Category Archives: War

The Corporatization of America.

Posted on by

Those on the political right incessantly condemn government while, at the same time, promoting “privatization” – another word for corporatization.  What they want is to eliminate all forms of public regulation and turn all of our government affairs over to large corporations. 

They have a good start.

In the U.S., our health care and pharmaceutical industries have long been privately-owned and controlled.  This despite the fact that taxpayers provide large research grants to these companies to help them develop their products.  And over the past 30 years, we’ve seen increased privatization and control of the food chain, schools, prisons, even the military.  The mercenary company, Blackwater (aka Xe), has become a household word for its role in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Indeed, some reports state that there are as many mercenaries working for the U.S. in those wars as there are government troops.  We’ve even seen our government award patents (and the resulting control) to corporations for genetic discoveries, including plant hybrids even though they were often subsidized by our government.  Perhaps the greatest threat of this privatization nonsense is to our water supplies. 

Appearing on Christiane Amanpour’s CNN program, Robert Kennedy, Jr. stated that this is becoming a very big concern throughout the world.  He stated that water is one of the biggest bargaining issues for peace between Israelis and the Arab world.  And, according to Kennedy, the issue we’re seeing in the Middle East is now becoming a very big issue in the western U.S.  For example, as the result of urban and irrigation pressures, the Colorado River now runs dry before it hits the ocean.  Lake Powell, which provides water for Las Vegas, is projected to be dry in 20-50 years.  In addition, much of the prime farmland in California now lacks water for irrigation because of the demand on reservoirs.  Of course, some suggest that the solution is to give control of water supplies to private corporations. 

This is a very bad idea.

This privatization stupidity has gone so far that some want corporations to take over public lands, public parks and public buildings.  In the state of Arizona, the Republican-controlled legislature has already cut millions from education, tourism and public safety in its attempts to balance the budget while simultaneously cutting taxes.  Yet those measures haven’t been sufficient.   So the Republicans are actually promoting legislation that would force the state to sell all state-owned public buildings to individuals or corporations and lease them back.  The result would be to literally hand billions to the buyers at the expense of the taxpayers who paid to build them.

If the choice is between a well-regulated government and greedy corporations (think AIG, Goldman-Sachs, BankofAmerica, et al), which would you want to control your fate? 

How tea-baggers can eliminate the national debt.

Posted on by

Since President Obama’s inauguration, the so-called tea-baggers have demonstrated, yelled at and threatened the administration. They claim the President is not a citizen. They believe he is trying to implement a socialist, or even communist, agenda. And they seem most angry over increases in the national debt. Never mind that the increases are the result of the previous administration’s policies. Never mind that much of the money allocated through TARP funds has been repaid. Never mind that GM seems on the road to recovery. And ignore the fact that, according to the CBO, the stimulus has saved or created 1.6 million jobs.

However, I think we can channel all that anger and energy to help pay off the national debt. Since the tea-baggers have driven up sales of guns and ammo following Obama’s election, they’re certainly well-enough armed to defend our shores. That would permit us to eliminate most of our national defense budget.

Just think, without a large military force, the tea-baggers would no longer have to fear that our government will take away their freedoms. Of course, we could keep a small professional military to operate, maintain and defend our enormous arsenal of nuclear tipped missiles. That would ensure that no foreign government would attack us. We’d bring home our troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Japan and South Korea. Without an enormous military and all of its ships, planes, tanks and troop carriers, we would have less need for oil, so we would no longer need to project American power around the globe. And since most of our large, multi-national corporations have already exported most of our jobs, we should feel no obligation to protect corporate interests on foreign soil. Besides, those companies can afford to hire their own protection such as the likes of Blackwater, aka Xe.

What’s not to like? No more war. No more nation-building (other than on our own soil). No more national debt. All made possible by putting the tea-baggers’ guns and anger to better use.

Who’s really at fault for our nation’s predicament?

Posted on by

Who is more at fault for the problems that face our nation?  Republican candidates?  Or the voters who are deceived into voting for them?  During campaigns, Republican candidates take a populist tone.  They talk about the issues that are important to ordinary Americans such as opportunity and personal freedom.  But when they are elected, they tend to focus almost exclusively on issues designed to benefit the elite. 

Despite promises of fiscal responsibility, Reagan and George W. Bush dramatically increase the deficit and national debt.  Despite promises of small government, Bush created the huge bureaucracy that is Homeland Defense.  And the Republican mantra of lower taxes has really proven to be nonsense.  They may occasionally offer a token tax cut for the middle and lower class, but the real cuts are reserved for the wealthy.   Republicans talk about creating jobs then make it easier for corporations to eliminate collective bargaining and ship jobs oversees.  They talk about getting government regulations out of the way then watch corporations create new scams to abscond with more of their consumers’ money. 

Why, then, do voters fall for these false promises over and over?  Often it’s because they aren’t curious enough to really examine the party’s platform and hold the candidates accountable.  And all too often it’s because they focus on a variety of wedge issues such as abortion, terrorism and same-sex marriage.  They fall victim to a sort of 3 card monte.  They’re mesmorized by the Republican distractions of fear, anger and religion.

How many lower and middle class voters actually benefited from Reaganomics?  How many benefited from George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism?”  I submit that instead of jobs, increased salaries and tax cuts, they were rewarded for their votes with war, massive deficits and decreased prosperity.  But the real Republican constituency consisting of CEOs, bankers, investors, oil executives and defense contractors is doing just fine, thank you.

The return of Dick Vader?

Posted on by

Liz Cheney has stated that she hopes her father will run for President in 2012.  Even allowing for the admiration that a daughter naturally feels toward her father, I have to respond, “Are you out of your @%#^ing mind?! “

This week’s most popular movie at the box office is a disaster epic entitled “2012” which portrays the end of the Earth.  If Dick Cheney were to be elected President, reality could well be more awful than fiction. 

Just imagine, in a Cheney presidency, there would no namby-pamby diplomacy with other nations.  No dithering with our enemies.  Indeed, we’d likely attack every nation that wouldn’t kowtow to Cheney.  We’d treat all Americans as suspected terrorists and spy on their phone calls and emails.  We’d jail our political enemies and hold them for years without trial.  We’d cut taxes on the rich.  We’d virtually eliminate taxes on large corporations.  We’d transfer even more wealth to our overlords.  We’d conduct all government business with no-bid contracts.  We’d privatize our military.  We’d politicize everything.  And we’d centralize all power in the executive branch. 

Wait!   Isn’t that what happened when Cheney was running the country with Bush as a figurehead?

The cost of war.

Posted on by

Our war in Afghanistan has now dragged on longer than the failed Soviet Union occupation.  And President Obama is faced with a decision to expand the war by adding up to 40 thousand new troops, engineering a withdrawal, or committing to something between those extremes. 

By all accounts, this was a war that could have ended several years ago if we hadn’t become preoccupied with Iraq.  But as the Iraq “liberation” dragged on, our real enemies in Afghanistan regrouped and gained in strength.  Now it seems that no option in Afghanistan is a “good” option – especially given our economic woes at home.

It was recently reported that the Afghan war has already cost nearly $230 billion.  It was also estimated that the war costs $500,000 (Pentagon estimate) to $1 million (Congressional estimate) to maintain one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year.  That cost includes transportation, equipment, support facilities and all incidentals.  If those figures are correct, adding 40 thousand more troops to the conflict will cost the U.S. an additional $20-40 billion over the next year.   And given that we still have combat troops stationed in Germany and Japan more than 60 years after the end of WW II, the cost will likely continue for many years to come. 

Not included in that estimate is the cost of VA to treat lasting injuries and psychological damage.  There are also the sums paid to veterans for disabilities.   And, of course, it’s impossible to place a price on the lives lost in action.   

Add to these costs the price of the war in Iraq which some estimate to total more than $2 trillion.

All of this is background to the debate over health care reform and economic stimulus.  The economic stimulus package that was signed by President Obama included $787 billion to create or save jobs by rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.  And the cost of health care reform bills being considered are estimated to  cost more than $800 billion over 10 years.  Of course, the conservatives are horrified by these numbers.

So they must be apoplectic over the cost of Bush’s wars?  Not exactly.   The conservatives can’t wait to send more troops to Afghanistan and spend more money (and more lives) on open-ended, no-bid contracts for the likes of Halliburton and Xe.  They even trotted out the dark one (former V.P., and former Halliburton CEO, Dick Cheney) to attack Obama for “dithering” over the decision to commit more troops. 

Conservative logic goes something like this:  It’s un-American and un-patriotic to spend our own money on our own citizens for jobs and health care.  But it’s absolutely necessary to spend trillions to kill a few knuckleheads on the other side of the globe. 

Does this make any sense?  I think you know the answer.

Let the investigations begin.

Posted on by

It was recently announced that a former member of the Bush cabinet, Gail Norton, is the subject of a corruption probe. As Secretary of State, Ms. Norton awarded some lucrative oil shale leases to a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the company that hired her a few months later.

The focus of the investigation is whether Norton violated a law that prohibits federal employees from discussing employment with a company if they are involved in dealings that could benefit the firm. It’s also possible that she broke the federal “denial of honest services” law, which permits a government official to be prosecuted for violating the public trust.

I have no idea if Ms. Norton is guilty. Her actions certainly give the appearance of guilt. But she’s certainly not the only former member of the Bush administration who appeared guilty of some impropriety. 

How about former EPA chief Stephen Johnson who found ways to avoid regulating greenhouse gases? How about former Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson who authorized billions to former colleagues in financial institutions without restrictions? How about former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who fired US attorneys for what appeared to be political purposes? Or how about John Yoo who found questionable justification to approve torture? Scooter Libby was convicted of outing a covert CIA operative, but what about those above him who likely encouraged him to release the information?

How about Don Rumsfeld who was responsible for awarding “no bid” military contracts to the corporation that was previously headed by former Vice-President Cheney? Finally, how about the former president who usurped power from Congress and seemingly ginned up information to justify an unwarranted invasion of Iraq?

As long as there are reasonable suspicions that these people committed illegal or unethical actions, there is a great likelihood that this kind of unethical behavior will continue.

And why limit the investigations to former government officials? The Bush administration was especially egregious. But the problems with our government go much deeper.

While we’re at it, let’s investigate the links between all elected officials and lobbyists. After all, when a political candidate receives tens of thousands of dollars from an industry, corporation, lobbyist or individual expecting special access or treatment, is that not as unethical as what Gail Norton is accused of?

Maybe we should reconsider all of our troop deployments.

Posted on by

The current discussion regarding the appropriate level of US troops for Afghanistan got me wondering about the total size of our military.  How many more troops do we have to send?

The most recent information I found shows that we have nearly 1.4 million active duty troops worldwide and another 1.4 million in active reserve.  Those totals include 130 thousand in Iraq and 62 thousand in Afghanistan with at least 68 thousand by year end.

In addition, we have 40 thousand in South Korea, 45 thousand in Japan, plus 5-30 thousand each in Italy, Spain and Turkey and 250 thousand in Germany!  The question is “Why?” 

I understand why we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But why do we still have troops in Japan?  The war has been over for more than 60 years and, although Japan is a threat to us economically, it certainly isn’t a military threat.  So what possible reason can there be to maintain such a large force?  If it’s to act as a counter to China, do we really think 45 thousand troops are a serious deterrent to China’s combined forces of more than 6 million?

You also have to wonder about our troop levels in Germany.  After all, Hitler and the Third Reich were defeated in 1945 and the Cold War has been over for more than 20 years.  

South Korea?  Okay, I understand that one.  The Korean War has never been declared over – we simply signed an armistice that paused the fighting.  And even though that was 56 years ago, the country to the north has nuclear weapons, missiles and a huge standing army. 

Perhaps the most puzzling deployments are the thousands of troops in Italy and Spain.  For what purpose?  Shopping?  Supplying wine to the rest of our troops?  Working on their tans?  Because Don Rumsfeld favored Tuscan cooking? 

The real question is this:  If we have 1.4 million troops, why are so few bearing the brunt of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan?  If my figures are correct, fewer than 15 percent are deployed in those countries.  Yet many of our soldiers are already on their 4th and 5th tours of duty in combat. 

As long as President Obama and the Department of Defense are considering troop levels in Afghanistan, why not look troop levels everywhere?  They could begin by declaring victory in Germany, Italy and Japan, and finally bring those troops home.

Why different standards for ACORN and Halliburton?

Posted on by

Recently, Congress voted overwhelmingly to suspend funds for ACORN.  Never mind that the bill violates the Constitution’s prohibition on Bills of Attainder (singling out a single group or individual for punishment).  According to Republicans, ACORN must be punished for the actions of a few of its staffers.

Why suspend funds from an organization that has a long history of helping the poor?  The short answer is that ACORN has made it more difficult for Republicans to be elected, and Democrats are simply afraid to be painted as too partisan. 

During last year’s presidential election, ACORN invoked the fury of conservative talk radio and Fox News by registering voters.  Since most of these newly registered voters were minorities and/or poor it is assumed that they voted for President Obama.  Of course, the conservatives cried foul.  They accused ACORN of helping to steal the election.  They claimed that ACORN had registered tens of thousands of illegal votes.  There were widely publicized registration forms for Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, etc., which seemed to point to widespread voter fraud. 

The problem with that argument is that ACORN pays members to register voters.  Since the members are paid by the number of registration forms filled out, some of these people inevitably try to scam the system.  ACORN recognizes that possibility, and since it has to account for every single voter registration form, the organization sorts the forms into three categories before submitting them to the local voter registration office:  Those that can be confirmed, those that cannot be confirmed, and those that are obviously fraudulent.  Therefore, if there is fraud, it occurs at the voter registration office.  ACORN should not be held accountable.

Nevertheless, Republicans felt they must do something to rid the country of ACORN, so a few enterprising conservatives went looking for evidence that ACORN is a renegade organization defrauding the American public.  Two young people posed as a pimp and a prostitute and visited ACORN offices looking for advice on how to run a brothel and funnel the money into a Congressional campaign.  In three offices, ACORN volunteers provided advice.  In another, the ACORN volunteers recognized the scam and “punked” the actors. 

There is no question that those who provided the advice should be fired.  And they were.  But attacking an organization of more than 500,000 members for the bad behavior of a few is ridiculous.  If we’re going to use that standard for all organizations receiving money from the federal government, then why not suspend all further contracts with Halliburton?  After all, the sloppiness of a few employees in its KBR subsidiary caused numerous soldiers to be electrocuted in Iraq.  There are also accusations that several Halliburton employees gang-raped a woman in Iraq.  When the woman tried to sue Halliburton for her treatment, she was told that the fine print in her contract prevents lawsuits.  Finally, there is alleged evidence that Halliburton has defrauded the government out of millions of dollars.  Yet there is no parallel outcry against Halliburton such as that against ACORN.  No legislation to withhold funds.

Or how about Blackwater, aka XE?  Blackwater mercenaries have been accused of murdering Iraqi civilians and raping Iraqi women.  Yet XE still receives lucrative contracts with the Defense Department.

There can be only two explanations:  Money and influence.  Halliburton and XE have them.  ACORN does not.

Like father like daughter.

Posted on by

When Dick Cheney held the office of vice-president, we all held our breath (and our noses) whenever he emerged from his dark cave.  We knew that his emergence could only mean trouble for the free world.  Either he was going to start another war, announce a new surveillance scheme for innocent Americans, or he was going to devise new ways to torture suspected terrorists and/or Democrats.

Now that the election of President Obama has sent the Dark One scurrying back to his badger hole, it appears that his offspring has taken it upon herself to remind us of how lucky we are that he’s no longer in office.  No one to rattle sabers?  Liz Cheney will show up on Fox News to promote war against somebody.  No one to promote torture?  Liz Cheney will torture us with her opinions.  No one to blame the Bush administration’s failures on Democrats?  Liz Cheney knows who’s really at fault.

Most recently, she appeared on Fox News to react to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.  (After all, who would know more about peace than someone whose father is so versed in war, torture and draft deferments.)  Not surprisingly, she believes that Obama is totally undeserving of the award.  She explained that Obama has not proven anything yet – he hasn’t invaded Iran or North Korea.  Why he hasn’t even acquiesced to the military’s request for more troops in Afghanistan yet. 

The Dark One’s offspring even had a suggestion for President Obama.  Instead of traveling to Oslo to pick up the Peace Prize, she announced that the president should send the mother of a dead American soldier in his place.  (Perhaps Ms. Cheney hasn’t yet realized that any mother we would send is likely grieving as a result of a decision by Dick Cheney.)  Liz said she believes it would make a great statement to let the world know that it’s the lives of American soldiers that keep the world safe.  Apparently, in the Cheney family, nothing says peace like a grieving mother and the promise of more wars. 

Bush League Economy

Posted on by

In baseball, bush league refers to the lowest level – a metaphor that perfectly fits the economic performance of the George W. Bush administration.  It’s even more appropriate given that Bush made millions by gaming the City of Arlington and its citizens as “Managing Partner” of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

In short, the people of Arlington got screwed.  Not entirely unlike what Bush did to the people of the United States as our 43rd President.

This is no longer just opinion.  It’s fact.

According to a recent report by the Census Bureau, the median household income in the U.S. declined 4.2 percent during Bush’s two terms.  At the same time, the number of Americans living in poverty increased 1.9 percent to 39.8 million (the most since 1960).  More disturbing is the number of children now living in poverty:  When Bush entered office 11.6 million children were living in poverty.  When Bush left office, that number had swollen to nearly 14.1 million.  That’s an astonishing increase of more than 21 percent!  Under Bush, job growth was a dismal .28 percent – the worst performance since World War II.  The number of Americans employed in manufacturing dropped beneath 10 percent for the first time in history.  And the number of Americans without health insurance increased to 15.4 percent.

On every major measurement, the economic condition of American people declined during the Bush administration!  The housing industry crashed, the financial industry collapsed under the weight of its own risky gambles, stock markets crashed and two out of the Big Three U.S. auto makers faced bankruptcy.   About the only people who didn’t suffer under Bush’s watch were oil executives, military contractors, hedge fund managers and the extremely wealthy.

Predictably, the Republicans are now trying to reassign the economic blame to President Obama.  They accuse him of increasing the size of government, increasing the size of the federal debt, and taking over private businesses.  Let’s look at the facts:

The government, the deficit and the national debt all grew under President Bush.  The Department of Homeland Security represented a huge growth in government.  But the growth of government under Bush wasn’t confined to just the one department.  (In the first 3 months of 2008 alone, the federal government added 13,800 jobs under Bush.)  The deficit and debt under Bush increased in large part as the result of Bush’s misadventures in Iraq.  The real cost of that war is estimated at anywhere from $2-3 trillion, and some estimate that the cost of the Afghan war will overtake the Iraq war in 2010. 

The bailout of financial institutions is estimated at $3 trillion.  Approximately one-half of that was approved by the Bush administration.  And none of the money would have been necessary if not for the Republican’s aversion to regulation of financial institutions.

Finally, you can’t blame President Obama for the takeover of the U.S. auto industry.  Indeed, we all should thank him for it.  Had the Bush administration not allowed wild speculation of commodities, oil would not have spiked as they did in 2008.  Had that artificial spike not been followed by the collapse of our financial institutions, the auto industry would never have experience such severe problems.  And had the Obama administration not stepped in to help, the economy may well have fallen into another depression.