debt ceiling? What’s the price? They want to cut spending. What’s going to happen politically? But the economist is right. You shut the government down and it’s a very serious thing.

The most important part of what Varney said is that ultimately Republicans won't be willing to shut government down for any significant length of time. That's something the Obama administration and Democrats need to keep in mind when this battle plays itself out next year. As even Mike Huckabee has argued, a government shutdown would be a terrible thing. And make no mistake, it's the Republicans who are threatening to shut it down.

Stuart Varney, a FOX News pro-business a-hole, was on during Megyn Kelly's show yesterday and was all giddy because Republicans in the House passed a new rule which will make it tougher to pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling,

House Republicans set to release their recommended rules changes Wednesday will change the names of several committees and repeal a rule making it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling.

They will also require that all bills be posted online three days before a vote.

{}

The draft rules would repeal the “Gephardt Rule” that allows the House to raise the debt limit automatically when a conference report on the budget is approved. If the rule is repealed, a separate vote on raising the debt ceiling must be held.

The Republicans will play chicken with Obama over the debt ceiling and of course the budget, which will come up, I believe, in March. How will the President handle these fights? Dan Pfeiffer says Obama will fight.

Pfeiffer described 2011 as a “year with compromise and confrontation,” and on spending issues, he at least talked the language of confrontation. “The President is willing to draw tough lines in the sand… we’re not going to let the Republicans take the country in the wrong direction. You can’t make the car go faster by taking out the engine,” he concluded, referring to spending cuts.

The President echoed some of these sentiments in his press conference yesterday, saying “I expect we’ll have a robust debate about this when we return from the holidays — a debate that will have to answer an increasingly urgent question — and that is how do we cut spending that we don’t need while making investments that we do need — investments in education, research and development, innovation, and the things that are essential to grow our economy over the long run, create jobs, and compete with every other nation in the world.” He’s made a distinction between “programs we don’t need” and programs that deserve investment, so the question becomes what programs does the President have in mind that are no longer necessary.

As I said, Varney was very pleased that Republicans passed the new rule so they can hold hostage the government, which they hope will allow them to cut as much spending as they inhumanly can from the federal government.

Varney makes the case that if Republicans don't get what they want, they will at least threaten to shut down the government, which includes Medicare, Social Security and those screwed-up wars.

Varney: There's a new sheriff in town, it's called the Republican Party that now runs the House of Representatives and they're going to introduce new rules which will make it much more difficult-time consuming to raise that debt ceiling. You know it used to be automatic. That's gone.

Kelly: And if Republicans do freeze the debt ceiling it would mean the immediate succession of more than 40% of all federal government activities including Social Security, military operations in Afghan and Iraq, Homeland security, medicare, unemployment insurance. This would threaten the safety and economic security of all Americans. Why is he wrong?

Varney: (Gleefuly) Oh, he's not wrong. What we've done here is to raise the possibility of that happening if the Republicans don't get their way on spending. It's a political contest with the Republicans and the Democrats and President Obama. Who is going to win? What's the price the Republicans will extract from raising the debt ceiling, what's the price? They want to cut spending...The economist is right, You shut the government down and that's a very serious thing.

They will try to ram down spending cuts of all kinds to justify anything that the President will need when it comes to the purse strings. And Mitch McConnell already said "just wait till next year" which means that the GOP must rule or else. Doesn't sound like Republicans want to be too bipartisan to me. Don't look for the media to be offended if the government is shut down with some extra crispy obstructionism. They'll salivate for it and hope it happens.

Will the Obama administration finally call their bluff? The debt ceiling is now just a move on the game board for Republicans. The President should make them either shut down the government if they do indeed try to get him to cut spending on anything. Protecting Social Security will be one of my main goals in 2011.