Friday, January 30, 2004
Oh my gosh; Budget Trouble; Better Freeze Spending! (Shhh; Never mind taxes!)
Social Policy 101 teaches, hopefully, about the importance of “framing the issue.” The Republicans have long mastered the concept, repetitively and consistently describing an issue on their terms. The opposition too often then responds / protests in disagreement, and the fight is thus waged on conservative terms.
Now, once again, the Republicans are warning that the Bush budget is out of balance, necessitating a freeze on spending. No mention, of course, is made of the decline of revenues due to the massive tax giveaways, primarily bestowed on the very, very wealthy. From the NY Times (Edmund Andrews)
A senior House Republican warned on Thursday that President Bush was on a collision course with Congress over his plans to reduce the deficit by almost freezing the growth of discretionary programs aside from military and domestic security items.
A briefing paper distributed to Republican lawmakers by the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, estimated that a complete freeze on the discretionary programs — excluding military and domestic security proposals — would save only $3 billion next year. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/politics/30SPEN.html?pagewanted=all
Washington Post Shrugs at Jobless Recovery:
Their editorial shows great faith in the system!
But the bigger question is whether jobless recoveries are a bad thing….
If a U.S. firm shifts employment abroad, the savings flow back to the United States in the form of lower prices for consumers and higher dividends for shareholders; the consumers and shareholders will direct their new spending power at things that create employment. Meanwhile, the fall in prices will allow the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates lower, boosting the job-creation engine. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50822-2004Jan26.html
Accountability / Standards: Still a free pass for Bush
We know that Gore never said that he invented the internet, and he was not a chronic liar/exaggerator. We know that Dean was giving a pep talk to thousands of noisy volunteers the night of the Iowa caucus and did not sound “insane,” as some asserted. Yet, no label was attached to Bush when he said on Tuesday that Saddam “did not let us in” to inspect his country. As I cited in a July blog, Bush had noted, “And we gave Saddam a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.” Kofi Annan, in the background, raised his eyebrows.
So, what are we to make of this? Does this scenario shows the UN Secretary General to be rude, and Bush’s weird depiction of reality to be not worthy of a comment? What’s wrong (yet familiar) about this picture?
Similarly, headlines as to Bush’s comments re wmd merited ‘Bush stubbornly holds to belief’ or similar wording, yet invariably they are along the lines of the Boston Globe’s Bush steady on belief in Iraq threat. Steady. Resolve. Strong. Leadership.
Please.
Paul Krugman addressed the issue today in his NY Times column.
In any case, the point is that a grave mistake was made, and America's credibility has been badly damaged — and nobody is being held accountable. But that's standard operating procedure. As far as I can tell, nobody in the Bush administration has ever paid a price for being wrong. Instead, people are severely punished for telling inconvenient truths…
These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse.
Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30KRUG.html
Cheney --> Guiliani?
Political Gossip: There are rumors that Cheney will truly shift to the background and allow a new VP candidate such as Rudy Giuliani to replace him.
9/11: Extension for Commission?
I mention it again, as the decision time for the needed extension is at hand. The Republicans are currently saying there is “no way” that it will be granted. They (understandably) fear a report coming out just prior to their convention. Fittingly, an aide to a Republican Senator is cited in a news report as declaring that the White House strategy is to "just kick the can down the road."
Yesterday, John McCain and Joe Lieberman pushed for a compromise of sorts, to extend the deadline to January, thus allowing enough time for the Commission to finish its work and NOT reveal its conclusions until after the election. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/politics/30TERR.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Health Care: Doctors Cancelling Malpractice insurance
A Wall Street Journal report (Rachel Emma Silverman)
With medical malpractice insurance premiums climbing steeply, a growing number of physicians are taking a radical step: They're canceling their coverage altogether.
Going bare, as it is known, or "self-insuring," means that doctors, rather than insurance companies, are responsible for legal fees and any judgments or settlements if they're sued. For patients it means potentially less money if their doctor botches the job.
Many of the physicians going bare so far practice in Florida, which consistently has some of the highest malpractice insurance rates in the nation and is known for its activist doctors. More than 5% of Florida's roughly 47,700 active medical doctors don't have malpractice insurance coverage, up from 4% of doctors a year ago, according to the Florida Department of Health statistics. In Miami-Dade County, in South Florida, nearly 20% of the county's 6,360 active medical doctors are bare. The phenomenon is most common in high-risk specialties such as neurosurgery and obstetrics, but even primary-care physicians are forgoing insurance.
As premiums edge beyond the reach of physicians in other states, doctors elsewhere are studying, and in some cases adopting, the option. As a result, some in the medical profession expect the phenomenon to continue to spread.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107524226412113275,00.html?mod=todays%5Fus%5Fpersonaljnl%5Fhs
BBC Chastised, Blair “cleared”
In what many would consider a whitewash, Tony Blair is cleared of fudging the case for war. Not a good development, but hardly surprising.
Plenty of commentary in the British media along the lines of “After going through the motions of a full and fair inquiry…” or, as one caller to the BBC noted, ‘So, the judge who Blair appointed blamed the BBC and absolved Blair. What a surprise!’ Polls indicate a majority of Brits don’t agree with the judgment.
Danny Schechter at mediachannel.org noted that “The Hutton Report takes ONE BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan to task for ONE report which included TWO disputed words as in an opinion attributed to David Kelly that that the government had “sexed” up its claims about Iraq’s presumed ability to unleash WMD’s in 45 minutes is the pretext here. It does not examine BBC journalism or BBC practices although it is being read—deliberately—as an informed verdict on both.”
The Guardian (Maggie Brown) notes that a more cautious BBC may be the result.
There is no doubting the sense of anxiety within the BBC about the future of its journalism, as the shock waves of the Hutton report reverberate through the corporation.
"It's a terrible day for BBC news. I am profoundly depressed," a key editorial adviser said.
One journalist said staff were "absolutely livid" about Lord Hutton's "catastrophic" findings, which they said played directly into the hands of perennial critics of the corporation. Last night there was speculation that it will result in a much more nervous journalism, with the surviving governors taking far more detailed control over and interest in what is broadcast.
"It will be more tentative. There will be a step backwards, a more cautious BBC and that could go on for years. It will hit the confidence of everyone," said the adviser. "They will be much more careful. Managers will look at everything, strike out phrases; there will be the inevitable double-checking. http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1134001,00.html
WMD: one more time!
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post summarized on NPR that since “acknowledging isn’t possible for them, “ we’ve gotten to the point that the Administration is, in effect,’ the only one left to claim that the world isn’t round.’
Earlier, his report (with Walter Pincus) noted David Kay’s admission that there was no threat from Iraq.
U.S. weapons inspectors in Iraq found new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime quietly destroyed some stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s, former chief inspector David Kay said yesterday.
The discovery means that inspectors have not only failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but also have found exculpatory information -- contemporaneous documents and confirmations from interviews with Iraqis -- demonstrating that Hussein did make efforts to disarm well before President Bush began making the case for war. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54353-2004Jan27?language=printer
Deaths: At least 18 Palestinians/Israelis, 7 Americans in Afghanistan, several in Iraq, plus numerous Iraqis. But, more importantly, the polls in Oklahoma and Arizona…
[The Zogby poll has Kerry with a 34-point lead in Missouri, a 21-point lead in Arizona, and trailing John Edwards by only 1 point in South Carolina and Wesley Clark by 8 points in Oklahoma in a three-day tracking poll of the four states. Dean registers in double-digits in only one state, and is out of money.]
March 20 Mobilization in New York There isn’t much p.r. yet, but buses have been reserved.
Momentum is building across the globe for the Global Day of Action against War and Occupation on March 20, 2004—the one-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On that day people all around the globe will take to the streets to say YES to peace and NO to pre-emptive war and occupation. Joining with growing numbers of military families and soldiers, we will call for an end to the occupation of Iraq and Bush's militaristic foreign policies. http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
-R
Social Policy 101 teaches, hopefully, about the importance of “framing the issue.” The Republicans have long mastered the concept, repetitively and consistently describing an issue on their terms. The opposition too often then responds / protests in disagreement, and the fight is thus waged on conservative terms.
Now, once again, the Republicans are warning that the Bush budget is out of balance, necessitating a freeze on spending. No mention, of course, is made of the decline of revenues due to the massive tax giveaways, primarily bestowed on the very, very wealthy. From the NY Times (Edmund Andrews)
A senior House Republican warned on Thursday that President Bush was on a collision course with Congress over his plans to reduce the deficit by almost freezing the growth of discretionary programs aside from military and domestic security items.
A briefing paper distributed to Republican lawmakers by the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, estimated that a complete freeze on the discretionary programs — excluding military and domestic security proposals — would save only $3 billion next year. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/politics/30SPEN.html?pagewanted=all
Washington Post Shrugs at Jobless Recovery:
Their editorial shows great faith in the system!
But the bigger question is whether jobless recoveries are a bad thing….
If a U.S. firm shifts employment abroad, the savings flow back to the United States in the form of lower prices for consumers and higher dividends for shareholders; the consumers and shareholders will direct their new spending power at things that create employment. Meanwhile, the fall in prices will allow the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates lower, boosting the job-creation engine. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50822-2004Jan26.html
Accountability / Standards: Still a free pass for Bush
We know that Gore never said that he invented the internet, and he was not a chronic liar/exaggerator. We know that Dean was giving a pep talk to thousands of noisy volunteers the night of the Iowa caucus and did not sound “insane,” as some asserted. Yet, no label was attached to Bush when he said on Tuesday that Saddam “did not let us in” to inspect his country. As I cited in a July blog, Bush had noted, “And we gave Saddam a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.” Kofi Annan, in the background, raised his eyebrows.
So, what are we to make of this? Does this scenario shows the UN Secretary General to be rude, and Bush’s weird depiction of reality to be not worthy of a comment? What’s wrong (yet familiar) about this picture?
Similarly, headlines as to Bush’s comments re wmd merited ‘Bush stubbornly holds to belief’ or similar wording, yet invariably they are along the lines of the Boston Globe’s Bush steady on belief in Iraq threat. Steady. Resolve. Strong. Leadership.
Please.
Paul Krugman addressed the issue today in his NY Times column.
In any case, the point is that a grave mistake was made, and America's credibility has been badly damaged — and nobody is being held accountable. But that's standard operating procedure. As far as I can tell, nobody in the Bush administration has ever paid a price for being wrong. Instead, people are severely punished for telling inconvenient truths…
These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse.
Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30KRUG.html
Cheney --> Guiliani?
Political Gossip: There are rumors that Cheney will truly shift to the background and allow a new VP candidate such as Rudy Giuliani to replace him.
9/11: Extension for Commission?
I mention it again, as the decision time for the needed extension is at hand. The Republicans are currently saying there is “no way” that it will be granted. They (understandably) fear a report coming out just prior to their convention. Fittingly, an aide to a Republican Senator is cited in a news report as declaring that the White House strategy is to "just kick the can down the road."
Yesterday, John McCain and Joe Lieberman pushed for a compromise of sorts, to extend the deadline to January, thus allowing enough time for the Commission to finish its work and NOT reveal its conclusions until after the election. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/politics/30TERR.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Health Care: Doctors Cancelling Malpractice insurance
A Wall Street Journal report (Rachel Emma Silverman)
With medical malpractice insurance premiums climbing steeply, a growing number of physicians are taking a radical step: They're canceling their coverage altogether.
Going bare, as it is known, or "self-insuring," means that doctors, rather than insurance companies, are responsible for legal fees and any judgments or settlements if they're sued. For patients it means potentially less money if their doctor botches the job.
Many of the physicians going bare so far practice in Florida, which consistently has some of the highest malpractice insurance rates in the nation and is known for its activist doctors. More than 5% of Florida's roughly 47,700 active medical doctors don't have malpractice insurance coverage, up from 4% of doctors a year ago, according to the Florida Department of Health statistics. In Miami-Dade County, in South Florida, nearly 20% of the county's 6,360 active medical doctors are bare. The phenomenon is most common in high-risk specialties such as neurosurgery and obstetrics, but even primary-care physicians are forgoing insurance.
As premiums edge beyond the reach of physicians in other states, doctors elsewhere are studying, and in some cases adopting, the option. As a result, some in the medical profession expect the phenomenon to continue to spread.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107524226412113275,00.html?mod=todays%5Fus%5Fpersonaljnl%5Fhs
BBC Chastised, Blair “cleared”
In what many would consider a whitewash, Tony Blair is cleared of fudging the case for war. Not a good development, but hardly surprising.
Plenty of commentary in the British media along the lines of “After going through the motions of a full and fair inquiry…” or, as one caller to the BBC noted, ‘So, the judge who Blair appointed blamed the BBC and absolved Blair. What a surprise!’ Polls indicate a majority of Brits don’t agree with the judgment.
Danny Schechter at mediachannel.org noted that “The Hutton Report takes ONE BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan to task for ONE report which included TWO disputed words as in an opinion attributed to David Kelly that that the government had “sexed” up its claims about Iraq’s presumed ability to unleash WMD’s in 45 minutes is the pretext here. It does not examine BBC journalism or BBC practices although it is being read—deliberately—as an informed verdict on both.”
The Guardian (Maggie Brown) notes that a more cautious BBC may be the result.
There is no doubting the sense of anxiety within the BBC about the future of its journalism, as the shock waves of the Hutton report reverberate through the corporation.
"It's a terrible day for BBC news. I am profoundly depressed," a key editorial adviser said.
One journalist said staff were "absolutely livid" about Lord Hutton's "catastrophic" findings, which they said played directly into the hands of perennial critics of the corporation. Last night there was speculation that it will result in a much more nervous journalism, with the surviving governors taking far more detailed control over and interest in what is broadcast.
"It will be more tentative. There will be a step backwards, a more cautious BBC and that could go on for years. It will hit the confidence of everyone," said the adviser. "They will be much more careful. Managers will look at everything, strike out phrases; there will be the inevitable double-checking. http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1134001,00.html
WMD: one more time!
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post summarized on NPR that since “acknowledging isn’t possible for them, “ we’ve gotten to the point that the Administration is, in effect,’ the only one left to claim that the world isn’t round.’
Earlier, his report (with Walter Pincus) noted David Kay’s admission that there was no threat from Iraq.
U.S. weapons inspectors in Iraq found new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime quietly destroyed some stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s, former chief inspector David Kay said yesterday.
The discovery means that inspectors have not only failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but also have found exculpatory information -- contemporaneous documents and confirmations from interviews with Iraqis -- demonstrating that Hussein did make efforts to disarm well before President Bush began making the case for war. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54353-2004Jan27?language=printer
Deaths: At least 18 Palestinians/Israelis, 7 Americans in Afghanistan, several in Iraq, plus numerous Iraqis. But, more importantly, the polls in Oklahoma and Arizona…
[The Zogby poll has Kerry with a 34-point lead in Missouri, a 21-point lead in Arizona, and trailing John Edwards by only 1 point in South Carolina and Wesley Clark by 8 points in Oklahoma in a three-day tracking poll of the four states. Dean registers in double-digits in only one state, and is out of money.]
March 20 Mobilization in New York There isn’t much p.r. yet, but buses have been reserved.
Momentum is building across the globe for the Global Day of Action against War and Occupation on March 20, 2004—the one-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On that day people all around the globe will take to the streets to say YES to peace and NO to pre-emptive war and occupation. Joining with growing numbers of military families and soldiers, we will call for an end to the occupation of Iraq and Bush's militaristic foreign policies. http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
-R
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Economic Jitters:
Deficit Fears:
This is an old story, a too-old concern. We can recall Fritz Mondale and his plaintive cries about “the deficit”. As then, the Republicans have purposely created imposing deficits in the hope that the “beast” that is government will be drowned in that red ink bathtub. Not if we fight (or Fite).
The Congressional Budget Office predicted on Monday that the federal budget deficit would hit a record $477 billion this year and that accumulated deficits over the next decade would total $1.9 trillion.
The nonpartisan budget office's outlook for the long term is significantly more pessimistic than it was just one year ago. It casts new doubt on the ability of President Bush to fulfill his promise of cutting the deficit in half over the next five years, particularly if he persuades Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, which he has vowed to do.
If Congress extends all tax breaks that are scheduled to expire, the agency predicted, the total cost would add up to more than $2 trillion in additional borrowing over the next decade.
And if Congress moves to stop an explosive rise in what is known as the alternative minimum tax, a provision that is expected to raise taxes on millions of families as their incomes rise, the Treasury would lose an additional $469 billion over 10 years.
Extending the tax cuts would increase the accumulated deficit more than $1.2 trillion above the agency's basic forecast. They are now scheduled to expire at various points between now and 2011.
Just a year ago, before the war in Iraq and before Congress passed a sweeping expansion of Medicare, Congressional forecasters predicted that the deficit could melt away by 2007 and that the government could rack up $1.3 trillion in accumulated surpluses within 10 years.
Democrats immediately pounced on the new report, saying it provided more evidence of Mr. Bush's fiscal recklessness. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/politics/27BUDG.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Krugman on Deficits
Why, then, do we face the prospect of huge deficits as far as the eye can see? Part of the answer is the surge in defense and homeland security spending. The main reason for deficits, however, is that revenues have plunged. Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950.
Of course, most people don't feel that their taxes have fallen sharply. And they're right: taxes that fall mainly on middle-income Americans, like the payroll tax, are still near historic highs. The decline in revenue has come almost entirely from taxes that are mostly paid by the richest 5 percent of families: the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These taxes combined now take a smaller share of national income than in any year since World War II.
This decline in tax collections from the wealthy is partly the result of the Bush tax cuts, which account for more than half of this year's projected deficit. But it also probably reflects an epidemic of tax avoidance and evasion. Everyone who wants to understand what's happening to the tax system should read "Perfectly Legal," the new book by David Cay Johnston, The Times's tax reporter, who shows how ideologues have made America safe for wealthy people who don't feel like paying taxes.
What's playing out in America right now is the bait-and-switch strategy known on the right as "starve the beast." The ultimate goal is to slash government programs that help the poor and the middle class, and use the savings to cut taxes for the rich. But the public would never vote for that.
So the right has used deceptive salesmanship to undermine tax enforcement and push through upper-income tax cuts. And now that deficits have emerged, the right insists that they are the result of runaway spending, which must be curbed.
While this strategy has been remarkably successful so far, it also offers a big opportunity to the opposition. So here's a test for the Democratic contenders: details of your proposals aside, which of you can do the best job explaining the ongoing budget con to the American people? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/opinion/27KRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Global Economy Advocates Unsettled:
The Wall Street Journal (Bob Davis) noted that there are increasing doubts amongst those at the Davos World Economic Forum that the global economy will produce those promised high-wage jobs.
Many of the business, government and academic leaders who came here for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, traditionally a gathering of advocates of globalization, have voiced doubts over the past few days about one of the central tenets of global economic integration…
Their concern stems from the free-trade axiom that when a rich country sends blue-collar jobs overseas, it creates opportunities back home for workers to move up the skill ladder. The more recent corollary was that sending service jobs overseas would do the same for white-collar workers back home.
But the rising number of skilled, white-collar jobs migrating from rich nations to developing countries is raising fears that, in fact, well-paid workers in developed countries will have trouble finding equally well-paid computer, design and medical jobs at home. Many of the true believers in globalization at the Davos forum, which ended Sunday, worry that outsourcing also could erode political support for free trade internationally… http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107506802467310973,00.html?mod=home%5Fpage%5Fone%5Fus
More (Criticism) at Davos: An array of critiques at the Davos meeting
Despite the US attempts to tread more lightly, Washington was not spared some harsh words at Davos, notably from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, whose help it is now seeking to sort out the aftermath of the Iraq war.
Annan warned that the US focus on security had diverted attention from critical development issues facing the world and risked reducing the collective security system to "brute competition based on the laws of the jungle."
He said if global terrorism threatened peace and communal harmony, "the war against terrorism can sometimes aggravate those tensions, as well as raising concerns about the protection of human rights and civil liberties."
Critics from the Muslim world branded the US as hypocritical for preaching the spread of democracy in the Middle East while continuing to back Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Even the widely touted economic recovery in the US attracted suspicion from officials and economic pundits alike.
Stephan Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, said the Americans were getting the headlines for what is in some respects an "artificial recovery" compared to the real growth registered in countries like China.
"We are doing it at the cost of lots of structural imbalances and a lack of job recreation and an economy that is running on cash cuts and debt," he said. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/01/26/2003092555
What’s Happening, Iraq:
A particularly deadly week, if somewhat lost amidst the polls and N.H. results.
With the wmd issue a mighty embarrassment, it seems clear that the new strategy is two-fold—to blame the CIA, and to spin the new line, that ousting Saddam was a great humanitarian move. (Globe and Mail, Paul Koring)
Seeking to recast its reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the Bush administration is sending high-ranking officials abroad to justify the war as good for humanity, despite increasing evidence that Baghdad did not possess stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
"The former dictator sits in captivity. He can no longer harbour and support terrorists, and his long efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction are at an end," U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney said yesterday in a speech to political and business leaders in Rome. Today, Mr. Cheney will take the same message to the Vatican on a fence-mending mission to Pope John Paul II, who had condemned the war as a defeat for humanity and whose personal emissary failed to dissuade President George W. Bush from attacking Iraq last spring. http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040127.wxiraq27/BNStory/Front/
Meanwhile, the General Accounting Office and the House Budget Committee are perplexed by the Pentagon’s spending habits, questioning whether the Defense Department is using the money that is allocated. One speculation is that the Administration asked for extra money so as to not request more during the election year.
In all, Congress has approved about $4 billion a month for Iraq and $1 billion a month for Afghanistan, officials say. Based on those numbers, lawmakers have estimated the cost of operations at as much as $45,000 per soldier each month in Iraq and $100,000 in Afghanistan.
Some lawmakers say such high numbers cast doubt on the U.S. government's staying power in future conflicts. "I think it costs one hell of a lot to maintain the force," Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in an interview. "It should affect your strategic thinking about when and where it's cost-effective to engage [an enemy], and secondarily whether we can maintain go-it-alone geopolitics."
Others are questioning whether the Pentagon is even spending all the money that the administration sought from Congress. "It's hard for me to believe we're spending that much money a week," Comptroller General David Walker, the head of the GAO, said last week. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107508538756111308,00.html?mod=world_news_whats_news
And another disturbing note, from the Denver Post (Miles Moffeit and Amy Herdy):
Female troops serving in the Iraq war are reporting an insidious enemy in their own camps: fellow American soldiers who sexually assault them.
At least 37 female service members have sought sexual-trauma counseling and other assistance from civilian rape crisis organizations after returning from war duty in Iraq, Kuwait and other overseas stations, The Denver Post has learned. The women, ranging from enlisted soldiers to officers, have reported poor medical treatment, lack of counseling and incomplete criminal investigations by military officials. Some say they were threatened with punishment after reporting assaults.
The Pentagon did not respond to repeated requests for information about the number of sexual assault reports during the conflict. Defense officials would say only that they will not tolerate sexual assault in their ranks. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27059%257E1913069,00.html?search=filter
9/11
Rarely in the major media, which is what the White House wants. Let’s recall that they opposed a commission and have dragged out the proceedings, now refusing to extend the deadline for its May report. The Commission is clearly behind in its work, and has outraged some of the committee members and a group representing the families of 9/11 victims. But, a disturbing note is that the Chair Thomas Kean and the Vice Chair, Lee Hamilton, both Republicans, have been reportedly hesitant to ask for more time.
Fortunately, today’s NY Times (Philip Shenon) brought the issue back, quoting Kean and Hamilton as asking- tho rather mildly- for more time. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/national/28TERR.html?hp
Election: Issues: Health Care and Economy Trump Iraq
From the Washington Post (Jonathan Finer)
Health care (22 percent) topped the list of issues considered critical by voters in a recent University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll, ahead of both the economy (16 percent) and the war in Iraq (10 percent). Health care also was deemed most important by voters in a Pew Foundation survey conducted last month.
A Gallup poll released Monday found that the economy (38 percent) and health care (26 percent) are the two most important issues influencing voters' choices Tuesday. The war in Iraq was cited as the most important issue by 20 percent of those surveyed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50538-2004Jan26?language=printer
-R
Deficit Fears:
This is an old story, a too-old concern. We can recall Fritz Mondale and his plaintive cries about “the deficit”. As then, the Republicans have purposely created imposing deficits in the hope that the “beast” that is government will be drowned in that red ink bathtub. Not if we fight (or Fite).
The Congressional Budget Office predicted on Monday that the federal budget deficit would hit a record $477 billion this year and that accumulated deficits over the next decade would total $1.9 trillion.
The nonpartisan budget office's outlook for the long term is significantly more pessimistic than it was just one year ago. It casts new doubt on the ability of President Bush to fulfill his promise of cutting the deficit in half over the next five years, particularly if he persuades Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, which he has vowed to do.
If Congress extends all tax breaks that are scheduled to expire, the agency predicted, the total cost would add up to more than $2 trillion in additional borrowing over the next decade.
And if Congress moves to stop an explosive rise in what is known as the alternative minimum tax, a provision that is expected to raise taxes on millions of families as their incomes rise, the Treasury would lose an additional $469 billion over 10 years.
Extending the tax cuts would increase the accumulated deficit more than $1.2 trillion above the agency's basic forecast. They are now scheduled to expire at various points between now and 2011.
Just a year ago, before the war in Iraq and before Congress passed a sweeping expansion of Medicare, Congressional forecasters predicted that the deficit could melt away by 2007 and that the government could rack up $1.3 trillion in accumulated surpluses within 10 years.
Democrats immediately pounced on the new report, saying it provided more evidence of Mr. Bush's fiscal recklessness. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/politics/27BUDG.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Krugman on Deficits
Why, then, do we face the prospect of huge deficits as far as the eye can see? Part of the answer is the surge in defense and homeland security spending. The main reason for deficits, however, is that revenues have plunged. Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950.
Of course, most people don't feel that their taxes have fallen sharply. And they're right: taxes that fall mainly on middle-income Americans, like the payroll tax, are still near historic highs. The decline in revenue has come almost entirely from taxes that are mostly paid by the richest 5 percent of families: the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These taxes combined now take a smaller share of national income than in any year since World War II.
This decline in tax collections from the wealthy is partly the result of the Bush tax cuts, which account for more than half of this year's projected deficit. But it also probably reflects an epidemic of tax avoidance and evasion. Everyone who wants to understand what's happening to the tax system should read "Perfectly Legal," the new book by David Cay Johnston, The Times's tax reporter, who shows how ideologues have made America safe for wealthy people who don't feel like paying taxes.
What's playing out in America right now is the bait-and-switch strategy known on the right as "starve the beast." The ultimate goal is to slash government programs that help the poor and the middle class, and use the savings to cut taxes for the rich. But the public would never vote for that.
So the right has used deceptive salesmanship to undermine tax enforcement and push through upper-income tax cuts. And now that deficits have emerged, the right insists that they are the result of runaway spending, which must be curbed.
While this strategy has been remarkably successful so far, it also offers a big opportunity to the opposition. So here's a test for the Democratic contenders: details of your proposals aside, which of you can do the best job explaining the ongoing budget con to the American people? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/opinion/27KRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Global Economy Advocates Unsettled:
The Wall Street Journal (Bob Davis) noted that there are increasing doubts amongst those at the Davos World Economic Forum that the global economy will produce those promised high-wage jobs.
Many of the business, government and academic leaders who came here for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, traditionally a gathering of advocates of globalization, have voiced doubts over the past few days about one of the central tenets of global economic integration…
Their concern stems from the free-trade axiom that when a rich country sends blue-collar jobs overseas, it creates opportunities back home for workers to move up the skill ladder. The more recent corollary was that sending service jobs overseas would do the same for white-collar workers back home.
But the rising number of skilled, white-collar jobs migrating from rich nations to developing countries is raising fears that, in fact, well-paid workers in developed countries will have trouble finding equally well-paid computer, design and medical jobs at home. Many of the true believers in globalization at the Davos forum, which ended Sunday, worry that outsourcing also could erode political support for free trade internationally… http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107506802467310973,00.html?mod=home%5Fpage%5Fone%5Fus
More (Criticism) at Davos: An array of critiques at the Davos meeting
Despite the US attempts to tread more lightly, Washington was not spared some harsh words at Davos, notably from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, whose help it is now seeking to sort out the aftermath of the Iraq war.
Annan warned that the US focus on security had diverted attention from critical development issues facing the world and risked reducing the collective security system to "brute competition based on the laws of the jungle."
He said if global terrorism threatened peace and communal harmony, "the war against terrorism can sometimes aggravate those tensions, as well as raising concerns about the protection of human rights and civil liberties."
Critics from the Muslim world branded the US as hypocritical for preaching the spread of democracy in the Middle East while continuing to back Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Even the widely touted economic recovery in the US attracted suspicion from officials and economic pundits alike.
Stephan Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, said the Americans were getting the headlines for what is in some respects an "artificial recovery" compared to the real growth registered in countries like China.
"We are doing it at the cost of lots of structural imbalances and a lack of job recreation and an economy that is running on cash cuts and debt," he said. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/01/26/2003092555
What’s Happening, Iraq:
A particularly deadly week, if somewhat lost amidst the polls and N.H. results.
With the wmd issue a mighty embarrassment, it seems clear that the new strategy is two-fold—to blame the CIA, and to spin the new line, that ousting Saddam was a great humanitarian move. (Globe and Mail, Paul Koring)
Seeking to recast its reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the Bush administration is sending high-ranking officials abroad to justify the war as good for humanity, despite increasing evidence that Baghdad did not possess stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
"The former dictator sits in captivity. He can no longer harbour and support terrorists, and his long efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction are at an end," U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney said yesterday in a speech to political and business leaders in Rome. Today, Mr. Cheney will take the same message to the Vatican on a fence-mending mission to Pope John Paul II, who had condemned the war as a defeat for humanity and whose personal emissary failed to dissuade President George W. Bush from attacking Iraq last spring. http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040127.wxiraq27/BNStory/Front/
Meanwhile, the General Accounting Office and the House Budget Committee are perplexed by the Pentagon’s spending habits, questioning whether the Defense Department is using the money that is allocated. One speculation is that the Administration asked for extra money so as to not request more during the election year.
In all, Congress has approved about $4 billion a month for Iraq and $1 billion a month for Afghanistan, officials say. Based on those numbers, lawmakers have estimated the cost of operations at as much as $45,000 per soldier each month in Iraq and $100,000 in Afghanistan.
Some lawmakers say such high numbers cast doubt on the U.S. government's staying power in future conflicts. "I think it costs one hell of a lot to maintain the force," Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in an interview. "It should affect your strategic thinking about when and where it's cost-effective to engage [an enemy], and secondarily whether we can maintain go-it-alone geopolitics."
Others are questioning whether the Pentagon is even spending all the money that the administration sought from Congress. "It's hard for me to believe we're spending that much money a week," Comptroller General David Walker, the head of the GAO, said last week. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107508538756111308,00.html?mod=world_news_whats_news
And another disturbing note, from the Denver Post (Miles Moffeit and Amy Herdy):
Female troops serving in the Iraq war are reporting an insidious enemy in their own camps: fellow American soldiers who sexually assault them.
At least 37 female service members have sought sexual-trauma counseling and other assistance from civilian rape crisis organizations after returning from war duty in Iraq, Kuwait and other overseas stations, The Denver Post has learned. The women, ranging from enlisted soldiers to officers, have reported poor medical treatment, lack of counseling and incomplete criminal investigations by military officials. Some say they were threatened with punishment after reporting assaults.
The Pentagon did not respond to repeated requests for information about the number of sexual assault reports during the conflict. Defense officials would say only that they will not tolerate sexual assault in their ranks. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27059%257E1913069,00.html?search=filter
9/11
Rarely in the major media, which is what the White House wants. Let’s recall that they opposed a commission and have dragged out the proceedings, now refusing to extend the deadline for its May report. The Commission is clearly behind in its work, and has outraged some of the committee members and a group representing the families of 9/11 victims. But, a disturbing note is that the Chair Thomas Kean and the Vice Chair, Lee Hamilton, both Republicans, have been reportedly hesitant to ask for more time.
Fortunately, today’s NY Times (Philip Shenon) brought the issue back, quoting Kean and Hamilton as asking- tho rather mildly- for more time. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/national/28TERR.html?hp
Election: Issues: Health Care and Economy Trump Iraq
From the Washington Post (Jonathan Finer)
Health care (22 percent) topped the list of issues considered critical by voters in a recent University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll, ahead of both the economy (16 percent) and the war in Iraq (10 percent). Health care also was deemed most important by voters in a Pew Foundation survey conducted last month.
A Gallup poll released Monday found that the economy (38 percent) and health care (26 percent) are the two most important issues influencing voters' choices Tuesday. The war in Iraq was cited as the most important issue by 20 percent of those surveyed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50538-2004Jan26?language=printer
-R
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Rumors, Rumors: The paranoic folk out there (not a value judgment; sometimes it checks out) at Die Welt reported that “unconfirmed reports” have noted that Osama bin Laden has been captured. The suspicion often voiced is that he will be held for months and then his capture will be announced during the Fall campaign.
Just reporting….
Income Inequality not an Issue?
A conservative counter-thrust has been trumpeting that the recent influx of immigrants skewed data, resulting in the mistaken conclusion that inequality was increasing. Sunday’s NY Times business section addressed this. (David Leonhardt)
In recent weeks, a new book has challenged this conventional wisdom, calling it a statistical mirage, and its striking claim has begun to receive national attention. Among native-born Americans, lower- and middle-income families have actually received proportionately bigger raises than the wealthy, according to "The Progress Paradox" (Random House), written by Gregg Easterbrook, a Washington journalist. Only a great influx of immigrants - many of them poor, but richer than they were in their home countries - has made inequality appear to widen in the statistics, Mr. Easterbrook says.
"Factor out immigration," he writes, "and the rise in American inequality disappears."
The idea has echoed from the book into the pages of The Washington Post, The Chicago Sun-Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Times of London and BusinessWeek magazine, among other publications. It seems like one of those facts that could rewrite conventional wisdom about the American economy.
It happens, however, not to be true.
The millions of immigrants who have entered the country in recent decades have indeed made inequality look larger than it otherwise would. But even among households headed by native-born Americans, the rich have done far better than others over the past 20 years - as well as over the past 30, 40 or 50 years, according to government statistics and the economists who study them.
The reasons will sound familiar. The long bull market of the 1980's and 90's helped mainly the well off, as has the rising value of a college degree in an increasingly complicated economy. At the middle and bottom of the income distribution, meanwhile, the overseas exodus of factory jobs, the stagnation of the minimum wage, the shrinking power of labor unions, the automation of the workplace and - yes - the immigration boom have all helped keep a lid on raises.
"The fact of the matter is, income trends have favored people at the top of the income distribution, and that's true of native-borns, too," said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, whose research is cited in Mr. Easterbrook's book. "There is no data source that disagrees with that simple statement. In fact, the better the data, the more that the skew appears." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/business/yourmoney/25view.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Quote from the departing David Kay:
They had stockpiles, they fought the Iranians with it, and they certainly did use it on the Kurds. But what everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s."
While he’s still being a tad careful, his resignation seems to indicate that despite Cheney’s assertions, no one in the administration really thinks anything will be found and that there has been no significant wmd program for more than a decade.
Democrats:
a) Polls find Kerry ahead by somewhere between 7 and 17 percent, then the others, usually Dean, then Clark/Edwards. The momentum phenomenon is at work, as Kerry has gained 15 points in South Carolina and is now a strong second to Edwards.
b) Newsweek’s poll finds 52% of voters do not want to see Bush re-elected, vs 44% that do. Striking!
Bush in the “Military”
There are so many arguments against Bush, that we need not reach for one with a shaky foundation.
Factcheck.org notes that there is no hard proof that Bush was a “deserter” from his National Guard duty, and cautions Michael Moore and others to back off the assertion, and for Clark to disavow his supporter’s (Moore) charge.
News reports, including some in the Globe , have questioned Bush's constancy as a National Guard airman at the time, but he has not been credibly accused of desertion, a serious charge. Clark should have distanced himself from the remark. http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131
Dean and Bush:
Good “fun” from blogger August Pollack, as he compares the fitness of the duo. The Dean Iowa speech, seen in context, was no worse than an enthusiastic rallying of the troops; if one listens to the tape of the event, you note that Dean had to be especially loud to be heard above the din.
So, since such a gaffe is a clear indicator that Dean is truly unfit to be the leader of the free world, here’s a helpful list of things Dean can do to remove the image that he is a bumbling, inexperienced, lackluster example of leadership:
Announce proudly that no president has ever done as much as him for human rights.
Dress up in a crotch-accentuating flight suit and land a jet on an aircraft carrier.
Brag repeatedly about a sub-standard college grade point average.
Get arrested for public rowdiness at a football game.
Attempt to recite a cliché adage at a press conference and promptly forget how it goes in the middle of saying it.
Mount, and promptly fall off, an unpowered Segway scooter.
Drop his dog in front of cameras.
Consistently mispronounce the word "nuclear."
Condescendingly mock the upcoming execution of a death row inmate.
http://www.xoverboard.com/2004_01.html#000402
What’s Happening, Iraq:
Many deaths. Not surprising that we hear that stress is reaching epidemic proportion. A report from Peter Beaumont of the Guardian:
Up to one in five of the American military personnel in Iraq will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, say senior forces' medical staff dealing with the psychiatric fallout of the war.
This revelation follows the disclosure last month that more than 600 US servicemen and women have been evacuated from the country for psychiatric reasons since the conflict started last March.
At least 22 US soldiers have killed themselves - a rate considered abnormally high - mostly since President George Bush declared an end to major combat on 1 May last year, These suicides have led to a high-level Department of Defence investigation, details of which will be disclosed in the next few weeks.
Although the overall suicide rate is running at an average of 13.5 per 100,000 troops, compared with a US army average of 10.5 to 11 per 100,000 in recent years, the incidence of the vast majority of suicides in the period after 1 May is statistically significant, accounting for about 7 per cent of all service deaths in Iraq. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4843790-110863,00.html
Halliburton Getting Ahead of the Curve
Halliburton has fired two employees of its Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary, that allegedly demanded and received up to $6 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti company for awarding work supplying U.S. troops. The revelation comes less than a week after Halliburton was awarded a new $1.2 billion contract to boost oil production in southern Iraq.
And we doubted their integrity!
Still Some Interest in Targeting Syria Next
Jane’s reports that Rummy is urging /preparing for possible military strikes against Syria’s allies in Lebanon, part of a multi-pronged attacks against suspected militant bases. The report adds:
Sending US troops into lawless Somalia (and Lebanon) would not be new, nor is it likely to cause serious diplomatic waves. Covert US forces have periodically infiltrated the country over the past two years in order to conduct surveillance and even snatch [Al Qaeda] suspects. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000737.html
Pakistan: Nuclear watchdog?
General Musharraf, the Pakistani President, now makes regular ‘sounds’ about stopping the traffic in nuclear secrets. From the Observer (Jason Burke)
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Musharraf, who has promised to prosecute those suspected of selling his country's nuclear secrets to Iran in the late 1980s, said he would also like to see European countries and scientists investigated for their involvement in proliferation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,1130625,00.html
Bill Moyers’ NOW:
Bill Moyers joined the Thursday NY Times in focusing on the conservative rebellion against the Bush spending. David Keene of the American Conservative Union lamented that the increase in non-discretionary spending is twice that of Clinton’s term (5%). Yet, Keene, like other Bush supporters, notes that he will all back Bush in the election.
The other prominent focus of Moyers was the systematic attack on the Kyoto treaty by mega-bucks lobbyists for the oil industry. http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html
-R
Just reporting….
Income Inequality not an Issue?
A conservative counter-thrust has been trumpeting that the recent influx of immigrants skewed data, resulting in the mistaken conclusion that inequality was increasing. Sunday’s NY Times business section addressed this. (David Leonhardt)
In recent weeks, a new book has challenged this conventional wisdom, calling it a statistical mirage, and its striking claim has begun to receive national attention. Among native-born Americans, lower- and middle-income families have actually received proportionately bigger raises than the wealthy, according to "The Progress Paradox" (Random House), written by Gregg Easterbrook, a Washington journalist. Only a great influx of immigrants - many of them poor, but richer than they were in their home countries - has made inequality appear to widen in the statistics, Mr. Easterbrook says.
"Factor out immigration," he writes, "and the rise in American inequality disappears."
The idea has echoed from the book into the pages of The Washington Post, The Chicago Sun-Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Times of London and BusinessWeek magazine, among other publications. It seems like one of those facts that could rewrite conventional wisdom about the American economy.
It happens, however, not to be true.
The millions of immigrants who have entered the country in recent decades have indeed made inequality look larger than it otherwise would. But even among households headed by native-born Americans, the rich have done far better than others over the past 20 years - as well as over the past 30, 40 or 50 years, according to government statistics and the economists who study them.
The reasons will sound familiar. The long bull market of the 1980's and 90's helped mainly the well off, as has the rising value of a college degree in an increasingly complicated economy. At the middle and bottom of the income distribution, meanwhile, the overseas exodus of factory jobs, the stagnation of the minimum wage, the shrinking power of labor unions, the automation of the workplace and - yes - the immigration boom have all helped keep a lid on raises.
"The fact of the matter is, income trends have favored people at the top of the income distribution, and that's true of native-borns, too," said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, whose research is cited in Mr. Easterbrook's book. "There is no data source that disagrees with that simple statement. In fact, the better the data, the more that the skew appears." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/business/yourmoney/25view.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Quote from the departing David Kay:
They had stockpiles, they fought the Iranians with it, and they certainly did use it on the Kurds. But what everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s."
While he’s still being a tad careful, his resignation seems to indicate that despite Cheney’s assertions, no one in the administration really thinks anything will be found and that there has been no significant wmd program for more than a decade.
Democrats:
a) Polls find Kerry ahead by somewhere between 7 and 17 percent, then the others, usually Dean, then Clark/Edwards. The momentum phenomenon is at work, as Kerry has gained 15 points in South Carolina and is now a strong second to Edwards.
b) Newsweek’s poll finds 52% of voters do not want to see Bush re-elected, vs 44% that do. Striking!
Bush in the “Military”
There are so many arguments against Bush, that we need not reach for one with a shaky foundation.
Factcheck.org notes that there is no hard proof that Bush was a “deserter” from his National Guard duty, and cautions Michael Moore and others to back off the assertion, and for Clark to disavow his supporter’s (Moore) charge.
News reports, including some in the Globe , have questioned Bush's constancy as a National Guard airman at the time, but he has not been credibly accused of desertion, a serious charge. Clark should have distanced himself from the remark. http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131
Dean and Bush:
Good “fun” from blogger August Pollack, as he compares the fitness of the duo. The Dean Iowa speech, seen in context, was no worse than an enthusiastic rallying of the troops; if one listens to the tape of the event, you note that Dean had to be especially loud to be heard above the din.
So, since such a gaffe is a clear indicator that Dean is truly unfit to be the leader of the free world, here’s a helpful list of things Dean can do to remove the image that he is a bumbling, inexperienced, lackluster example of leadership:
Announce proudly that no president has ever done as much as him for human rights.
Dress up in a crotch-accentuating flight suit and land a jet on an aircraft carrier.
Brag repeatedly about a sub-standard college grade point average.
Get arrested for public rowdiness at a football game.
Attempt to recite a cliché adage at a press conference and promptly forget how it goes in the middle of saying it.
Mount, and promptly fall off, an unpowered Segway scooter.
Drop his dog in front of cameras.
Consistently mispronounce the word "nuclear."
Condescendingly mock the upcoming execution of a death row inmate.
http://www.xoverboard.com/2004_01.html#000402
What’s Happening, Iraq:
Many deaths. Not surprising that we hear that stress is reaching epidemic proportion. A report from Peter Beaumont of the Guardian:
Up to one in five of the American military personnel in Iraq will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, say senior forces' medical staff dealing with the psychiatric fallout of the war.
This revelation follows the disclosure last month that more than 600 US servicemen and women have been evacuated from the country for psychiatric reasons since the conflict started last March.
At least 22 US soldiers have killed themselves - a rate considered abnormally high - mostly since President George Bush declared an end to major combat on 1 May last year, These suicides have led to a high-level Department of Defence investigation, details of which will be disclosed in the next few weeks.
Although the overall suicide rate is running at an average of 13.5 per 100,000 troops, compared with a US army average of 10.5 to 11 per 100,000 in recent years, the incidence of the vast majority of suicides in the period after 1 May is statistically significant, accounting for about 7 per cent of all service deaths in Iraq. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4843790-110863,00.html
Halliburton Getting Ahead of the Curve
Halliburton has fired two employees of its Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary, that allegedly demanded and received up to $6 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti company for awarding work supplying U.S. troops. The revelation comes less than a week after Halliburton was awarded a new $1.2 billion contract to boost oil production in southern Iraq.
And we doubted their integrity!
Still Some Interest in Targeting Syria Next
Jane’s reports that Rummy is urging /preparing for possible military strikes against Syria’s allies in Lebanon, part of a multi-pronged attacks against suspected militant bases. The report adds:
Sending US troops into lawless Somalia (and Lebanon) would not be new, nor is it likely to cause serious diplomatic waves. Covert US forces have periodically infiltrated the country over the past two years in order to conduct surveillance and even snatch [Al Qaeda] suspects. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000737.html
Pakistan: Nuclear watchdog?
General Musharraf, the Pakistani President, now makes regular ‘sounds’ about stopping the traffic in nuclear secrets. From the Observer (Jason Burke)
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Musharraf, who has promised to prosecute those suspected of selling his country's nuclear secrets to Iran in the late 1980s, said he would also like to see European countries and scientists investigated for their involvement in proliferation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,1130625,00.html
Bill Moyers’ NOW:
Bill Moyers joined the Thursday NY Times in focusing on the conservative rebellion against the Bush spending. David Keene of the American Conservative Union lamented that the increase in non-discretionary spending is twice that of Clinton’s term (5%). Yet, Keene, like other Bush supporters, notes that he will all back Bush in the election.
The other prominent focus of Moyers was the systematic attack on the Kyoto treaty by mega-bucks lobbyists for the oil industry. http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html
-R
