Current Political Events: September 2003 Archives

by David Remer Sept. 25, 2003 PoliWatch.Org

Looking for a presidential candidate? A number of them showed up yesterday at the 10 candidate Democratic debate. All of the candidates held their own and offered a diversity of views and many common themes.

I found myself asking why Al Sharpton is not considered a real contender for President. Sharpton demonstrated an astute knowledge of the issues, a very quick wit, and the ability to connect with audiences. I could only conclude that his skin color prevents pundits from declaring him a serious challenge. Sharpton is opposed to passing the President's 87 billion dollar request for continued action in Iraq calling it bad policy. He said he opposed the prescription drug plan and called for a national single payer health plan. He proposed a 5 year $250 billion dollar federal investment into rebuilding America's infrastructure. On trade policy he pointed out that blacks are here in America because of historical bad trade policy implying that trade has to be about workers, not just corporate interests.

The same might be said of Carol Mosley Braun and her status as a black woman, except that she did not appear to connect with the audience as often. While she demonstrated a high degree of intelligence, her responses often seemed lacking in nuts and bolts type policy responses on some issues. She did however; astutely point out that the deficits today will shift to working persons tomorrow in the form of higher taxes and lowered benefits. She made a good case for preserving Social Security but did not provide how it could be done.

Dennis Kucinich does not have a very presidential appearance if white male, chiseled featured face and tall countenance are the standard. But, he nonetheless, distinguished himself from the other candidates on a couple of issues. I saw last night why the Green Party is backing Dennis Kucinich. He was the only candidate to state that our job is done in Iraq, we need to turn Iraq over to the U.N. and bring our troops home out of harm's way. He strongly made the case that our continued presence in Iraq will increase our deficits and harm our economy. He calls for wealth redistribution in the U.S. since, he argues, much of the tax cuts have gone to the wealthy and deficits and debt will be born by the working class. He stood squarely against NAFTA and WTO calling for the abolition of both as well as favored trading status with China. He cited the $435 billion dollar trade deficit as a priority issue. Kucinich is for reimporting of prescription drugs from Canada to keep costs lower and a single payer national health care plan. He was the only candidate to call for an end to the death penalty in the U.S.

Bob Graham called for the elimination of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and would not rule out targeted tax increases if he became President, since he is opposed to passing the current debt and deficits on to future generations. He called for a national investment in infrastructure such as roads, ports, and electric grids and proposed a kind of FDR program to put millions back to work on this infrastructure development. I thought he dropped the ball when he said we should use Iraqi oil revenues to rebuild Iraq and not spend any more tax dollars on Iraqi reconstruction. He did not make the case that Iraqi oil revenues would be sufficient.

John Edwards said nothing remarkable nor did he distinguish himself well from the other candidates. He called for providing the portion of Bush's $87 billion that would be needed to support and supply our troops. He stated President Bush is transferring the tax burden from the wealthy to the working middle class and this must be reversed. He called for withholding tax credits from any American company that moves operations over seas and granting tax breaks to those who stay here. He called for raising capital gains on those making over $300,000 per year. He supports farm subsidies except to millionaire farmers and called for strengthening union protections and banning striker replacement hiring.

Joe Lieberman too got lost in the crowd and failed to distinguish his position clearly from the others. He said jobs are the first priority but, only offered increased research and development spending partnered with companies and workforce retraining as methods to grow jobs. He did say trade policy should reflect the need for U.S. jobs. He agreed with Bob Graham that some tax increases should not be ruled out.

Richard Gephardt had no definitive reply on Bush's $87 billion Iraq funding request. He called for repealing all of Bush's tax cuts including those to the middle class. He linked the solvency of the Social Security system to the health of the economy and stressed job creation, level playing field trade policies and removing corporate greed as measures to improve the economy.

Wesley Clark admitted he has not had the time yet to fully develop a strategy for all our problems but assured watchers those plans will be finished soon. He spoke broadly on many issues declaring that he is pro-choice, for affirmative action, and strong military defense. He opposed any of Bush's $87 billion Iraq request that would add to the deficit implying it must be paid for now. He is for repealing Bush's tax cuts except those to the middle class. He called for putting all federal spending on the table for possible reduction in order to balance the budget. His health care stance was to enhance already in place programs. He stressed preventive health care focus. He called for enforcing current trade agreements and for independent corporate boards of directors.

John Kerry was cool, steady and measured throughout the debate. In voice, manner, and stature, he appeared to me to be very 'presidential' and comfortable in the role of candidate. Like Sharpton, he appeared self confident but without the showmanship. Like Kucinich, he appeared passionate in his beliefs but without the shrill tone. Kerry called for repeal of tax cuts for the wealthy, and was the only candidate to point out the a level playing field on trade will result in no trade, because the rest of the world cannot afford the environmental protections, worker benefits and pay scales that our wealthiest nation status affords. This appeared to be one of the most intelligent statements of the evening. He called for enforcing current trade laws but not closing the door on international trade.

He called for investments in science and capital investment in innovation to keep the U.S. competitive in trade. Kerry was also shrewdly adept at pointing out that the U.S. could drill till the cows came home and still not be more than 1 to 2 percent less dependent on imported oil than it is today. He called for investing in new energy technologies and energy independence from oil as a fuel. He stands directly behind saving Social Security, restructuring and democratizing boards of directors by placing shareholders on the boards. He called for rebuilding international relations in order to gain international cooperation.

Howard Dean held his own adeptly. I was impressed with Deans reference to the right trying to take ownership of Patriotism and Democracy. Dean wants to revise trade agreements toward equal standards and in so doing elevate the working standards and environment for all the world's workers. This he indicated would also create jobs in the USA. He stated the International and American worker standards are skewed toward multinational corporations and this has to end to level the trade agreements playing field. He stated he supported NAFTA and the WTO.

Dean proposed repealing all of Bush's tax cuts and emphasized that balancing the budget has to be emphasized. He indicated Congress should provide the $87 billion Bush has requested for Iraq implying that the job must now be finished and our troops should have everything they need. When attacked by Gephardt on his previous Medicare criticisms, Dean successfully countered by stating his criticism was toward how Medicare was managed, and not leveled at the program itself. Dean stated he is opposed to raising the Social Security retirement age.

My impression of him was that he projects self confidence, is a down to business kind of guy, and has the experience of working within government to get things done.

None of the candidates blundered. All appeared to be prepared for the debate and none of them lost their composure, including Howard Dean. Of the 10, it was my impression that the 4 candidates to watch are Gen. Clark, Representative Gephardt, Senator John Kerry, and former Governor Howard Dean. If I had tuned into the debates without knowing anything else about the candidates, I would probably have said Kerry and Dean were the winners of the debate with Sharpton close on their heels.

by David Remer Sept. 20, 2003 PoliWatch.Org

It is said that history is a recording of the swing of a pendulum that moves endlessly from left to right and back again. The implication is that social trends gain momentum and expand until they create a growing force to counter the expansion and reverse the social trend that became extreme in its application. It would appear Richard Grasso's resignation in response to outrage and concerns by large pension fund managers marks such a turning point of the pendulum which has been swinging right since the early days of Ronald Reagan.

Some would argue that the Grasso controversy centers on the relationship between the CEO and the compensation committee being chosen by the CEO. However, such an argument would too narrowly define the issue. Before it was even known that Grasso selected members of the compensation committee, the controversy had already begun based on nothing more than the amount of Grasso's compensation. The $188 million dollar pay package from a company that produces only $27 million a year in profits, is what raised eyebrows, questions and inquiries. Grasso was quick to rescind $48 million of the package, apparently in the hopes of stemming the growing tide of indignation over his labor's worth. Grasso supporters attempted to defend Grasso's pay package based on Grasso's stearing of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) through troubled waters in the past. But the amount of the compensation was just too large.

Richard Grasso had only one regret according to the NY Times which states: Last week, Mr. Grasso said his only regret was that he had deferred much of his pay during the last few years. Had he not, there would have been no headlines about $140 million.

Socialists, supporters of a mixed economy (socialism and capitalism), The Green Party and Democrats have argued since the 1960's that capitalism unfettered by government and regulation results in egregious accumulation of wealth in the hands of a very small number of persons. They argue such accumulation of wealth ultimately damages the society and the economy by creating unequal classes of persons in society and withholding large sums of money from the consumer demand side of the economic equation. Further, they state that disparate classes of citizens and loss of money from the economic equation will create economic slow downs, recessions, and substandard quality of life for millions of people. Capitalist purists argue that the accumulation of wealth is self regulating since competitive forces will dictate compensation according to demand and supply and least cost/highest quality analysis.

The pendulum of history has been swinging toward the Capitalist purists since the early 1970's and is reaching new heights under the Bush administration. Under the guise of "compassionate conservativism" the Republican Party touts free enterprise and capitalism in their rhetoric; yet ironically, find themselves having to bring the weight of government down on the heads of some very big corporations like Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and a host of others.

President Bush is now having to sheepishly rescind his steel tariffs which came back to bite him in increased manufacturing costs for American manufacturers at a time when jobs will decide in part whether the President is reelected or not. The FCC backed by President Bush has tried to move toward monopolization (the ultimate dream of capitalists) of media and hit a brick wall of bipartisan opposition among the electorate and Congress. The pendulum's swing to the right is slowing under its own weight of excesses. Deregulation promised competitively lowered phone costs, energy costs, airline costs, but, have resulted only in increased costs (often through increased taxation) or lowered quality for consumers of each of these industries.

Grasso's resignation (with 140 million pay package intact) seems to have awakened many in the financial and economic arena's to what the middle class have known for many years. The inequities between those who own and run corporations and companies and those who fill the employment rolls of those organizations are becoming obscene. A broker puts in a 50 hour week. Grasso puts in a 60 hour week. The broker makes $100,000 per year and Grasso makes $40 million. This picture is becoming more and more unacceptable to working Americans who have placed their faith and trust in the conservative capitalists to provide jobs and increased standards of living. Those same Americans are awaking to the fact that the recession and unemployment were a breach of that faith and trust. They are awaking to the fact that their parents had more purchasing power per hour worked than they do today.

The growth of the Green Party throughout the world is a direct response to such inequities. So too are dissension and protests at the World Trade Organization and G7 meetings by representatives of third world and mainstream countries. Even the concessions by unions to Corporation's needs is a sign of changing times that represents the rise of a social movement that will turn Democrats into fiscal conservatives, the elderly into activists, and some socialists into heroes.

Since the stock market crash of 1929 America has never been purely capitalist. And since the FDR programs the country too, has never been purely socialist. America has been a mixed economy with capitalism and socialism working together to control the excesses and extremes of each economic system. But the mix has grown too lean on socialism as the baby boom generation faces retirement without social security, as workers make less and less for their hour worked, as health care moves further and further away from 40 million Americans.

The pendulum is slowing but will not reverse course in November of 2004. It would probably be a great thing for America's working people if a Green Party candidate won the Presidency. But, since that is not even remotely possible, Americans will have to settle for the replacement of the current President. This is the most readily accessible change that American working people can bring about in the near future. It will not be until the electorate goes after the Congress in a "throw the bums out" campaign that spreads like wildfire, that America will see the pendulum stop its movement to the right, and begin a downward move back to the left. The roots of the capitalist rich mix in our economy lies in Congress.

The capitalists have taken to the working person's tax dollar the way they have taken to higher returns on investment in foreign based manufacturing. The Congress is using the American public as a credit card. The deficits will peak at about 550 billion but the debt will continue to grow. And so too will the interest rates on that debt. Like a credit card that starts with an introductory 7.9% rate, and goes up as the balance reaches the maximum allowed, so too will the tax burden on lower and middle class Americans begin creeping up as the debt grows from 7 trillion to 12 trillion over the next 10 to 12 years.

Congress is responsible for this growing deferred tax burden on working Americans. But, it will not be until 2008 or beyond that the American public realizes just what this debt is going to cost them. The conservative Congress is bloating the debt with a star wars defense system, and armament for the fourth and fifth world wars, with subsidies to American corporate farmers that stand in stark contradiction to the conservatives "free enterprise" rhetoric. And that debt is growing to secure geographic areas around the globe that American energy companies will need to tap to sustain their carbon based profitability.

Grasso's resignation should be a wake up call to working tax payers that our mixed economy has the wrong blend. To some it is, but, to far too few to make any real difference in 2004. Even if Carol Mosley Braun were to win in 2004, her ultra left-liberal position would be rendered ineffective by the conservative Congress. She could veto bill after bill until her pen ran dry of ink, but, it would not move the country any further toward recapturing the right mix of socialism and capitalism that our parent's generation enjoyed. Until the conservative Congress has a new mix, our economy will continue down its faltering path, and the Pendulum, though slowed, will not stop, and reverse direction. Richard Grasso took the money and ran. American voters should now take the hint and run to the polls in 2004, not for a change in presidency as much as a forceful change in Congress.

[AP Politics]

by David Remer PoliWatch.Org

In this AP story President Bush finally confessed to the American people that there were no ties between the attacks on September 11, 2001 and Saddam Hussein. A week ago, a poll showed that 70 percent of Americans believed there probably was a link between them. This was not stupidity on the part of Americans. It was gullibility. They wanted to believe their President. The President had carefully and meticulously crafted his speeches months before the invasion of Iraq, to leave the impression that there was a link between the terror that hit our nation and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Years before the invasion, Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz and others had already decided they wanted to invade Iraq and establish a military presence in the Middle East.

However, they knew they could not sell the bankrupting of the taxpayer for such a venture without making a national interest case for going to war in Iraq. 9/11 gave them the opportunity to make that case, though, it was completely false. They deliberately designed their speeches to persuade the American tax payer to cough up the 100's of billions of dollars it was going to take to carry out their plan.

I for one, would now like to see impeachment hearings begin. This constitutes a deliberate, intentional abuse of the office of President by misleading the American people in order to support hidden and secret agendas which had no relation to the case made to the American people. Our children are now going to be saddled with a 10 to 12 trillion dollar debt and the interest that debt incurs for a cause we now know was false. If this is not grounds for impeachment, then democracy and the rule of law are dead in America.

How can any learned and logical person believe the United States when its Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and one of America's top Generals, Ricardo Sanchez, make statements like these spoken to the press and troops in Iraq this week. (Rumsfeld Lashes Out at Iraqi Critics)

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said:

"Instead of pointing fingers at the security forces of the coalition, ... it's important for the Iraqi people to step up and provide information," Rumsfeld said at a news conference.

Many Iraqis, as well as some members of Congress, have said they are frustrated that security remains a problem in Iraq (news - web sites) four months after President Bush (news - web sites) declared that major combat had ended. Rumsfeld acknowledged Iraq is not as safe as it should be but said the fault does not lie with American forces.

When a military power invades and occupies another nation, everything that happens after that is the responsibility of the occupying nation. The occupying nation has control. Whether the invading nation puts forth the resources necessary to instill order and security is entirely up to the invading nation. In this case, it is obvious the United States is not willing, or unable, to put forth the resources necessary to create the peace and security critics are calling for. Note the following from General Sanchez:

"There is no risk at the tactical, operational or strategic level," Sanchez said at the same news conference. "The only way we will fail in this country is if we decide to walk away in Iraq and fight the next battle on the war on terrorism in America.

"A platoon out of any one of my battalions could defeat the threat, readily. I don't need any more forces. We need the Iraqi people to help us and give us the intelligence we need."

These statements are totally illogical and fail any kind of credibility test. If there is no risk at the tactical, operational or strategic level, why are American soldiers dying almost daily in Iraq?

Gen. Sanchez, in the same paragraph implies we are fighting some kind of war on terrorism in Iraq. This is simply not true. There was no terrorist threat emmanating from Iraq before the American invasion. Since the invasion, there has been resistance by the members of the invaded country. That kind of resistance was not called terrorist in occupied France in WWII, nor in Germany upon entry by Russian and American troops. This is called combat resulting from foreign invasion into a sovereign nation. NOT Terrorism.

Laughable is Gen. Sanchez's statement that a platoon could take care of the threat. OK, THEN DO IT! Why are we holding our platoon back from the mission at hand, General? For the General and Secretary to state that lack of security and peace in Iraq is somehow someone else's fault or responsibility, namely the Iraqi citizenry, is absurd. The Iraqi citizenry did not ask for this invasion, they did not ask for the bombs dropped upon their heads, they did not ask for occupation by an inept group of leaders who insist that their inability to secure the nation has nothing to do with the number of troops they have installed.

We do need more troops to secure the nation of Iraq. That is precisely why the U.S. is working feverishly in the United Nations to obtain voluntary forces from other nations to come into Iraq. The General's statement is a patent lie and is obvious on the face of it to any but, the blindly patriotic.

If the General is right, and we as a nation depend upon volunteers to flow forward to give us the intelligence we need to do our jobs, it is no wonder the attack on the towers in New York, and on the Pentagon caught the military and our government by surprise.

I am personally appalled that my tax dollars are being spent on the salaries of such inept and incompetent leaders such as General Sanchez and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It has always been Rumsfeld's postition that the U.S. did not need nor want U.N. involvement in Iraq. This man should be fired, immediately. But, he won't be; it is an election year coming and better to lose world credibility abroad than to lose a presidential election here at home.

by David Remer September 06, 2003 PoliWatch.Org

In a revealing article, U.S. Pressed to Interdict Afghan Drugs, by Matthew Pennington, about opium and lack of stability in Afghanistan, the short-sighted Bush military plan to save the world, is implicated. Pennington points out the Russians, The Afghani government in Kabul, and the United Nations are calling for the US led coalition force of 11,500 personnel to stem the opium trade which is fueling both the warlords throughout Afghanistan as well as the Taliban-al Qaida terrorists. The dilemma is that the producers of the opium are the very heads of Afghani armies which have worked with the US to fight the Taliban regime and al Qaida terrorists. These same warlords are supporting the American effort in Iraq by permitting the US to maintain much lower numbers of troops in Afghanistan than would otherwise be required to maintain stability in Kabul.

Outside Kabul, the US led coalition has little to no control. The US pulled troops out of Afghanistan after routing the Taliban in order to begin the buildup for invasion into Iraq. President Bush left only a small contingent sufficient to restore order and protect the seat of government in Kabul. There is no law and order, nor defense against reinsertions of Taliban and al Qaida throughout the rest of Afghanistan save for the poppy growing war lords. In recent weeks the U.S. led coalition has been involved in intense skirmishes with Taliban and al Qaida forces which have moved back into Afghanistan. But, little progress is made since every skirmish results in the bulk of the Taliban and al Qaida forces fleeing, only to reappear elsewhere in a few days or weeks.

Pennington states: "There's no doubt that in a number of provinces the commanders [in the US led coalition] are involved. It's a known fact.

Yet anti-drug experts suspect that al-Qaida and the Taliban, which have recently stepped up resistance to the Afghan government, are also using proceeds from the illicit trade to fund their activities."

President Bush cannot claim victory in Afghanistan as long as only one city in the entire country, Kabul, is under law abiding control of the Afghan government. Nor can it claim victory as long as the economy of the country is based on illegal drug trafficking and poppy production. Russia is growing uneasy with the damage the opium trade from Afghanistan is causing to Russia's anti-drug efforts. The U.N. is attempting to build the case that the US led coalition must, in order to fight the Taliban and al Qaida, cut off their supply of money by either stopping U.S. led coalition commanders from profiting from the poppy, or rid the country of these same commanders who are freeing up U.S. forces for deployment in Iraq and elsewhere.

The failure of the U.S. led military approach to regime change is very simply that it fails to include in its plans for the aftermath of war, such crucial factors as economics, social and cultural values, and infrastructure needed to maintain the regime change the U.S. sought in the first place. Long after the war in Afghanistan is over, President Bush is still holding American troops there in harm's way, fighting the very Taliban and al Qaida forces he sought to rout. As long as the poppy trade is a cornerstone of economic survival throughout Afghanistan outside Kabul, there will be no end to conflict in Afghanistan or secure and stable regime change. And there will be no end to the drain on American tax dollars or loss of American life and limb in Afghanistan.

The whole situation reminds me of Ford Motor Companies strategy for the Pinto with its exploding gas tank. It was cheaper to pay off the law suits for burned owners of the vehicles than it was to recall the vehicles and fix them. President Bush's administration has apparently avoided the very high cost of a long term solution.

Such a solution would have required rebuilding the economics and infrastructure of Afghanistan in such as to insure prosperity and social order could be maintained internally by native Afghans. Instead, President Bush's administration has favored the less costly option of maintaining a small contingent of troops and body bags to simply maintain the appearance of success by protecting Kabul against the forces prevalent throughout the rest of Afghanistan.

The appearance of victory is hollow as long as American tax dollars and American lives are being consumed in Afghanistan. Such a slow but steady drain on American resources could continue for years and years to come. The price of real victory through regime change is very, very high. The cost of the appearance of victory as witnessed in the 1990 Gulf War could be even higher years down the road.