Reuters
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Nearly 70 percent of the Pentagon's 96 major weapons-buying programs were over budget in 2008 for combined cost growth of $296 billion above original estimates, congressional auditors said in an annual report released on Monday.
The total estimated development cost for 10 of the largest acquisition programs, commanding about half the overall arms- purchasing dollars in the portfolio, has shot up 32 percent from initial estimates, from about $134 billion to more than $177 billion, the Government Accountability Office said.
The two largest programs -- Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Boeing Co-led Future Combat Systems Army modernization -- "still represent significant cost risk moving forward" and will dominate the portfolio for years, the survey said.
Ashton Carter, the Obama administration's choice to become the Pentagon's top arms buyer, told his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday he would go program by program to crack down on cost overruns if confirmed.
Of those reporting relevant cost data, 69 percent, or 64 programs, chalked up increases in total acquisition costs, the GAO said.
A total of 75 percent, or 69 programs, reported increases in research and development costs and these were 42 percent above their original estimates in 2008, up from 40 percent above the year before.
At the same time, the average delay in delivering weapons' "initial operating capabilities" rose to 22 months from 21 months, the seventh annual survey of its kind showed.
Cumulative cost overruns for major U.S. Defense Department acquisition programs, or $296 billion, were down slightly from 2007 when adjusted for inflation, the auditors said.
GAO said new programs in the portfolio were performing better than older ones.
Last year, GAO reported total acquisition cost growth for the 2007 portfolio was $295 billion in fiscal 2008 dollars. Now expressed in 2009 dollars, this figure was put at $301 billion in the new report.
Since 2003, the Pentagon's portfolio of major acquisition programs has grown from 77 to 96, with investment in them swelling from $1.2 trillion to $1.6 trillion in fiscal 2009 dollars, the GAO said.
The change in the makeup of the 2008 portfolio is one of the reasons for the $5 billion decrease in total acquisition cost growth over the last year.
Three programs left the mix, knocking $15.6 billion off total cost overruns, the GAO said. The three were the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, which involves rockets built by Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing; Northrop Grumman Corp's E-2C Hawkeye battle-management aircraft; and Raytheon Co's Land Warrior infantry modernization project.
The cost of the new and remaining programs in the 2008 portfolio has increased by about $10.7 billion since last year, even though quantities have been cut 25 percent or more for 15 of the programs, GAO said.
"The time for change is now," Gene Dodaro, the acting U.S. Comptroller General said in a cover letter to Congress.
He said it was essential to eliminate underperforming or lower-priority programs by completing or canceling them.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Teacher Unions vs. Poor Kids
By Nat Hentoff
Real Clear Politics
The "education president" remained silent when his congressional Democrats essentially killed the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in the city where he now lives and works.
Of the 1,700 students, starting in kindergarten, in this private-school voucher program, 90 percent are black and 9 percent are Hispanic.
First the House and then the Senate inserted into the $410-billion omnibus spending bill language to eliminate the $7,500 annual scholarships for these poor children after the next school year.
A key executioner in the Senate of the OSP was Sen. Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat. I have written admiringly of Durbin's concern for human rights abroad. But what about education rights for minority children in the nation's capital?
Andrew J. Coulson, director of the Cato Institute (where I am a senior fellow) supplied the answer when he wrote: "Because they saw it as a threat to their political power, Democrats in Washington appear willing to extinguish the dreams of a few thousand poor kids to protect their political base."
Teachers unions are a major part of that base. Among those demanding that Congress kill the voucher scholarship program was the largest teachers union, the National Education Association.
Two of the kids affected by the action, Sarah and James Parker, attend Washington's prestigious Sidwell Friends School. Their scholarships will end with the next school year. The classmates they'll be leaving will include Sasha and Malia Obama. The Obama children, of course, do not need voucher money to avoid Washington D.C.'s failing and sometimes dangerous public schools.
As New York Times columnist David Brooks noted, the congressional Democrats even refused to grandfather in the kids already in the voucher program, "so those children will be ripped away from their mentors and friends ... ." President Obama, he added, "has, in fact, been shamefully quiet about this."
Doesn't Obama at least have something to say publicly to those children and their parents when his own Secretary of Education Arne Duncan opposed the congressional shutdown of Opportunity Scholarships?
Said Duncan (New York Post, March 6): "I don't think it makes sense to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning. I think those kids need to stay in their school."
Duncan suggests that donors provide financial assistance through graduation to those kids stripped of their Opportunity Scholarships. Perhaps our "education president," from his continuing royalties from the sale of his books such as "The Audacity of Hope," might help out.
One of the recipients of the Opportunity Scholarships, teenager Carlos Battle (VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org) said that in a D.C. public school she'd "have to think more about protecting myself than about learning."
As for the Sidwell Friends School, its headmaster, Bruce Stewart, told the Wall Street Journal that the school has welcomed the OSP students. He said that when parents get more educational choices for their children, their kids and the whole community benefit.
Virginia Walden-Ford, executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice, offered an excellent suggestion for members of the White House press corps:
"I'd like to see a reporter stand up at one of those nationally televised press conferences and ask President Obama what he thinks about what his own party is doing to keep two innocent kids from attending the same school where he sends his?"
I wish Jay Leno had thought to ask Obama that question.
In a March 2 editorial, the Washington Post -- not a conservative newspaper -- summed up the Congressional Democrats' scholarship shutdown in these words: "It's about politics and the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the Democratic Party. Why else has so much time and effort gone into trying to kill off what, in the grand scheme of government spending, is a tiny program?"
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the libertarian Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.
Real Clear Politics
The "education president" remained silent when his congressional Democrats essentially killed the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in the city where he now lives and works.
Of the 1,700 students, starting in kindergarten, in this private-school voucher program, 90 percent are black and 9 percent are Hispanic.
First the House and then the Senate inserted into the $410-billion omnibus spending bill language to eliminate the $7,500 annual scholarships for these poor children after the next school year.
A key executioner in the Senate of the OSP was Sen. Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat. I have written admiringly of Durbin's concern for human rights abroad. But what about education rights for minority children in the nation's capital?
Andrew J. Coulson, director of the Cato Institute (where I am a senior fellow) supplied the answer when he wrote: "Because they saw it as a threat to their political power, Democrats in Washington appear willing to extinguish the dreams of a few thousand poor kids to protect their political base."
Teachers unions are a major part of that base. Among those demanding that Congress kill the voucher scholarship program was the largest teachers union, the National Education Association.
Two of the kids affected by the action, Sarah and James Parker, attend Washington's prestigious Sidwell Friends School. Their scholarships will end with the next school year. The classmates they'll be leaving will include Sasha and Malia Obama. The Obama children, of course, do not need voucher money to avoid Washington D.C.'s failing and sometimes dangerous public schools.
As New York Times columnist David Brooks noted, the congressional Democrats even refused to grandfather in the kids already in the voucher program, "so those children will be ripped away from their mentors and friends ... ." President Obama, he added, "has, in fact, been shamefully quiet about this."
Doesn't Obama at least have something to say publicly to those children and their parents when his own Secretary of Education Arne Duncan opposed the congressional shutdown of Opportunity Scholarships?
Said Duncan (New York Post, March 6): "I don't think it makes sense to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning. I think those kids need to stay in their school."
Duncan suggests that donors provide financial assistance through graduation to those kids stripped of their Opportunity Scholarships. Perhaps our "education president," from his continuing royalties from the sale of his books such as "The Audacity of Hope," might help out.
One of the recipients of the Opportunity Scholarships, teenager Carlos Battle (VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org) said that in a D.C. public school she'd "have to think more about protecting myself than about learning."
As for the Sidwell Friends School, its headmaster, Bruce Stewart, told the Wall Street Journal that the school has welcomed the OSP students. He said that when parents get more educational choices for their children, their kids and the whole community benefit.
Virginia Walden-Ford, executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice, offered an excellent suggestion for members of the White House press corps:
"I'd like to see a reporter stand up at one of those nationally televised press conferences and ask President Obama what he thinks about what his own party is doing to keep two innocent kids from attending the same school where he sends his?"
I wish Jay Leno had thought to ask Obama that question.
In a March 2 editorial, the Washington Post -- not a conservative newspaper -- summed up the Congressional Democrats' scholarship shutdown in these words: "It's about politics and the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the Democratic Party. Why else has so much time and effort gone into trying to kill off what, in the grand scheme of government spending, is a tiny program?"
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the libertarian Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.
Obamanomics Isn't About Big Government
The president's focus is on improving human capital.
By ROBERT B. REICH
Wall Street Journal
Twenty-eight years ago, Ronald Reagan used the severe economic downturn of 1980-82 to implement an economic philosophy that not only gave force and meaning to a wide range of initiatives but also offered a way back to sustained economic growth. Is there a similarly powerful animating idea behind Obamanomics?
I believe there is -- and it's not a return to big government.
The expansive and expensive forays of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board into Wall Street notwithstanding, President Barack Obama's 10-year budget (whose projections may prove wildly optimistic if the economy fails to rebound by early next year) presents a remarkably conservative picture. In 10 years, taxes are expected to fall to around 19% of GDP, a lower level than the late 1990s. Spending is expected to drop to around 22.5% of GDP, about where it was under Ronald Reagan -- including nondefense discretionary spending at about 3.6% of GDP, its lowest since data on this were first collected in 1962.
The real distinction between Obamanomics and Reaganomics involves government's role in achieving growth and broad-based prosperity. The animating idea of Reaganomics was that the economy grows best from the top down. Lower taxes on the wealthy prompts them to work harder and invest more. When they do so, everyone benefits. Neither Reagan nor the apostles of supply-side economics explicitly promised that such benefits would "trickle down" to everyone else but this was broadly understood to be the justification.
Reaganomics surely marked the beginning of one of the longest bull markets in American history and generated enormous gains at the top. But its benefits were not widely shared. After the Reagan tax cuts, growth in the median wage slowed, adjusted for inflation. After George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the median wage dropped. Meanwhile, an increasing share of total income went to the top 1% of income earners. In 1980, before Reagan took office, the highest-paid 1% took home 9% of total national income. By 2007, before the economy melted down, the richest 1% was taking home 22%.
Obamanomics, by contrast, holds that an economy grows best from the bottom up. The president proposes to increase taxes on the highest 2% of income earners starting in 2011. Those tax increases will fund more Pell grants allowing lower-income children to attend college, better pay for teachers that show they're worth it, broader access to health care, improved infrastructure, and more basic research. These and related expenditures are designed to help Americans become more productive. You might think of it as "trickle up" economics.
The key is public investment. Reaganomics did not view any public spending as an investment in the future except when it came to spending on the military. Hence, since 1980, federal spending on education, job training, infrastructure and basic research and development (apart from defense-related R&D) have all shrunk as a proportion of GDP. And apart from a modest expansion of health insurance available to poor children, there has been no significant attempt to make health insurance broadly affordable to Americans.
Obamanomics is premised on the central importance of public investments in the productivity of Americans. The logic is straightforward. Capital no longer remains within the borders of a nation where it is saved. It moves to wherever around the globe it can get the best return. Some of it flows as highly liquid investments that slosh across borders at the slightest provocation, as we're witnessing in the current financial crisis. But much takes the form of direct investments in new plants and equipment, telecommunications systems, laboratories, offices and -- most important of all -- jobs. Such capital goes to nations that can deliver high returns either because labor is cheap and taxes and regulations low or because labor is highly productive: well educated, healthy and supported by modern infrastructure.
In this way, every nation faces an implicit choice of whether its strategic advantage will lie in low costs or high productivity. For the better part of the last three decades America's job strategy has tended toward the former. But this inevitably exerts downward pressure on the real wages of a larger and larger portion of our population.
Only those Americans whose parents can afford to give them a high-quality private education and health care, and who can situate themselves in locations with excellent infrastructures of telecommunication, transportation, public health and safety, have been able to link up with global capital on more positive terms. But not even they are entirely secure economically, because they face growing shortages of talented people they can rely on within easy reach, and can't entirely avoid the disadvantages of a deteriorating public infrastructure, such as ever more congested roads and airports.
Obamanomics recognizes that the only resource uniquely rooted in a national economy is its people -- their skills, insights, capacities to collaborate, and the transportation and communication systems that link them together. Public investment is the key to attracting long-term private investment so that a nation's people can prosper.
Bill Clinton understood this but failed to do much about America's deteriorating public investments because he came to office during an economic expansion, when the major worry was excessive government spending leading to inflation. Mr. Obama comes to office during the biggest downturn since the Great Depression, and his plan represents the largest commitment to public investment in 30 years.
Regulation, done correctly, is also a form of public investment because it enables consumers and investors to be confident about what they're receiving, and ensures that the side-effects of trades don't harm the public. Reaganomics assumed that deregulated markets always function better. They do in many respects. But when they don't, all hell can break loose, retarding economic growth.
Energy markets were deregulated and we wound up with Enron. Food and drug safety has been neglected, resulting in contaminated products that have endangered consumers and threatened whole industries. Financial markets were deregulated and we now have a global meltdown.
Obamanomics, by contrast, views appropriate regulation as an essential precondition for sustainable growth.
Under Reaganomics, government was the problem. It can still be a problem. But a central tenet of Obamanomics is that there are even bigger problems out there which cannot be solved without government. By building the economy from the bottom up, enhancing public investment, and instituting reasonable regulation, Obamanomics marks a reversal of the economic philosophy that has dominated America since 1981.
Mr. Reich is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton.
By ROBERT B. REICH
Wall Street Journal
Twenty-eight years ago, Ronald Reagan used the severe economic downturn of 1980-82 to implement an economic philosophy that not only gave force and meaning to a wide range of initiatives but also offered a way back to sustained economic growth. Is there a similarly powerful animating idea behind Obamanomics?
I believe there is -- and it's not a return to big government.
The expansive and expensive forays of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board into Wall Street notwithstanding, President Barack Obama's 10-year budget (whose projections may prove wildly optimistic if the economy fails to rebound by early next year) presents a remarkably conservative picture. In 10 years, taxes are expected to fall to around 19% of GDP, a lower level than the late 1990s. Spending is expected to drop to around 22.5% of GDP, about where it was under Ronald Reagan -- including nondefense discretionary spending at about 3.6% of GDP, its lowest since data on this were first collected in 1962.
The real distinction between Obamanomics and Reaganomics involves government's role in achieving growth and broad-based prosperity. The animating idea of Reaganomics was that the economy grows best from the top down. Lower taxes on the wealthy prompts them to work harder and invest more. When they do so, everyone benefits. Neither Reagan nor the apostles of supply-side economics explicitly promised that such benefits would "trickle down" to everyone else but this was broadly understood to be the justification.
Reaganomics surely marked the beginning of one of the longest bull markets in American history and generated enormous gains at the top. But its benefits were not widely shared. After the Reagan tax cuts, growth in the median wage slowed, adjusted for inflation. After George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the median wage dropped. Meanwhile, an increasing share of total income went to the top 1% of income earners. In 1980, before Reagan took office, the highest-paid 1% took home 9% of total national income. By 2007, before the economy melted down, the richest 1% was taking home 22%.
Obamanomics, by contrast, holds that an economy grows best from the bottom up. The president proposes to increase taxes on the highest 2% of income earners starting in 2011. Those tax increases will fund more Pell grants allowing lower-income children to attend college, better pay for teachers that show they're worth it, broader access to health care, improved infrastructure, and more basic research. These and related expenditures are designed to help Americans become more productive. You might think of it as "trickle up" economics.
The key is public investment. Reaganomics did not view any public spending as an investment in the future except when it came to spending on the military. Hence, since 1980, federal spending on education, job training, infrastructure and basic research and development (apart from defense-related R&D) have all shrunk as a proportion of GDP. And apart from a modest expansion of health insurance available to poor children, there has been no significant attempt to make health insurance broadly affordable to Americans.
Obamanomics is premised on the central importance of public investments in the productivity of Americans. The logic is straightforward. Capital no longer remains within the borders of a nation where it is saved. It moves to wherever around the globe it can get the best return. Some of it flows as highly liquid investments that slosh across borders at the slightest provocation, as we're witnessing in the current financial crisis. But much takes the form of direct investments in new plants and equipment, telecommunications systems, laboratories, offices and -- most important of all -- jobs. Such capital goes to nations that can deliver high returns either because labor is cheap and taxes and regulations low or because labor is highly productive: well educated, healthy and supported by modern infrastructure.
In this way, every nation faces an implicit choice of whether its strategic advantage will lie in low costs or high productivity. For the better part of the last three decades America's job strategy has tended toward the former. But this inevitably exerts downward pressure on the real wages of a larger and larger portion of our population.
Only those Americans whose parents can afford to give them a high-quality private education and health care, and who can situate themselves in locations with excellent infrastructures of telecommunication, transportation, public health and safety, have been able to link up with global capital on more positive terms. But not even they are entirely secure economically, because they face growing shortages of talented people they can rely on within easy reach, and can't entirely avoid the disadvantages of a deteriorating public infrastructure, such as ever more congested roads and airports.
Obamanomics recognizes that the only resource uniquely rooted in a national economy is its people -- their skills, insights, capacities to collaborate, and the transportation and communication systems that link them together. Public investment is the key to attracting long-term private investment so that a nation's people can prosper.
Bill Clinton understood this but failed to do much about America's deteriorating public investments because he came to office during an economic expansion, when the major worry was excessive government spending leading to inflation. Mr. Obama comes to office during the biggest downturn since the Great Depression, and his plan represents the largest commitment to public investment in 30 years.
Regulation, done correctly, is also a form of public investment because it enables consumers and investors to be confident about what they're receiving, and ensures that the side-effects of trades don't harm the public. Reaganomics assumed that deregulated markets always function better. They do in many respects. But when they don't, all hell can break loose, retarding economic growth.
Energy markets were deregulated and we wound up with Enron. Food and drug safety has been neglected, resulting in contaminated products that have endangered consumers and threatened whole industries. Financial markets were deregulated and we now have a global meltdown.
Obamanomics, by contrast, views appropriate regulation as an essential precondition for sustainable growth.
Under Reaganomics, government was the problem. It can still be a problem. But a central tenet of Obamanomics is that there are even bigger problems out there which cannot be solved without government. By building the economy from the bottom up, enhancing public investment, and instituting reasonable regulation, Obamanomics marks a reversal of the economic philosophy that has dominated America since 1981.
Mr. Reich is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton.
Who Really Controls The Economy and Government?
Many Americans are questioning who really controls our economy. Here is one answer:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
Can Uncle Sam Ever Let Go?
By Patrick Buchanan
Real Clear Politics
"In 1877, Lord Salisbury, commenting on Great Britain's policy on the Eastern Question, noted that 'the commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies.'
"Salisbury was bemoaning the fact that many influential members of the British ruling class could not recognize that history had moved on; they continued to cling to policies and institutions that were relics of another era."
"Relics of another era" -- thus did Stephen Meyer, in Parameters in 2003, begin his essay "Carcass of Dead Policies: The Irrelevance of NATO."
NATO has been irrelevant for two decades, since its raison d'etre -- to keep the Red Army from driving to the Rhine -- disappeared. Yet Obama is headed to Brussels to celebrate France's return and the 60th birthday of the alliance. But why is NATO still soldiering on?
In 1989, the Wall fell. Germany was reunited. The Captive Nations cast off communism. The Red Army went home. The USSR broke apart into 15 nations. But, having triumphed in the Cold War, it seems the United States could not bear giving up its role as Defender of the West, could not accept that the curtain had fallen and the play was closing after a 40-year run.
So, what did we do? In a spirit of "triumphalism," NATO "nearly doubled its size and rolled itself right up to Russia's door," writes Richard Betts in The National Interest.
Breaking our word to Mikhail Gorbachev, we invited into NATO six former member states of the Warsaw Pact and three former republics of the Soviet Union. George W. Bush was disconsolate he could not bring in Georgia and Ukraine.
Why did we expand NATO to within a few miles of St. Petersburg when NATO is not a social club but a military alliance? At its heart is Article V, a declaration that an armed attack on any one member is an attack on all.
America is now honor-bound to go to war against a nuclear-armed Russia for Estonia, which was part of the Russian Empire under the czars.
After the Russia-Georgia clash last August, Bush declared, "It's important for the people of Lithuania to know that when the United States makes a commitment -- we mean it."
But "mean" what? That a Russian move on Vilnius will be met by U.S. strikes on Mother Russia? Are we insane?
Let us thank Divine Providence Russia has not tested the pledge.
For can anyone believe that, to keep Moscow from re-establishing its hegemony over a tiny Baltic republic, we would sink Russian ships, blockade Russian ports, bomb Russian airfields, attack Russian troop concentrations? That would risk having some Russian general respond with atomic weapons on U.S. air, sea and ground forces.
Great powers do not go to war against other great powers unless vital interests are imperiled.
Throughout the Cold War, that was true of both America and Russia.
Though he had an atomic monopoly, Harry Truman did not use force to break the Berlin blockade. Nor did Ike intervene to save the Hungarians, whose 1956 revolution Moscow drowned in blood.
John F. Kennedy did not use force to stop the building of the Berlin Wall. Lyndon Johnson fired not a shot to halt the crushing of Prague Spring by Soviet tanks. When Solidarity was snuffed out on Moscow's orders in 1981, Ronald Reagan would not even put the Polish regime in default.
In August 1991, George Bush I, in Kiev, poured ice water on Ukraine's dream of independence: "Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."
Many Americans were outraged. But outrage does not translate into an endorsement of Bush's 43's plan to bring Ukraine into NATO and risk war with Russia over the Crimea.
Bush 43 bellowed at Moscow last summer to keep hands off the Baltic states. But his father barely protested when Gorbachev sent special forces into all three in 1991.
Bush I's secretary of state, Jim Baker, said it was U.S. policy not to see Yugoslavia break up. Bush 43 was handing out NATO war guarantees to the breakaway republics.
"Washington ... succumbed to victory disease and kept kicking Russia while it was down," writes Betts. "Two decades of humiliation were a potent incentive for Russia to push back. Indeed this is why many realists opposed NATO expansion in the first place."
Few Americans under 30 recall the Cold War. Yet can anyone name a single tripwire for war put down in the time of Dean Acheson or John Foster Dulles that we have pulled up?
Dwight Eisenhower, writes Richard Reeves, in his first meeting with the new president-elect, told JFK, "'America is carrying far more than her share of the free world defense.' It was time for the other nations of NATO to take on more of the cost of their own defense."
Half a century later, we are still stuck "to the carcass of dead policies."
Real Clear Politics
"In 1877, Lord Salisbury, commenting on Great Britain's policy on the Eastern Question, noted that 'the commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies.'
"Salisbury was bemoaning the fact that many influential members of the British ruling class could not recognize that history had moved on; they continued to cling to policies and institutions that were relics of another era."
"Relics of another era" -- thus did Stephen Meyer, in Parameters in 2003, begin his essay "Carcass of Dead Policies: The Irrelevance of NATO."
NATO has been irrelevant for two decades, since its raison d'etre -- to keep the Red Army from driving to the Rhine -- disappeared. Yet Obama is headed to Brussels to celebrate France's return and the 60th birthday of the alliance. But why is NATO still soldiering on?
In 1989, the Wall fell. Germany was reunited. The Captive Nations cast off communism. The Red Army went home. The USSR broke apart into 15 nations. But, having triumphed in the Cold War, it seems the United States could not bear giving up its role as Defender of the West, could not accept that the curtain had fallen and the play was closing after a 40-year run.
So, what did we do? In a spirit of "triumphalism," NATO "nearly doubled its size and rolled itself right up to Russia's door," writes Richard Betts in The National Interest.
Breaking our word to Mikhail Gorbachev, we invited into NATO six former member states of the Warsaw Pact and three former republics of the Soviet Union. George W. Bush was disconsolate he could not bring in Georgia and Ukraine.
Why did we expand NATO to within a few miles of St. Petersburg when NATO is not a social club but a military alliance? At its heart is Article V, a declaration that an armed attack on any one member is an attack on all.
America is now honor-bound to go to war against a nuclear-armed Russia for Estonia, which was part of the Russian Empire under the czars.
After the Russia-Georgia clash last August, Bush declared, "It's important for the people of Lithuania to know that when the United States makes a commitment -- we mean it."
But "mean" what? That a Russian move on Vilnius will be met by U.S. strikes on Mother Russia? Are we insane?
Let us thank Divine Providence Russia has not tested the pledge.
For can anyone believe that, to keep Moscow from re-establishing its hegemony over a tiny Baltic republic, we would sink Russian ships, blockade Russian ports, bomb Russian airfields, attack Russian troop concentrations? That would risk having some Russian general respond with atomic weapons on U.S. air, sea and ground forces.
Great powers do not go to war against other great powers unless vital interests are imperiled.
Throughout the Cold War, that was true of both America and Russia.
Though he had an atomic monopoly, Harry Truman did not use force to break the Berlin blockade. Nor did Ike intervene to save the Hungarians, whose 1956 revolution Moscow drowned in blood.
John F. Kennedy did not use force to stop the building of the Berlin Wall. Lyndon Johnson fired not a shot to halt the crushing of Prague Spring by Soviet tanks. When Solidarity was snuffed out on Moscow's orders in 1981, Ronald Reagan would not even put the Polish regime in default.
In August 1991, George Bush I, in Kiev, poured ice water on Ukraine's dream of independence: "Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."
Many Americans were outraged. But outrage does not translate into an endorsement of Bush's 43's plan to bring Ukraine into NATO and risk war with Russia over the Crimea.
Bush 43 bellowed at Moscow last summer to keep hands off the Baltic states. But his father barely protested when Gorbachev sent special forces into all three in 1991.
Bush I's secretary of state, Jim Baker, said it was U.S. policy not to see Yugoslavia break up. Bush 43 was handing out NATO war guarantees to the breakaway republics.
"Washington ... succumbed to victory disease and kept kicking Russia while it was down," writes Betts. "Two decades of humiliation were a potent incentive for Russia to push back. Indeed this is why many realists opposed NATO expansion in the first place."
Few Americans under 30 recall the Cold War. Yet can anyone name a single tripwire for war put down in the time of Dean Acheson or John Foster Dulles that we have pulled up?
Dwight Eisenhower, writes Richard Reeves, in his first meeting with the new president-elect, told JFK, "'America is carrying far more than her share of the free world defense.' It was time for the other nations of NATO to take on more of the cost of their own defense."
Half a century later, we are still stuck "to the carcass of dead policies."
Will there be blood?
Mar 26th 2009 WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
The revival of American populism is partly synthetic, but mostly real
A WEEK or so ago America was seized by a spasm of fury over the bonuses paid to executives at AIG, a troubled insurance company. Across the country Americans were enraged that people who had helped to cause the financial meltdown were being rewarded for their incompetence. And Washington responded in kind.
Congressmen queued up before the television cameras to tell everybody how upset they were. Larry Summers, the president’s chief economic adviser, described the bonuses as “outrageous”. Even Barack Obama tried to drop his ultra-cool persona to say how “angry” he was. The House voted overwhelmingly to impose a 90% tax on such bonuses.
The media responded to the storm of outrage by producing a stream of articles on American populism—the political disposition that damns established institutions, from Wall Street to Washington, and tries to return power to “the people”. Newsweek devoted almost an entire issue to the subject.
But no sooner was the ink dry on these articles than the populist storm seemed to blow itself out. Many of the journalists who had been fanning the flames of anger attended a white-tie Gridiron Dinner in Washington on March 21st to perform silly song-and-dance routines. Wall Street rallied two days later when the treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, published his plan to tackle toxic assets held by banks. Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, suggests that bonus legislation “may not be necessary” now that 15 of the top 20 “bonus babies” at AIG have agreed to give their bonuses back.
Was the fuss over AIG a sign of a new populist mood in America? Or was it just a storm in a teacup? It is hard to answer this question in a country in which anger is a form of entertainment and where the political parties have turned partisanship into a fine art. Television personalities such as Bill O’Reilly are always angry about something or other. Many of the politicians who proclaimed their outrage at the “malefactors of great wealth” are delighted to take campaign contributions from the very same malefactors.
But, for all that, there are good reasons for taking the resurgence of populism seriously. One is the breadth of the discontent in the country. Left-wingers complain that Mr Obama is selling out his supporters in order to rescue irresponsible financial institutions. Right-wingers worry that he is using taxpayers’ money to save people from the consequences of their own profligacy. This fear has plenty of resonance outside the world of political enthusiasts: a recent Harris poll shows that 85% of Americans believe that big companies have too much influence on politicians and policymakers.
Another factor is the size of the slump. America has lost almost 2m jobs in the past three months. The number of job openings is down 31% from a year ago. Consumer confidence is falling on all fronts. Mortgage delinquencies are at a record high. The future of attempts to stimulate the global economy is also in jeopardy: European leaders have implied that they will oppose pressure from Americans and Chinese to produce their own stimulus programme at the forthcoming G20 meeting.
America may be witnessing the return of an old-fashioned version of populism, driven by economic anxiety and directed at economic interests. The people who gave the name to “populism” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were worried about a prolonged agricultural depression and furious at the vested interests in Wall Street and Washington who, they thought, were responsible for that depression. Populists accused the elites of turning America into a land of “tramps and millionaires”.
This brand of populism went underground during the boom years, but Franklin Roosevelt revived it during the Depression. In one of his most passionate speeches, in 1936, he attacked the “economic royalists” of big business and the Republican Party.
In the 1960s economic populism was trumped by cultural populism. The Republican Party championed the interests of the “silent majority” against bra-burning feminists, civil-rights activists and effete liberals who were more interested in protecting the rights of criminals than preserving law and order. The Democrats made desultory attempts to revive economic populism in 2000 and in 2004: Al Gore campaigned for “the people against the powerful” and John Kerry denounced outsourcing companies. But this proved to be no match for the Republicans’ cultural populism. Now economic populism is returning to the heart of American politics.
This economic populism is made particularly potent by the long-term decline of faith in American institutions. The General Social Survey has been polling Americans about their confidence in major institutions (among other things) since 1972. The preliminary data for 2008 show a marked drop in confidence in every American institution since 2000 except military ones and education. The proportion of people expressing “a great deal of confidence” fell from 30% in 2000 to 16% in 2008 for big business, from 30% to 19% for banks, from 29% to 20% for organised religion, from 14% to 11% for the executive branch and from 13% to 11% for Congress.
It was up, to 52%, for the armed services. These figures are the stuff that nasty movements are made of.
Populism poses serious problems for both political parties, not least because the very institutions which they spend their lives squabbling over are some of the least respected in the country, just above television and the press. The danger for Mr Obama and the ruling Democrats is that the administration is relying heavily on private investors and Wall Street banks to implement its various rescue plans. This inevitably means rewarding some of the people who were responsible for the crisis. The president hopes that his budget will channel destructive anger into support for his policies. But he could also find his administration blown off-course or even swept aside by popular outrage.
From The Economist print edition
The revival of American populism is partly synthetic, but mostly real
A WEEK or so ago America was seized by a spasm of fury over the bonuses paid to executives at AIG, a troubled insurance company. Across the country Americans were enraged that people who had helped to cause the financial meltdown were being rewarded for their incompetence. And Washington responded in kind.
Congressmen queued up before the television cameras to tell everybody how upset they were. Larry Summers, the president’s chief economic adviser, described the bonuses as “outrageous”. Even Barack Obama tried to drop his ultra-cool persona to say how “angry” he was. The House voted overwhelmingly to impose a 90% tax on such bonuses.
The media responded to the storm of outrage by producing a stream of articles on American populism—the political disposition that damns established institutions, from Wall Street to Washington, and tries to return power to “the people”. Newsweek devoted almost an entire issue to the subject.
But no sooner was the ink dry on these articles than the populist storm seemed to blow itself out. Many of the journalists who had been fanning the flames of anger attended a white-tie Gridiron Dinner in Washington on March 21st to perform silly song-and-dance routines. Wall Street rallied two days later when the treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, published his plan to tackle toxic assets held by banks. Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, suggests that bonus legislation “may not be necessary” now that 15 of the top 20 “bonus babies” at AIG have agreed to give their bonuses back.
Was the fuss over AIG a sign of a new populist mood in America? Or was it just a storm in a teacup? It is hard to answer this question in a country in which anger is a form of entertainment and where the political parties have turned partisanship into a fine art. Television personalities such as Bill O’Reilly are always angry about something or other. Many of the politicians who proclaimed their outrage at the “malefactors of great wealth” are delighted to take campaign contributions from the very same malefactors.
But, for all that, there are good reasons for taking the resurgence of populism seriously. One is the breadth of the discontent in the country. Left-wingers complain that Mr Obama is selling out his supporters in order to rescue irresponsible financial institutions. Right-wingers worry that he is using taxpayers’ money to save people from the consequences of their own profligacy. This fear has plenty of resonance outside the world of political enthusiasts: a recent Harris poll shows that 85% of Americans believe that big companies have too much influence on politicians and policymakers.
Another factor is the size of the slump. America has lost almost 2m jobs in the past three months. The number of job openings is down 31% from a year ago. Consumer confidence is falling on all fronts. Mortgage delinquencies are at a record high. The future of attempts to stimulate the global economy is also in jeopardy: European leaders have implied that they will oppose pressure from Americans and Chinese to produce their own stimulus programme at the forthcoming G20 meeting.
America may be witnessing the return of an old-fashioned version of populism, driven by economic anxiety and directed at economic interests. The people who gave the name to “populism” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were worried about a prolonged agricultural depression and furious at the vested interests in Wall Street and Washington who, they thought, were responsible for that depression. Populists accused the elites of turning America into a land of “tramps and millionaires”.
This brand of populism went underground during the boom years, but Franklin Roosevelt revived it during the Depression. In one of his most passionate speeches, in 1936, he attacked the “economic royalists” of big business and the Republican Party.
In the 1960s economic populism was trumped by cultural populism. The Republican Party championed the interests of the “silent majority” against bra-burning feminists, civil-rights activists and effete liberals who were more interested in protecting the rights of criminals than preserving law and order. The Democrats made desultory attempts to revive economic populism in 2000 and in 2004: Al Gore campaigned for “the people against the powerful” and John Kerry denounced outsourcing companies. But this proved to be no match for the Republicans’ cultural populism. Now economic populism is returning to the heart of American politics.
This economic populism is made particularly potent by the long-term decline of faith in American institutions. The General Social Survey has been polling Americans about their confidence in major institutions (among other things) since 1972. The preliminary data for 2008 show a marked drop in confidence in every American institution since 2000 except military ones and education. The proportion of people expressing “a great deal of confidence” fell from 30% in 2000 to 16% in 2008 for big business, from 30% to 19% for banks, from 29% to 20% for organised religion, from 14% to 11% for the executive branch and from 13% to 11% for Congress.
It was up, to 52%, for the armed services. These figures are the stuff that nasty movements are made of.
Populism poses serious problems for both political parties, not least because the very institutions which they spend their lives squabbling over are some of the least respected in the country, just above television and the press. The danger for Mr Obama and the ruling Democrats is that the administration is relying heavily on private investors and Wall Street banks to implement its various rescue plans. This inevitably means rewarding some of the people who were responsible for the crisis. The president hopes that his budget will channel destructive anger into support for his policies. But he could also find his administration blown off-course or even swept aside by popular outrage.
Lula Wants to Fight
Invigorated by the crisis, Brazil's president says he's praying for Obama
By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 21, 2009
Once a leftist firebrand, Brazil's president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva turned to free-market liberalism and helped make his country Latin America's biggest economic success. Earlier this month he became the first Latin leader to visit President Barack Obama at the White House, and in April he'll head to London for the G20 summit on the global financial crisis. He met with NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria in New York. Excerpts:
Zakaria: Your meeting with President Obama went longer than expected. What did you talk about?
Da Silva: We talked a lot about the economic crisis. We also decided to create a working group between the U.S. and Brazil to participate in the G20 summit meeting. I told Obama that I'm praying more for him than I pray for myself, because he has much more delicate problems than I. He left a huge impression on me, and he has everything it takes to build a new image for the U.S. with relation to the rest of the world.
You got on pretty well with President Bush. How are they different?
Look, I did have a good relationship with President Bush, it's true. But there are political problems, cultural problems, energy-grid problems, and I hope that President Obama will be the next step forward. I believe that Obama doesn't have to be so concerned with the Iraq War. This will permit him to explore the possibility of building peace policies where there is no war, which is Latin America and Africa.
You are probably the most popular leader in the world, with an 80 percent approval rating. Why?
Brazil is a country that has rich people, as you have in New York City. But we also have poor people, like in Bangladesh. So we tried to prove it was possible to develop economic growth while simultaneously improving income distribution. In six years we have lifted 20 million people out of poverty and into the middle class, brought electricity into 10 million households and increased the minimum wage every year. All without hurting anyone, without insulting anyone, without picking fights. The poor person in Brazil is now less poor. And this is everything we want.
There are people who credit high oil, gas and agriculture prices. Can you manage with prices going down rather than up?
The recent discovery of oil is very important, because part of the oil we find will help resolve the problem of poverty and the problem of education. Brazil does not want to become an exporter of crude oil. We want to be a country that exports oil byproducts—more gasoline, high-quality oil. The investments were calculated at the price of $35 per barrel. Now, at $40, we still have enough margin.
Critics say that during this period of high commodity prices, you did not position Brazil to move economically up to the next level.
This doesn't make sense. When I became president of Brazil, the public debt was 55 percent of GDP. Today it is 35 percent. Inflation was 12 percent, and today it's 4.5 percent. We have economic stability. Our exports have quadrupled. The fact is that the growth of the Brazilian economy is the highest it has been in 30 years.
Will Brazil's economy grow this year?
I'm convinced we'll reach the end of the year with a positive growth rate. But we did not foresee that the crisis would have either the size or the depth that it has today in the U.S. Now we need new political decisions that depend on the rich countries' governments. How are we going to reestablish credit, reestablish the American consumer and the European consumer? Now we have to prove we are worthy.
I was even getting a little bit disappointed in political life. I've already had my sixth year of my term, and you start getting tired. But this crisis is almost like something—a provocative thing for us, to wake us up. It's giving me enthusiasm. I want to fight. The more crises, the more investment you have to make. So we're investing today in what we never invested in for the last 30 years, in railroads, highways, waterways, dams, bridges, airports, ports, housing projects, basic sanitation. We have to be bold, because in Brazil we have many things to do that in other countries were already done many years ago.
Last December you had a meeting of the 33 countries of the Americas except the United States. Why? It seemed that the United States was pointedly excluded.
It seemed that the United States was pointedly excluded.We have never had such a meeting among only the Latin American and Caribbean countries. So it was necessary to have this meeting without super economic powers, a meeting of countries that face the same problems.
You've said you hope this crisis will change the politics of the world, to give countries like Brazil and India and China a greater say. What specifically—what power do you want that you don't have now for Brazil?
We want to have much more influence in world politics. For example, we want that the multilateral financial institutions not be open only to the Americans and Europeans—institutions like the IMF and World Bank. We want more continents to participate in the Security Council. Brazil should have a seat, and the African continent should have one or two.
You are regarded as a great symbol of democracy in the Americas. And yet some people say you have been quiet as Hugo Chávez has destroyed democracy in Venezuela. Why not speak out? If Brazil wants a greater role in the world, wouldn't that be one part, to stand for certain values?
Well, maybe we cannot agree with Venezuelan democracy, but no one can say that there is no democracy in Venezuela. He has been through five, six elections. I've only had two.
He has gangs out on the street. This is not real democracy.
Look, we have to respect the local cultures, the political traditions of each country. Given that I have 84 percent support in the public-opinion polls, I could propose an amendment to the Constitution for a third term. I don't believe in that. But Chávez wanted to stay … I believe that changing the president is important for the strengthening of democracy itself.
By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 21, 2009
Once a leftist firebrand, Brazil's president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva turned to free-market liberalism and helped make his country Latin America's biggest economic success. Earlier this month he became the first Latin leader to visit President Barack Obama at the White House, and in April he'll head to London for the G20 summit on the global financial crisis. He met with NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria in New York. Excerpts:
Zakaria: Your meeting with President Obama went longer than expected. What did you talk about?
Da Silva: We talked a lot about the economic crisis. We also decided to create a working group between the U.S. and Brazil to participate in the G20 summit meeting. I told Obama that I'm praying more for him than I pray for myself, because he has much more delicate problems than I. He left a huge impression on me, and he has everything it takes to build a new image for the U.S. with relation to the rest of the world.
You got on pretty well with President Bush. How are they different?
Look, I did have a good relationship with President Bush, it's true. But there are political problems, cultural problems, energy-grid problems, and I hope that President Obama will be the next step forward. I believe that Obama doesn't have to be so concerned with the Iraq War. This will permit him to explore the possibility of building peace policies where there is no war, which is Latin America and Africa.
You are probably the most popular leader in the world, with an 80 percent approval rating. Why?
Brazil is a country that has rich people, as you have in New York City. But we also have poor people, like in Bangladesh. So we tried to prove it was possible to develop economic growth while simultaneously improving income distribution. In six years we have lifted 20 million people out of poverty and into the middle class, brought electricity into 10 million households and increased the minimum wage every year. All without hurting anyone, without insulting anyone, without picking fights. The poor person in Brazil is now less poor. And this is everything we want.
There are people who credit high oil, gas and agriculture prices. Can you manage with prices going down rather than up?
The recent discovery of oil is very important, because part of the oil we find will help resolve the problem of poverty and the problem of education. Brazil does not want to become an exporter of crude oil. We want to be a country that exports oil byproducts—more gasoline, high-quality oil. The investments were calculated at the price of $35 per barrel. Now, at $40, we still have enough margin.
Critics say that during this period of high commodity prices, you did not position Brazil to move economically up to the next level.
This doesn't make sense. When I became president of Brazil, the public debt was 55 percent of GDP. Today it is 35 percent. Inflation was 12 percent, and today it's 4.5 percent. We have economic stability. Our exports have quadrupled. The fact is that the growth of the Brazilian economy is the highest it has been in 30 years.
Will Brazil's economy grow this year?
I'm convinced we'll reach the end of the year with a positive growth rate. But we did not foresee that the crisis would have either the size or the depth that it has today in the U.S. Now we need new political decisions that depend on the rich countries' governments. How are we going to reestablish credit, reestablish the American consumer and the European consumer? Now we have to prove we are worthy.
I was even getting a little bit disappointed in political life. I've already had my sixth year of my term, and you start getting tired. But this crisis is almost like something—a provocative thing for us, to wake us up. It's giving me enthusiasm. I want to fight. The more crises, the more investment you have to make. So we're investing today in what we never invested in for the last 30 years, in railroads, highways, waterways, dams, bridges, airports, ports, housing projects, basic sanitation. We have to be bold, because in Brazil we have many things to do that in other countries were already done many years ago.
Last December you had a meeting of the 33 countries of the Americas except the United States. Why? It seemed that the United States was pointedly excluded.
It seemed that the United States was pointedly excluded.We have never had such a meeting among only the Latin American and Caribbean countries. So it was necessary to have this meeting without super economic powers, a meeting of countries that face the same problems.
You've said you hope this crisis will change the politics of the world, to give countries like Brazil and India and China a greater say. What specifically—what power do you want that you don't have now for Brazil?
We want to have much more influence in world politics. For example, we want that the multilateral financial institutions not be open only to the Americans and Europeans—institutions like the IMF and World Bank. We want more continents to participate in the Security Council. Brazil should have a seat, and the African continent should have one or two.
You are regarded as a great symbol of democracy in the Americas. And yet some people say you have been quiet as Hugo Chávez has destroyed democracy in Venezuela. Why not speak out? If Brazil wants a greater role in the world, wouldn't that be one part, to stand for certain values?
Well, maybe we cannot agree with Venezuelan democracy, but no one can say that there is no democracy in Venezuela. He has been through five, six elections. I've only had two.
He has gangs out on the street. This is not real democracy.
Look, we have to respect the local cultures, the political traditions of each country. Given that I have 84 percent support in the public-opinion polls, I could propose an amendment to the Constitution for a third term. I don't believe in that. But Chávez wanted to stay … I believe that changing the president is important for the strengthening of democracy itself.
Czech PM cites AC/DC for Obama criticism
Says rock group's song may have inspired his 'road to hell' comment
AP
PRAGUE - The prime minister of the Czech Republic says it could have been his taste for the rock group AC/DC — not his study of economics — that inspired him to describe President Barack Obama's nearly $2 trillion economic plan as "the road to hell."
"Last week, AC/DC played the Czech Republic," Mirek Topolanek told the Lidove Noviny daily newspaper Friday. "And their cult song 'Highway to Hell' may have influenced me to use, in my very improvised speech, 'the road to hell.'"
A week after seeing the Australian band, Topolanek departed from his prepared text in a speech Wednesday before the European Parliament, which included the phrase "the road to destruction" — substituting instead the controversial phrase.
Trying to explain the remarks, his spokesman, Jiri Frantisek Potuznik, said Friday that Topolanek merely meant to warn U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner against taking "permanent action" that would damage the free market.
Topolanek may get a chance to elaborate on what he meant. Obama visits Prague April 4 and 5.
U.S., Europe at odds over recoveryBut the outburst highlighted differences between the U.S. and Europe over the recovery with the 27-nation bloc bristling over from U.S. criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.
Still, European politicians went into damage control mode, with some reproaching the Czech leader for his language and others reaffirming their good diplomatic ties with the United States.
Topolanek comments Wednesday came a day after he was ousted by his own parliament. The Czech Republic currently holds the six-month rotating EU presidency but its leadership is in question, with Topolanek hanging on to a caretaker government at home after losing a "no confidence" Tuesday.
Europeans leaders hope the new U.S. administration will agree with them on tightening oversight over the global financial system — which they see as crucial to fixing the global economy.
Instead, the United States is focusing its efforts on economic stimulus and plans to spend heavily to try and lift itself out of recession with a $787 billion plan of tax rebates, health and welfare benefits, as well as extra energy and infrastructure spending.
AP
PRAGUE - The prime minister of the Czech Republic says it could have been his taste for the rock group AC/DC — not his study of economics — that inspired him to describe President Barack Obama's nearly $2 trillion economic plan as "the road to hell."
"Last week, AC/DC played the Czech Republic," Mirek Topolanek told the Lidove Noviny daily newspaper Friday. "And their cult song 'Highway to Hell' may have influenced me to use, in my very improvised speech, 'the road to hell.'"
A week after seeing the Australian band, Topolanek departed from his prepared text in a speech Wednesday before the European Parliament, which included the phrase "the road to destruction" — substituting instead the controversial phrase.
Trying to explain the remarks, his spokesman, Jiri Frantisek Potuznik, said Friday that Topolanek merely meant to warn U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner against taking "permanent action" that would damage the free market.
Topolanek may get a chance to elaborate on what he meant. Obama visits Prague April 4 and 5.
U.S., Europe at odds over recoveryBut the outburst highlighted differences between the U.S. and Europe over the recovery with the 27-nation bloc bristling over from U.S. criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.
Still, European politicians went into damage control mode, with some reproaching the Czech leader for his language and others reaffirming their good diplomatic ties with the United States.
Topolanek comments Wednesday came a day after he was ousted by his own parliament. The Czech Republic currently holds the six-month rotating EU presidency but its leadership is in question, with Topolanek hanging on to a caretaker government at home after losing a "no confidence" Tuesday.
Europeans leaders hope the new U.S. administration will agree with them on tightening oversight over the global financial system — which they see as crucial to fixing the global economy.
Instead, the United States is focusing its efforts on economic stimulus and plans to spend heavily to try and lift itself out of recession with a $787 billion plan of tax rebates, health and welfare benefits, as well as extra energy and infrastructure spending.
The fierce debate behind Obama's Afghan plan
Biden urged caution against a quagmire; military argued for more troops
By Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt
New York Times
WASHINGTON - President Obama ’s plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan came after an internal debate in which Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. warned against getting into a political and military quagmire, while military advisers argued that the Afghanistan war effort could be imperiled without even more troops.
All of the president’s advisers agreed that the primary goal in the region should be narrow — taking aim at Al Qaeda , as opposed to the vast attempt at nation-building the Bush administration had sought in Iraq. The question was how to get there.
The commanders in the field wanted a firmer and long-term commitment of more combat troops beyond the 17,000 that Mr. Obama had already promised to send , and a pledge that billions of dollars would be found to significantly expand the number of Afghan security forces.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , pressed for an additional 4,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan — but only to serve as trainers. They tempered the commanders’ request and agreed to put off any decision to order more combat troops to Afghanistan until the end of this year, when the strategy’s progress could be assessed.
During these discussions, Mr. Biden was the voice of caution, reminding the group members that they would have to sell their plans to a skeptical Congress.
This article is based on interviews with half a dozen officials who were involved in the debate. All requested anonymity because they were discussing meetings that involved classified material and the shaping of policy.
CompromiseMr. Obama left a final White House meeting in the Situation Room last Friday signaling to participants that he was close to a decision, but that he wanted to get comfortable with what he was going to do. He mulled the issue while at the Camp David presidential retreat over the weekend. On Wednesday, he told his top aides that he had made up his mind.
In announcing a plan on Friday that could be his signature foreign policy effort, Mr. Obama said that he would send more troops — some 4,000 — but stipulated that they would not carry out combat missions, and would instead be used to train the Afghan Army and the national police. He left himself open to the possibility of sending more as the situation warrants.
The debate over the past few weeks offered a glimpse into how Mr. Obama makes decisions. In this case, he chose a compromise between his political and military advisers that some critics say includes some strategic holes, such as a reliance on the same sort of vague guidelines that proved difficult to carry out in Iraq. It also offers insight into the role of Mr. Biden and other members of a foreign policy team that includes many powerful figures vying for Mr. Obama’s attention.
In the end the plan is a compromise that reflected all of the strains of the discussion among his advisers, one that is markedly different, though perhaps no less difficult, from the goals his predecessor set for the region. In speaking of Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush spoke of lofty goals that included building nations that could stand as models of democracy in the Muslim world.
Focus on Al Qaeda, TalibanBy contrast, at a White House news conference in which he invoked concerns of another possible terrorist attack on United States soil, Mr. Obama framed the issue as one that relies on one central tenet: protecting Americans from attacks like the one that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
To do so, he said he would increase aid to Pakistan and would, for the first time, set benchmarks for progress in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in both countries. "The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Mr. Obama said Friday in announcing his decision. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives.
"So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan," he said. "We have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
Even as the White House emphasized its intention to create benchmarks to measure progress made by the Afghan and Pakistani governments in combating Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups, some Congressional officials briefed on the plan voiced skepticism about how realistic those goals were.
Part of Mr. Obama’s plan includes sending hundreds of additional diplomats and civilian experts into the region.
Admiral Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, submitted a classified review to the president, and among its 13 recommendations were to increase the number of American ground forces, with significant emphasis on "enablers," such as the new training teams. He also called for rapidly expanding Afghanistan’s forces to take over security operations from the United States and NATO , as well as to expand the counternarcotics effort in Afghanistan and increase the ability of Pakistan’s military to carry out counterinsurgency operations.
During the 90-minute debate last Friday afternoon, Mr. Obama, flanked by his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones , on his left, and Mr. Biden on his right, went around the table to elicit the final views of his national security team.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke , the president’s top aide on Afghanistan and Pakistan, favored wide-ranging coordinated efforts which would concentrate on corruption in Afghanistan as well as focus on training local officials and transforming agriculture in the country away from the notorious poppy fields that have been used to fuel the Taliban insurgency.
During the debate, the senior administration officials said, Mr. Biden sought to put strict parameters on the size of the additional force deployed to Afghanistan and to ensure there was a specific mission for them. Mr. Biden also cast the debate in terms of what was achievable in Mr. Obama’s first term, administration officials said.
Insight from Biden's visitMr. Biden, White House officials said, was heavily influenced by the trip he took to Afghanistan and Pakistan just before the inauguration in January. He observed to Mr. Obama that if you asked 10 people on the ground what American objectives were, he would get 10 different answers. That observation, aides said, carried weight with Mr. Obama and helped to lead to his decision to narrow the American goal in Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama is dispatching Admiral Mullen and Mr. Holbrooke to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India next week to explain his new strategy to leaders there.
Chief among the aims of the two men will be to try to get Pakistani and Indian officials, in particular, to turn down the volume in their never-ending conflict, in the hopes that the Pakistani military can turn its attention to the fight against insurgents in border regions, and away from fighting India.
This article, White House Debate Led to Plan to Widen Afghan Effort, first appeared in The New York Times.
Thom Shanker and Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.
By Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt
New York Times
WASHINGTON - President Obama ’s plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan came after an internal debate in which Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. warned against getting into a political and military quagmire, while military advisers argued that the Afghanistan war effort could be imperiled without even more troops.
All of the president’s advisers agreed that the primary goal in the region should be narrow — taking aim at Al Qaeda , as opposed to the vast attempt at nation-building the Bush administration had sought in Iraq. The question was how to get there.
The commanders in the field wanted a firmer and long-term commitment of more combat troops beyond the 17,000 that Mr. Obama had already promised to send , and a pledge that billions of dollars would be found to significantly expand the number of Afghan security forces.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , pressed for an additional 4,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan — but only to serve as trainers. They tempered the commanders’ request and agreed to put off any decision to order more combat troops to Afghanistan until the end of this year, when the strategy’s progress could be assessed.
During these discussions, Mr. Biden was the voice of caution, reminding the group members that they would have to sell their plans to a skeptical Congress.
This article is based on interviews with half a dozen officials who were involved in the debate. All requested anonymity because they were discussing meetings that involved classified material and the shaping of policy.
CompromiseMr. Obama left a final White House meeting in the Situation Room last Friday signaling to participants that he was close to a decision, but that he wanted to get comfortable with what he was going to do. He mulled the issue while at the Camp David presidential retreat over the weekend. On Wednesday, he told his top aides that he had made up his mind.
In announcing a plan on Friday that could be his signature foreign policy effort, Mr. Obama said that he would send more troops — some 4,000 — but stipulated that they would not carry out combat missions, and would instead be used to train the Afghan Army and the national police. He left himself open to the possibility of sending more as the situation warrants.
The debate over the past few weeks offered a glimpse into how Mr. Obama makes decisions. In this case, he chose a compromise between his political and military advisers that some critics say includes some strategic holes, such as a reliance on the same sort of vague guidelines that proved difficult to carry out in Iraq. It also offers insight into the role of Mr. Biden and other members of a foreign policy team that includes many powerful figures vying for Mr. Obama’s attention.
In the end the plan is a compromise that reflected all of the strains of the discussion among his advisers, one that is markedly different, though perhaps no less difficult, from the goals his predecessor set for the region. In speaking of Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush spoke of lofty goals that included building nations that could stand as models of democracy in the Muslim world.
Focus on Al Qaeda, TalibanBy contrast, at a White House news conference in which he invoked concerns of another possible terrorist attack on United States soil, Mr. Obama framed the issue as one that relies on one central tenet: protecting Americans from attacks like the one that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
To do so, he said he would increase aid to Pakistan and would, for the first time, set benchmarks for progress in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in both countries. "The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Mr. Obama said Friday in announcing his decision. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives.
"So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan," he said. "We have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
Even as the White House emphasized its intention to create benchmarks to measure progress made by the Afghan and Pakistani governments in combating Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups, some Congressional officials briefed on the plan voiced skepticism about how realistic those goals were.
Part of Mr. Obama’s plan includes sending hundreds of additional diplomats and civilian experts into the region.
Admiral Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, submitted a classified review to the president, and among its 13 recommendations were to increase the number of American ground forces, with significant emphasis on "enablers," such as the new training teams. He also called for rapidly expanding Afghanistan’s forces to take over security operations from the United States and NATO , as well as to expand the counternarcotics effort in Afghanistan and increase the ability of Pakistan’s military to carry out counterinsurgency operations.
During the 90-minute debate last Friday afternoon, Mr. Obama, flanked by his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones , on his left, and Mr. Biden on his right, went around the table to elicit the final views of his national security team.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke , the president’s top aide on Afghanistan and Pakistan, favored wide-ranging coordinated efforts which would concentrate on corruption in Afghanistan as well as focus on training local officials and transforming agriculture in the country away from the notorious poppy fields that have been used to fuel the Taliban insurgency.
During the debate, the senior administration officials said, Mr. Biden sought to put strict parameters on the size of the additional force deployed to Afghanistan and to ensure there was a specific mission for them. Mr. Biden also cast the debate in terms of what was achievable in Mr. Obama’s first term, administration officials said.
Insight from Biden's visitMr. Biden, White House officials said, was heavily influenced by the trip he took to Afghanistan and Pakistan just before the inauguration in January. He observed to Mr. Obama that if you asked 10 people on the ground what American objectives were, he would get 10 different answers. That observation, aides said, carried weight with Mr. Obama and helped to lead to his decision to narrow the American goal in Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama is dispatching Admiral Mullen and Mr. Holbrooke to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India next week to explain his new strategy to leaders there.
Chief among the aims of the two men will be to try to get Pakistani and Indian officials, in particular, to turn down the volume in their never-ending conflict, in the hopes that the Pakistani military can turn its attention to the fight against insurgents in border regions, and away from fighting India.
This article, White House Debate Led to Plan to Widen Afghan Effort, first appeared in The New York Times.
Thom Shanker and Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.
Tens of thousands protest G20 summit
Police on high alert ahead of gathering of international leaders
AP
LONDON - Tens of thousands of people marched across central London Saturday to demand jobs, economic justice and environmental accountability, kicking off six days of protest and action planned in the run-up to the G20 summit next week.
More than 150 groups threw their backing behind the "Put People First" march. Police said around 35,000 attended the demonstration, but there were large gaps in the line of protesters snaking its way across the city toward Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.
Security was tight around a small group of people waving anarchist flags. Anarchists and others have promised violence before the G20 meeting Thursday, and the British capital is bracing for a massive police operation as representatives of the world's 20 leading economies — including U.S. President Barack Obama — fly in for a summit on the financial crisis.
The London protest takes place against the backdrop of a deepening global recession and growing public anger over bankers' pay and the painful fallout from the crisis. The marchers are pushing for a more transparent and democratic economic recovery plan.
In Britain, unemployment has risen above 2 million, house prices have fallen 11 percent in a year and industrial output has recorded its worst drop since 1981.
"The whole economic meltdown ... There's a really good opportunity for governments to get together and invest in a sustainable future," said unemployed Steve Burson, 49, marching with the protesters.
The biggest groups backing the demonstration include the Stop The War Coalition, whose supporters marched under the slogan "Jobs Not Bombs," Friends of the Earth, and the Trades Union Congress, an umbrella group of British trade unions, which is calling for Britain's crisis-hit manufacturing base to share in country's banking bailout.
"They should be solving (the crisis) in the interest of working people," said Andy Bain, the president of Transport Salaried Staffs' Association. "All the money is going to the rich."
Protesters whistled and booed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's 10 Downing Street office — with one shouting: "Enjoy the overtime!" as they filed past.
Some G20 protestors have adopted slogans such as "Hang a Banker" and "Storm the Banks." More protests are planned Wednesday and Thursday, while left-leaning teach-ins, lectures, and other demonstrations are scheduled throughout the week.
Protests in EuropeThere were other demonstrations aimed at the G20 summit throughout Europe on Saturday.
Berlin police estimated that around 10,000 people gathered in front of the capital's city hall and more than 1,000 in Frankfurt, Germany's banking capital, for similar demonstrations under the slogan: "We won't pay for your crisis."
Some demonstrators in Berlin sported headbands reading "pay for it yourselves" and carried placards demanding: "make capitalism history."
"We have no evidence that anyone attending intends to disrupt our plans, break the law or commit any acts of violence," said Glen Tarman, chairman of the organizers.
AP
LONDON - Tens of thousands of people marched across central London Saturday to demand jobs, economic justice and environmental accountability, kicking off six days of protest and action planned in the run-up to the G20 summit next week.
More than 150 groups threw their backing behind the "Put People First" march. Police said around 35,000 attended the demonstration, but there were large gaps in the line of protesters snaking its way across the city toward Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.
Security was tight around a small group of people waving anarchist flags. Anarchists and others have promised violence before the G20 meeting Thursday, and the British capital is bracing for a massive police operation as representatives of the world's 20 leading economies — including U.S. President Barack Obama — fly in for a summit on the financial crisis.
The London protest takes place against the backdrop of a deepening global recession and growing public anger over bankers' pay and the painful fallout from the crisis. The marchers are pushing for a more transparent and democratic economic recovery plan.
In Britain, unemployment has risen above 2 million, house prices have fallen 11 percent in a year and industrial output has recorded its worst drop since 1981.
"The whole economic meltdown ... There's a really good opportunity for governments to get together and invest in a sustainable future," said unemployed Steve Burson, 49, marching with the protesters.
The biggest groups backing the demonstration include the Stop The War Coalition, whose supporters marched under the slogan "Jobs Not Bombs," Friends of the Earth, and the Trades Union Congress, an umbrella group of British trade unions, which is calling for Britain's crisis-hit manufacturing base to share in country's banking bailout.
"They should be solving (the crisis) in the interest of working people," said Andy Bain, the president of Transport Salaried Staffs' Association. "All the money is going to the rich."
Protesters whistled and booed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's 10 Downing Street office — with one shouting: "Enjoy the overtime!" as they filed past.
Some G20 protestors have adopted slogans such as "Hang a Banker" and "Storm the Banks." More protests are planned Wednesday and Thursday, while left-leaning teach-ins, lectures, and other demonstrations are scheduled throughout the week.
Protests in EuropeThere were other demonstrations aimed at the G20 summit throughout Europe on Saturday.
Berlin police estimated that around 10,000 people gathered in front of the capital's city hall and more than 1,000 in Frankfurt, Germany's banking capital, for similar demonstrations under the slogan: "We won't pay for your crisis."
Some demonstrators in Berlin sported headbands reading "pay for it yourselves" and carried placards demanding: "make capitalism history."
"We have no evidence that anyone attending intends to disrupt our plans, break the law or commit any acts of violence," said Glen Tarman, chairman of the organizers.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Conservatives Rally in Wayne
The Franklin Times -
This afternoon the RKP held a rally in Wayne in an effort to take their appeal to this populous eastern state. Speaking at a meeting of supporters, RKP Leader Tyler Dillon laid out his party's economic and civil rights views.
Dillon focused on Tuesday's debate and used the opportunity to criticize his opponents. Labeling the FP and the TPP as intolerant, Dillon accused his opponents of laying out false hopes and empty rhetoric.
Dillon also promised his supporters small government, a strong military, and a governing philosophy in line with their personal beliefs. The full transcript of Dillon's speech can be accessed on the NEC Campaign Events Page.
This afternoon the RKP held a rally in Wayne in an effort to take their appeal to this populous eastern state. Speaking at a meeting of supporters, RKP Leader Tyler Dillon laid out his party's economic and civil rights views.
Dillon focused on Tuesday's debate and used the opportunity to criticize his opponents. Labeling the FP and the TPP as intolerant, Dillon accused his opponents of laying out false hopes and empty rhetoric.
Dillon also promised his supporters small government, a strong military, and a governing philosophy in line with their personal beliefs. The full transcript of Dillon's speech can be accessed on the NEC Campaign Events Page.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Teachers Organize
The Franklin Times -
The Times has learned that the National Teachers Rally has been recognized and ceritfied as a registered interest group. The NTR is the largest teacher union in the nation and represents the interests of its 200,000 members. The Times has also learned that the NTR will be holding a press conference tomorrow morning on the steps of the General Assembly to announce its views and preferences in the race.
The Times has learned that the National Teachers Rally has been recognized and ceritfied as a registered interest group. The NTR is the largest teacher union in the nation and represents the interests of its 200,000 members. The Times has also learned that the NTR will be holding a press conference tomorrow morning on the steps of the General Assembly to announce its views and preferences in the race.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Civil Liberties Council Endorses
The Franklin Times -
The Civil Liberties Council (CLC), a national organization dedicated to protecting the civil liberties and rights of all citizens and that monitors governmental intrusion into citizen's "zones" of privacy, issued a public announcement indicating their choice in the upcoming election.
"As the issues of civil liberties have developed in party platforms and in today's debate, it becomes clear that our organization needs to send a firm and direct signal. Our civil liberties will be limited by some and protected by others. Ladies and gentlemen of the Franklin States, this election matters. For too long we have allowed our governments to limit our freedoms. Those promising change from tyranny need our consideration and support. On behalf of the 200,000 members of the CLC, I am pleased to announce the endorsement of the FP and TPP for the upcoming General Elections."
"These two parties have shown true concern for the natural rights given to all citizens. They have also demonstrated that they will not dictate to others the "proper" "natural" or "right" way to live. These two parties have shown that they will not govern by their personal beliefs but rather by the law."
The Civil Liberties Council (CLC), a national organization dedicated to protecting the civil liberties and rights of all citizens and that monitors governmental intrusion into citizen's "zones" of privacy, issued a public announcement indicating their choice in the upcoming election.
"As the issues of civil liberties have developed in party platforms and in today's debate, it becomes clear that our organization needs to send a firm and direct signal. Our civil liberties will be limited by some and protected by others. Ladies and gentlemen of the Franklin States, this election matters. For too long we have allowed our governments to limit our freedoms. Those promising change from tyranny need our consideration and support. On behalf of the 200,000 members of the CLC, I am pleased to announce the endorsement of the FP and TPP for the upcoming General Elections."
"These two parties have shown true concern for the natural rights given to all citizens. They have also demonstrated that they will not dictate to others the "proper" "natural" or "right" way to live. These two parties have shown that they will not govern by their personal beliefs but rather by the law."
EPC Endorses
The Capital Courier
Following the first national debate, Eric Greene, President of the Environmental Protection Council, announced the EPC endorsement for the upcoming National Assembly elections.
"We were pleased to hear from many of the parties competing in this election. The Council was impressed with the environmental policies and plans laid out and the willingness of political leaders to directly address our organization. With this in mind, and after careful consideration, the executive committee with the support of our members is pleased to endorse the FP."
Greene went on to explain that while many parties seemed generally committed to environmental issues, this party seemed to possess the true political will to accomplish necessary reforms.
Following the first national debate, Eric Greene, President of the Environmental Protection Council, announced the EPC endorsement for the upcoming National Assembly elections.
"We were pleased to hear from many of the parties competing in this election. The Council was impressed with the environmental policies and plans laid out and the willingness of political leaders to directly address our organization. With this in mind, and after careful consideration, the executive committee with the support of our members is pleased to endorse the FP."
Greene went on to explain that while many parties seemed generally committed to environmental issues, this party seemed to possess the true political will to accomplish necessary reforms.
Debate Closing Arguments
The Franklin Times -
The following closing arguments were released by several parties in response to today's debate:
RKP:
Mr. Chaffins you’re waffling, you seem to never give a straight answer. You say you’re one way then go the other; Mr. Chaffins is stubborn. Mr. Chaffins told us if his plan doesn’t work he is willing to change, but then told us all his plan was right and won’t need to change. The ReaganKnights won’t have that problem our economic policies are right and won’t fail while were in office.
Once again I would personally like to thank the NEC and Association of Franklin Reporters for holding this debate. Also, the FSA for allowing the debate to be held in the capital, and Mr. McFarland for being the moderator. Finally I would like to say thank you for to all party leaders for participating in this debate.
FP:
The Fanatical Party wants to assure to FSA that if our economic plan doesn't work, we will listen again to new and different plans, just as we always have. We believe fully in our economic policies, as they are an effort to stabilize the economy, while benefiting all citizens. We would like to again thank the NEC, and our chairman, Mr. McFarland, for this chance to show the FSA what our policies really are. It is a privilege to be invited, and we cannot wait for our next debate. Remember, we are the voice of the people. We will continue to put your ideas and opinions into actions! Stay Fanatical!
Taylor Jeromos, Party Leader and Spokesperson
TPP:
"The TPP would like to thank everyone who showed up for the debate, as well as the viewers watching at home. I hope that I have better clarified my views and have shown the citizens of F.S. that I am the best candidate to run the Franklin States of America. I am confident in my skills to lead this country out of the economic crisis it is now facing, as well as protect the rights of its citizens. I look forward to the next debate and am excited to see the next topic of discussion. Thank you all once again and may Team PAPI be in your hearts, as you all know that you are in ours." -Blake Chaffins, Party Leader of the TPP
The following closing arguments were released by several parties in response to today's debate:
RKP:
Mr. Chaffins you’re waffling, you seem to never give a straight answer. You say you’re one way then go the other; Mr. Chaffins is stubborn. Mr. Chaffins told us if his plan doesn’t work he is willing to change, but then told us all his plan was right and won’t need to change. The ReaganKnights won’t have that problem our economic policies are right and won’t fail while were in office.
Once again I would personally like to thank the NEC and Association of Franklin Reporters for holding this debate. Also, the FSA for allowing the debate to be held in the capital, and Mr. McFarland for being the moderator. Finally I would like to say thank you for to all party leaders for participating in this debate.
FP:
The Fanatical Party wants to assure to FSA that if our economic plan doesn't work, we will listen again to new and different plans, just as we always have. We believe fully in our economic policies, as they are an effort to stabilize the economy, while benefiting all citizens. We would like to again thank the NEC, and our chairman, Mr. McFarland, for this chance to show the FSA what our policies really are. It is a privilege to be invited, and we cannot wait for our next debate. Remember, we are the voice of the people. We will continue to put your ideas and opinions into actions! Stay Fanatical!
Taylor Jeromos, Party Leader and Spokesperson
TPP:
"The TPP would like to thank everyone who showed up for the debate, as well as the viewers watching at home. I hope that I have better clarified my views and have shown the citizens of F.S. that I am the best candidate to run the Franklin States of America. I am confident in my skills to lead this country out of the economic crisis it is now facing, as well as protect the rights of its citizens. I look forward to the next debate and am excited to see the next topic of discussion. Thank you all once again and may Team PAPI be in your hearts, as you all know that you are in ours." -Blake Chaffins, Party Leader of the TPP
Saturday, March 21, 2009
All the Rage
Republican heads explode over AIG bonuses.
By Christopher BeamPosted Thursday, March 19, 2009
Congressional Republicans, like their Democratic colleagues, are livid, just livid, about the $165 million in bonuses handed out to AIG employees. They just aren't sure what to do about it.
As the House prepared to vote Thursday on a bill that would tax the bonuses of employees at bailed-out firms like AIG at 90 percent, Minority Leader John Boehner said he opposed it but told other Republicans to "vote their conscience." That afternoon, 85 Republicans joined 243 Democrats in voting for it.
The AIG bonus scandal, if we can call it that now, presents something of an existential crisis for the GOP. On the one hand, Republicans can read the same polls as everyone else and may even share the public's outrage at the injustice of rewarding the same corporate goons who got us into this mess. On the other, they bridle at the notion of interfering with the business of business. Defend the little guy or attack big government? It's a tough one. Even worse, the solution proposed by Democrats—taxing the bonuses—insults the very essence of conservatism.
The dilemma was clear even before Thursday's vote, which explains the GOP's muddled response. On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bonuses "appalling" and asked the administration to "pursue any and all lawful means of recovering these payments." He has still not suggested how. In the House, Minority Whip Eric Cantor declared the bonuses "nothing short of an outrage" but refused, even when pressed, to propose a means of recovering them. Other lawmakers were equally wishy-washy. Sen. Jim DeMint criticized the bonuses, but his spokesman declined to specify a method of recoupment. Sen. James Inhofe promised on the Senate floor Monday that "we will do all we can to right this wrong and get these bonuses back." As of Thursday, the Republicans had not proposed an alternative.
OK, they had. But to call it half-assed would be an insult to the cheek. The proposal looks good on paper: Unlike the Democrats' solution, which would recoup only 90 percent of the bonuses in a year's time, Boehner says the Republican alternative would get the entire sum in two weeks. But when I asked a Republican leadership spokesman how the bill would accomplish this, the answer was simple: Tell Treasury to get the money back. No matter that Treasury had already determined it could not legally recoup the bonuses once they were paid out. It needs to try harder. For evidence that recoupment by force is possible, the spokesman pointed to a quote from Sen. Chris Dodd, who said the stimulus legislation allowed Treasury to "reach back to these bonuses or compensation packages when they're inconsistent with the TARP legislation or in contrary to public interest." Yet if this were feasible, it's hard to see why the Treasury Department wouldn't have done it by now.
Other Republicans have their own pseudo-alternatives. Inhofe's solution: no more bailouts. "Much of the blame should be directed right here, to the members of this body, the U.S. Senate, to the other side of the Capitol in the U.S. House for voting for the original $700 billion bailout," he said Monday. If we hadn't bailed out AIG in the first place, the reasoning goes, we wouldn't have gotten into this mess. (It's true—we'd be in a different mess.) Sen. Kit Bond, no fan of government takeovers, said taking away bonuses isn't enough: "We need to go further." What does that mean? "1) Identify failing institutions; 2) Remove the toxic assets, protect depositors, and remove the failed leadership; and 3) Return healthy, cleansed banks into the private sector." Sounds familiar. Wait: Isn't that exactly what the Obama administration is trying to do?
All this fretting feels not only strained but unnecessary. In voting on the bonus bill, lawmakers are choosing between the wrath of the American people and the wrath of, well, no one.
Practically the only person in America who could conceivably oppose this tax, and who could punish Republicans for supporting the bonus legislation, is anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. And even he is giving them permission. Norquist fired off a press release Thursday saying he is "strongly opposed" to the bill. But he gave Republicans an out: His no-taxes pledge "did not apply" to the bonus bill, he wrote, because the legislation is "unconstitutional," a "police action" concocted by Congress, and an "illegal political coverup" designed to distract from Obama's and Geithner's mistakes. "This legislation is not what the Pledge ever envisioned," he wrote. Thus, he freed up anti-taxers to vote however they like.
With that, Republicans lost their last, best excuse for opposing the bonus recoupment. On the bright side, they have another week, until the Senate votes, to think of another one.
By Christopher BeamPosted Thursday, March 19, 2009
Congressional Republicans, like their Democratic colleagues, are livid, just livid, about the $165 million in bonuses handed out to AIG employees. They just aren't sure what to do about it.
As the House prepared to vote Thursday on a bill that would tax the bonuses of employees at bailed-out firms like AIG at 90 percent, Minority Leader John Boehner said he opposed it but told other Republicans to "vote their conscience." That afternoon, 85 Republicans joined 243 Democrats in voting for it.
The AIG bonus scandal, if we can call it that now, presents something of an existential crisis for the GOP. On the one hand, Republicans can read the same polls as everyone else and may even share the public's outrage at the injustice of rewarding the same corporate goons who got us into this mess. On the other, they bridle at the notion of interfering with the business of business. Defend the little guy or attack big government? It's a tough one. Even worse, the solution proposed by Democrats—taxing the bonuses—insults the very essence of conservatism.
The dilemma was clear even before Thursday's vote, which explains the GOP's muddled response. On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bonuses "appalling" and asked the administration to "pursue any and all lawful means of recovering these payments." He has still not suggested how. In the House, Minority Whip Eric Cantor declared the bonuses "nothing short of an outrage" but refused, even when pressed, to propose a means of recovering them. Other lawmakers were equally wishy-washy. Sen. Jim DeMint criticized the bonuses, but his spokesman declined to specify a method of recoupment. Sen. James Inhofe promised on the Senate floor Monday that "we will do all we can to right this wrong and get these bonuses back." As of Thursday, the Republicans had not proposed an alternative.
OK, they had. But to call it half-assed would be an insult to the cheek. The proposal looks good on paper: Unlike the Democrats' solution, which would recoup only 90 percent of the bonuses in a year's time, Boehner says the Republican alternative would get the entire sum in two weeks. But when I asked a Republican leadership spokesman how the bill would accomplish this, the answer was simple: Tell Treasury to get the money back. No matter that Treasury had already determined it could not legally recoup the bonuses once they were paid out. It needs to try harder. For evidence that recoupment by force is possible, the spokesman pointed to a quote from Sen. Chris Dodd, who said the stimulus legislation allowed Treasury to "reach back to these bonuses or compensation packages when they're inconsistent with the TARP legislation or in contrary to public interest." Yet if this were feasible, it's hard to see why the Treasury Department wouldn't have done it by now.
Other Republicans have their own pseudo-alternatives. Inhofe's solution: no more bailouts. "Much of the blame should be directed right here, to the members of this body, the U.S. Senate, to the other side of the Capitol in the U.S. House for voting for the original $700 billion bailout," he said Monday. If we hadn't bailed out AIG in the first place, the reasoning goes, we wouldn't have gotten into this mess. (It's true—we'd be in a different mess.) Sen. Kit Bond, no fan of government takeovers, said taking away bonuses isn't enough: "We need to go further." What does that mean? "1) Identify failing institutions; 2) Remove the toxic assets, protect depositors, and remove the failed leadership; and 3) Return healthy, cleansed banks into the private sector." Sounds familiar. Wait: Isn't that exactly what the Obama administration is trying to do?
All this fretting feels not only strained but unnecessary. In voting on the bonus bill, lawmakers are choosing between the wrath of the American people and the wrath of, well, no one.
Practically the only person in America who could conceivably oppose this tax, and who could punish Republicans for supporting the bonus legislation, is anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. And even he is giving them permission. Norquist fired off a press release Thursday saying he is "strongly opposed" to the bill. But he gave Republicans an out: His no-taxes pledge "did not apply" to the bonus bill, he wrote, because the legislation is "unconstitutional," a "police action" concocted by Congress, and an "illegal political coverup" designed to distract from Obama's and Geithner's mistakes. "This legislation is not what the Pledge ever envisioned," he wrote. Thus, he freed up anti-taxers to vote however they like.
With that, Republicans lost their last, best excuse for opposing the bonus recoupment. On the bright side, they have another week, until the Senate votes, to think of another one.
A Presidential Wake-Up Call
The AIG mess should be a warning to Obama that even popular presidents can squander good will.
By Eleanor Clift Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 20, 2009
Who would have thought 55 days into this administration we would be asking the question, what did he know and when did he know it? Word that a provision in the stimulus bill gave the green light for AIG to hand out bonuses using taxpayer money sent the media bloodhounds hot on the trail of whoever is the culprit. For a time, it looked like Senate Banking chairman Chris Dodd would take the fall, but after 24 hours of twisting in the wind, Dodd said the change that exempted past agreements to pay bonuses was made at the request of the administration.
President Obama likes to remind voters that he inherited a mess, and that's true, but this one is of his own making. And until he comes up with a satisfactory explanation of who did what when, and why, his credibility will suffer. Forty-eight hours ago, I didn't think Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was in trouble, but if the transaction with Dodd turns out to have Geithner's fingerprints on it, his job could be in jeopardy. The deadly chain of events may have started innocently enough, with Treasury Department lawyers raising questions about the government retroactively curtailing private-sector contracts, but did Dodd, who authored the restrictive language, capitulate to some Treasury flunky, or did someone more senior lean on him?
Whomever it was, it's fair to say they did not recognize the time bomb they were setting in motion. Obama hates what he calls "process stories," but they are a staple of Washington reporting, and the backstory of this first major Obama blunder has consequences. First, it undermines the president's credibility with his own party on Capitol Hill. Democrats voted almost unanimously for the stimulus package and now Republicans have a weapon to use against them with this Treasury-inspired provision that benefits AIG. Second, the controversy undermines the trust that the American people have in government at a time when it is spending billions upon billions. Obama promises transparency, but the layers of bureaucratic double-talk look like business as usual. Geithner—formerly with the New York Federal Reserve Bank and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs, a recipient of AIG funds—is schooled in secrecy and, when he does speak, the kindest thing to say is that he's badly in need of media training.
It's not uncommon for leaders to feel that because they are giving a problem their all that others don't recognize the gains that are being made. And certainly Geithner, who is at his desk before dawn and puts in 15-hour days, is no slacker. Nor is his boss. In his new book, "Dispatches From the War Room," Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg describes what it's like to confront the big names he's worked for with bad news, and how disbelieving they were, particularly when it came to their performance on the economy.
The book is about that inevitable and painful moment of truth in his relationship with five extraordinary leaders, Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela among them. Each of the men Greenberg profiles came to office, like Obama, amid great hope and expectation, with people at least for a time suspending their cynicism. "Then they discover how hard it is to keep their promises. Not that they walk away from promises—they are consumed by them," Greenberg noted at a talk last weekend at Politics and Prose, a bookstore in northwest Washington. He recalled doing a focus group in Ft. Lee, N.J., shortly before Clinton took office, with his economic team looking on to gauge if Clinton had a "read my lips" problem. He had campaigned on a middle-class tax cut and his economic advisers were telling him deficit reduction was more important. Breaking the promise wasn't trivial, but Greenberg assured Clinton he would survive as long as he kept the interests of the middle class front and center in his policies. After Clinton failed to deliver on health-care reform, Republicans won control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 election—and Clinton fired Greenberg.
Mandela, more than any of the others, cared about public opinion, says Greenberg. Having spent 27 years in prison, he worried he was out of touch as he took the African National Congress from being a liberation movement to heading the government. Mandela sat through a three-hour polling seminar that Greenberg conducted and even went to focus groups. It was almost inevitable that the ANC couldn't deliver results to keep pace with the expectations Mandela had unleashed. When Greenberg presented negative findings to the ANC, the leaders were so stunned, they accused Greenberg of rigging the poll and using a nonrepresentative sample. They had brought electricity and water to rural areas but they hadn't created the jobs or the housing they'd promised. Voters felt betrayed.
What these leaders had in common is they all crashed politically. Some came back—Clinton, more than once. Mandela's support fell within three years to below 50 percent, and he didn't run for a second term. "If Mandela can crash, so can Obama," Greenberg says, adding that the economy is where leaders get it most wrong. This week's fiasco with AIG should serve as a warning to Obama that good will is not unlimited and that the people serving him can bring him down.
© 2009
By Eleanor Clift Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 20, 2009
Who would have thought 55 days into this administration we would be asking the question, what did he know and when did he know it? Word that a provision in the stimulus bill gave the green light for AIG to hand out bonuses using taxpayer money sent the media bloodhounds hot on the trail of whoever is the culprit. For a time, it looked like Senate Banking chairman Chris Dodd would take the fall, but after 24 hours of twisting in the wind, Dodd said the change that exempted past agreements to pay bonuses was made at the request of the administration.
President Obama likes to remind voters that he inherited a mess, and that's true, but this one is of his own making. And until he comes up with a satisfactory explanation of who did what when, and why, his credibility will suffer. Forty-eight hours ago, I didn't think Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was in trouble, but if the transaction with Dodd turns out to have Geithner's fingerprints on it, his job could be in jeopardy. The deadly chain of events may have started innocently enough, with Treasury Department lawyers raising questions about the government retroactively curtailing private-sector contracts, but did Dodd, who authored the restrictive language, capitulate to some Treasury flunky, or did someone more senior lean on him?
Whomever it was, it's fair to say they did not recognize the time bomb they were setting in motion. Obama hates what he calls "process stories," but they are a staple of Washington reporting, and the backstory of this first major Obama blunder has consequences. First, it undermines the president's credibility with his own party on Capitol Hill. Democrats voted almost unanimously for the stimulus package and now Republicans have a weapon to use against them with this Treasury-inspired provision that benefits AIG. Second, the controversy undermines the trust that the American people have in government at a time when it is spending billions upon billions. Obama promises transparency, but the layers of bureaucratic double-talk look like business as usual. Geithner—formerly with the New York Federal Reserve Bank and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs, a recipient of AIG funds—is schooled in secrecy and, when he does speak, the kindest thing to say is that he's badly in need of media training.
It's not uncommon for leaders to feel that because they are giving a problem their all that others don't recognize the gains that are being made. And certainly Geithner, who is at his desk before dawn and puts in 15-hour days, is no slacker. Nor is his boss. In his new book, "Dispatches From the War Room," Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg describes what it's like to confront the big names he's worked for with bad news, and how disbelieving they were, particularly when it came to their performance on the economy.
The book is about that inevitable and painful moment of truth in his relationship with five extraordinary leaders, Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela among them. Each of the men Greenberg profiles came to office, like Obama, amid great hope and expectation, with people at least for a time suspending their cynicism. "Then they discover how hard it is to keep their promises. Not that they walk away from promises—they are consumed by them," Greenberg noted at a talk last weekend at Politics and Prose, a bookstore in northwest Washington. He recalled doing a focus group in Ft. Lee, N.J., shortly before Clinton took office, with his economic team looking on to gauge if Clinton had a "read my lips" problem. He had campaigned on a middle-class tax cut and his economic advisers were telling him deficit reduction was more important. Breaking the promise wasn't trivial, but Greenberg assured Clinton he would survive as long as he kept the interests of the middle class front and center in his policies. After Clinton failed to deliver on health-care reform, Republicans won control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 election—and Clinton fired Greenberg.
Mandela, more than any of the others, cared about public opinion, says Greenberg. Having spent 27 years in prison, he worried he was out of touch as he took the African National Congress from being a liberation movement to heading the government. Mandela sat through a three-hour polling seminar that Greenberg conducted and even went to focus groups. It was almost inevitable that the ANC couldn't deliver results to keep pace with the expectations Mandela had unleashed. When Greenberg presented negative findings to the ANC, the leaders were so stunned, they accused Greenberg of rigging the poll and using a nonrepresentative sample. They had brought electricity and water to rural areas but they hadn't created the jobs or the housing they'd promised. Voters felt betrayed.
What these leaders had in common is they all crashed politically. Some came back—Clinton, more than once. Mandela's support fell within three years to below 50 percent, and he didn't run for a second term. "If Mandela can crash, so can Obama," Greenberg says, adding that the economy is where leaders get it most wrong. This week's fiasco with AIG should serve as a warning to Obama that good will is not unlimited and that the people serving him can bring him down.
© 2009
The Pope's Anti-Condom Remarks: Candor Over P.R.
Time Magazine
By Jeff Israely Thursday, Mar. 19, 2009
Pope Benedict XVI's opposition to condoms, even as a weapon to help combat the spread of AIDS, should surprise no one who knows anything about Catholic Church teachings. The 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, penned by Pope Paul VI, explicitly forbids contraception as denying the Creator's will that humans be fruitful and multiply. In the years since, despite scientific consensus that condoms greatly reduce the risk of contracting the HIV virus, nothing has budged at the Vatican. Any artificial contraception is a sin against God. Full stop.
Still, Benedict's public declaration on March 17, as he was en route to Africa on his first visit as Pontiff, that advocacy of condoms actually "increases the problem" of AIDS has pushed the rhetorical envelope — and enraged may inside and outside the church — like only this quietly frank, theologically driven Pontiff knows how. The Spanish government announced it was sending 1 million condoms to Africa just as Benedict was arriving on the AIDS-ravaged continent. By the following evening, top government officials in France, Germany and the Netherlands had all publicly condemned the Pope's statement. Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, accompanying Benedict on his weeklong trip to Cameroon and Angola, offered no sign that the Pontiff would back down from his statement. (See pictures of the Pope in France.)
Amid the outrage and consternation lies the question: Why? If we already know the basic tenets of church teaching — not to mention the extent of the AIDS epidemic and disproportionate ignorance about condom use in Africa — why did the Pope say what he said, when and where he said it? What do this and other recent episodes tell us about how the modern papacy operates at that unique nexus where philosophy meets public relations? And why, nearly four years into his reign, does this hyper-articulate and well-versed Pope continue to see his attempts at mass communication blow up in his face? (See pictures of the path of Pope Benedict XVI.)
First, to be clear, the Pope was responding to a reporter's question during the brief press conference that regularly takes place aboard his Alitalia jet just before takeoff (there have been 11 trips abroad). But he could hardly have been taken by surprise, as the questions are submitted ahead of time. Benedict might easily have opted for a pat response along the lines of, "Church teaching is clear on contraception. We must instead focus on education, abstinence and caring for those already infected."
Instead, the Pope chose to favor the letter of his philosophy over a smooth p.r. ride. Again. As with the recent controversy when he lifted the excommunication of four ultra-traditionalist bishops, including a Holocaust denier, Benedict plowed ahead with what he believed was the right thing to do, even if it brought a maelstrom of bad press. In this case, Benedict believes that condom use is part of a culture of promiscuity that is breaking down the traditional family, which in turn feeds the kind of behavior that spreads the HIV virus. (See pictures of the global fight against AIDS.)
The most explicit Vatican statement on the topic was the 2003 paper "Family Values vs. Safe Sex," written by the then head of the Pontifical Council, the late Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, who was widely criticized for questioning the science behind the efficacy of condoms in preventing AIDS. But the document also laid out the idea that Benedict seemed to be alluding to on the papal plane. "To control the pandemic [of AIDS], it is necessary to promote responsible sexual behavior that is inculcated by means of authentic sexual education, that respects the dignity of man and woman, and that does not consider others as mere instruments of pleasure," wrote López Trujillo. " 'Safe sex' campaigns have led not to an increase in prudence, but to an increase in sexual promiscuity and condom use. Human behavior is an important factor in the transmission of AIDS. Without adequate education aimed at abandoning certain risky sexual behavior in favor of well-balanced sexuality, as in premarital abstinence and marital fidelity, one risks perpetuating the pandemic's disastrous results."
In 2006 Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, retired archbishop of Milan — and one of the towering intellects in the church, often considered the yin to Benedict's yang — opined that condoms might be the lesser evil in some situations, notably when one partner in a proper marriage has the HIV virus. That same year, the Vatican health office said it would proceed with an internal study of the issue, though nothing further has come out.
Benedict's comments on Tuesday are the clearest sign that little if anything will change, as the Pope continues his quest to challenge secular trends both inside and outside his church by adhering to — and openly pronouncing — rigid stands on sexual and moral matters. (See pictures of the Pope in the U.S.)
Of course, his philosophy runs straight into reality. Catholic missionary groups are at the center of efforts to reduce the rate of HIV infection in Africa, which accounts for just over 12% of the world's population but has more than 60% of its AIDS cases. Speaking on French radio, European parliament member Daniel Cohen-Bendit called the Pope's latest comments "close to premeditated murder."
It is gospel in this information age that Benedict, for better or worse, should have learned by now: inflammatory rhetoric begets inflammatory rhetoric. What is less clear is whether this and the other recent firestorms he has sparked make the Pope more or less relevant to the citizens of the world — and to members of his own flock.
By Jeff Israely Thursday, Mar. 19, 2009
Pope Benedict XVI's opposition to condoms, even as a weapon to help combat the spread of AIDS, should surprise no one who knows anything about Catholic Church teachings. The 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, penned by Pope Paul VI, explicitly forbids contraception as denying the Creator's will that humans be fruitful and multiply. In the years since, despite scientific consensus that condoms greatly reduce the risk of contracting the HIV virus, nothing has budged at the Vatican. Any artificial contraception is a sin against God. Full stop.
Still, Benedict's public declaration on March 17, as he was en route to Africa on his first visit as Pontiff, that advocacy of condoms actually "increases the problem" of AIDS has pushed the rhetorical envelope — and enraged may inside and outside the church — like only this quietly frank, theologically driven Pontiff knows how. The Spanish government announced it was sending 1 million condoms to Africa just as Benedict was arriving on the AIDS-ravaged continent. By the following evening, top government officials in France, Germany and the Netherlands had all publicly condemned the Pope's statement. Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, accompanying Benedict on his weeklong trip to Cameroon and Angola, offered no sign that the Pontiff would back down from his statement. (See pictures of the Pope in France.)
Amid the outrage and consternation lies the question: Why? If we already know the basic tenets of church teaching — not to mention the extent of the AIDS epidemic and disproportionate ignorance about condom use in Africa — why did the Pope say what he said, when and where he said it? What do this and other recent episodes tell us about how the modern papacy operates at that unique nexus where philosophy meets public relations? And why, nearly four years into his reign, does this hyper-articulate and well-versed Pope continue to see his attempts at mass communication blow up in his face? (See pictures of the path of Pope Benedict XVI.)
First, to be clear, the Pope was responding to a reporter's question during the brief press conference that regularly takes place aboard his Alitalia jet just before takeoff (there have been 11 trips abroad). But he could hardly have been taken by surprise, as the questions are submitted ahead of time. Benedict might easily have opted for a pat response along the lines of, "Church teaching is clear on contraception. We must instead focus on education, abstinence and caring for those already infected."
Instead, the Pope chose to favor the letter of his philosophy over a smooth p.r. ride. Again. As with the recent controversy when he lifted the excommunication of four ultra-traditionalist bishops, including a Holocaust denier, Benedict plowed ahead with what he believed was the right thing to do, even if it brought a maelstrom of bad press. In this case, Benedict believes that condom use is part of a culture of promiscuity that is breaking down the traditional family, which in turn feeds the kind of behavior that spreads the HIV virus. (See pictures of the global fight against AIDS.)
The most explicit Vatican statement on the topic was the 2003 paper "Family Values vs. Safe Sex," written by the then head of the Pontifical Council, the late Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, who was widely criticized for questioning the science behind the efficacy of condoms in preventing AIDS. But the document also laid out the idea that Benedict seemed to be alluding to on the papal plane. "To control the pandemic [of AIDS], it is necessary to promote responsible sexual behavior that is inculcated by means of authentic sexual education, that respects the dignity of man and woman, and that does not consider others as mere instruments of pleasure," wrote López Trujillo. " 'Safe sex' campaigns have led not to an increase in prudence, but to an increase in sexual promiscuity and condom use. Human behavior is an important factor in the transmission of AIDS. Without adequate education aimed at abandoning certain risky sexual behavior in favor of well-balanced sexuality, as in premarital abstinence and marital fidelity, one risks perpetuating the pandemic's disastrous results."
In 2006 Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, retired archbishop of Milan — and one of the towering intellects in the church, often considered the yin to Benedict's yang — opined that condoms might be the lesser evil in some situations, notably when one partner in a proper marriage has the HIV virus. That same year, the Vatican health office said it would proceed with an internal study of the issue, though nothing further has come out.
Benedict's comments on Tuesday are the clearest sign that little if anything will change, as the Pope continues his quest to challenge secular trends both inside and outside his church by adhering to — and openly pronouncing — rigid stands on sexual and moral matters. (See pictures of the Pope in the U.S.)
Of course, his philosophy runs straight into reality. Catholic missionary groups are at the center of efforts to reduce the rate of HIV infection in Africa, which accounts for just over 12% of the world's population but has more than 60% of its AIDS cases. Speaking on French radio, European parliament member Daniel Cohen-Bendit called the Pope's latest comments "close to premeditated murder."
It is gospel in this information age that Benedict, for better or worse, should have learned by now: inflammatory rhetoric begets inflammatory rhetoric. What is less clear is whether this and the other recent firestorms he has sparked make the Pope more or less relevant to the citizens of the world — and to members of his own flock.
Darfur refugee camp hit by aid groups' expulsion
AP
By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer
ZAMZAM CAMP, Sudan – Every day, a peacekeeper truck pulls into this teeming camp carrying loads of water, and is greeted by long lines of refugees.
It's not the troops' job — but after the expulsion of many aid groups in Darfur, everyone is scrambling to fill the gaps in the safety net that keeps millions of refugees alive.
The expulsion ordered by the Sudanese government could not come at a worse time for Zamzam camp. Even before the order, aid groups were rushing to deal with an influx of refugees from the fighting — 37,000 in the past month, nearly doubling the camp's size.
Now there are fewer medical clinics, fewer hands to help build shelters or distribute supplies. There are also fears of violence — borne out on Saturday when armed men looted a storehouse of the one of the expelled agencies, Oxfam, in another northern Darfur Al-Salam camp.
Khartoum's expulsion of aid workers effectively decapitated the crucial humanitarian network for Darfurians, amid a 6-year-old conflict that has driven 2.7 million people from their homes and killed 300,000.
The order forced out 13 international aid groups and three Sudanese ones from Darfur and northern Sudan in retaliation for an international tribunal's order for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes in Darfur.
The expelled groups made up 40 percent of the aid personnel and included some of the best organized and most experienced agencies dealing with the conflict.
Those aid workers who remain say they can fill the gaps in the short term, but warn of possible crisis within just a few months, with deteriorating health and outbreak of diseases — even violence, as desperation grows.
The Sudanese government dismisses the warnings are "premature," insisting it can fill the gap working with U.N. agencies and the remaining groups. But many refugees deeply distrust government aid and suspect that Khartoum just wants to drive them out of the camps.
In Kalma camp, another overcrowded camp in southern Darfur, residents have barred government health workers or alternative foreign aid groups, despite an outbreak of meningitis.
Journalists have also been denied access into the camp, which housed at least six of the expelled aid groups.
In Zamzam camp, where three groups were expelled, government Health Ministry officials are stepping up their role as well as local aid groups, such as the Sudanese Red Crescent.
At the compound of one of the expelled groups, the American CHF International, rolled up straw roofs are piled in a corner. Instead of being used to build shelters, they are being held by the government, and refugee women are collecting tree branches and straw to protect against the scorching sun.
"Al-Bashir came here and said no more aid groups," said Mohamed Adam, a local guard assigned to watch the unused roofs. "Now the money has stopped ... It is over," he said, describing the government as "stubborn."
Water remains the main concern. A government agency, in cooperation with UNICEF, dug 40 boreholes for wells in the past two weeks, but it's not enough — and more truckloads of refugees arrive every day.
With no one else to do it, U.N.-African peacekeepers, whose mission is security not humanitarian work, are trucking in 45,000 liters of water a day.
"People are many here. We need more water," said Khadra Ali, 40, who waited for two hours in line for water on Thursday.
The permanent health clinic is closed, and the government's mobile clinic is struggling to meet demand.
Hawa Hamed, a newly arrived refugee who said she trained as a health worker by one of the expelled groups, Doctors Without Borders-Holland, heard that a mobile clinic came through several days ago, but "today, they didn't come at all."
Hamed, 23, visits 15 families a day, but lacking supplies or a clinic, she can offer little more than advice for people struggling with problems including a diarrhea outbreak. "I go around telling mothers they should clean the containers before they fill them up with water," she said. She said she has heard that one person has died.
Workers from the remaining aid agencies refused to speak openly about the situation, fearing they too would be expelled. Most U.N. officials were also reluctant, saying they were waiting for the results of a joint assessment by the U.N. and the government on the post-expulsion humanitarian situation.
The biggest concern is that recent improvements in nutrition and epidemic prevention will suffer a setback, especially with the rainy season starting in June. Last year was the first one without a cholera outbreak, but deteriorating sanitation could easily see its return.
Ali Youssef, a senior foreign ministry official, decried the international criticism of the expulsion, blaming the March 4 arrest warrant for threatening peace and security in all of Sudan and likened it to "a declaration of war."
The government dismisses the court and the allegations. Al-Bashir says more aid groups might be expelled if they overstep their mandate and insists the government can handle the situation.
But government workers in Darfur face a bigger challenge: refugee camp residents have little faith.
Gamila Youssef, 35 and a mother of three, said she rejects the government's offered hand.
"We don't want any health care from the government," she said. "They target us and then offer us health? How can that be?"
By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer
ZAMZAM CAMP, Sudan – Every day, a peacekeeper truck pulls into this teeming camp carrying loads of water, and is greeted by long lines of refugees.
It's not the troops' job — but after the expulsion of many aid groups in Darfur, everyone is scrambling to fill the gaps in the safety net that keeps millions of refugees alive.
The expulsion ordered by the Sudanese government could not come at a worse time for Zamzam camp. Even before the order, aid groups were rushing to deal with an influx of refugees from the fighting — 37,000 in the past month, nearly doubling the camp's size.
Now there are fewer medical clinics, fewer hands to help build shelters or distribute supplies. There are also fears of violence — borne out on Saturday when armed men looted a storehouse of the one of the expelled agencies, Oxfam, in another northern Darfur Al-Salam camp.
Khartoum's expulsion of aid workers effectively decapitated the crucial humanitarian network for Darfurians, amid a 6-year-old conflict that has driven 2.7 million people from their homes and killed 300,000.
The order forced out 13 international aid groups and three Sudanese ones from Darfur and northern Sudan in retaliation for an international tribunal's order for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes in Darfur.
The expelled groups made up 40 percent of the aid personnel and included some of the best organized and most experienced agencies dealing with the conflict.
Those aid workers who remain say they can fill the gaps in the short term, but warn of possible crisis within just a few months, with deteriorating health and outbreak of diseases — even violence, as desperation grows.
The Sudanese government dismisses the warnings are "premature," insisting it can fill the gap working with U.N. agencies and the remaining groups. But many refugees deeply distrust government aid and suspect that Khartoum just wants to drive them out of the camps.
In Kalma camp, another overcrowded camp in southern Darfur, residents have barred government health workers or alternative foreign aid groups, despite an outbreak of meningitis.
Journalists have also been denied access into the camp, which housed at least six of the expelled aid groups.
In Zamzam camp, where three groups were expelled, government Health Ministry officials are stepping up their role as well as local aid groups, such as the Sudanese Red Crescent.
At the compound of one of the expelled groups, the American CHF International, rolled up straw roofs are piled in a corner. Instead of being used to build shelters, they are being held by the government, and refugee women are collecting tree branches and straw to protect against the scorching sun.
"Al-Bashir came here and said no more aid groups," said Mohamed Adam, a local guard assigned to watch the unused roofs. "Now the money has stopped ... It is over," he said, describing the government as "stubborn."
Water remains the main concern. A government agency, in cooperation with UNICEF, dug 40 boreholes for wells in the past two weeks, but it's not enough — and more truckloads of refugees arrive every day.
With no one else to do it, U.N.-African peacekeepers, whose mission is security not humanitarian work, are trucking in 45,000 liters of water a day.
"People are many here. We need more water," said Khadra Ali, 40, who waited for two hours in line for water on Thursday.
The permanent health clinic is closed, and the government's mobile clinic is struggling to meet demand.
Hawa Hamed, a newly arrived refugee who said she trained as a health worker by one of the expelled groups, Doctors Without Borders-Holland, heard that a mobile clinic came through several days ago, but "today, they didn't come at all."
Hamed, 23, visits 15 families a day, but lacking supplies or a clinic, she can offer little more than advice for people struggling with problems including a diarrhea outbreak. "I go around telling mothers they should clean the containers before they fill them up with water," she said. She said she has heard that one person has died.
Workers from the remaining aid agencies refused to speak openly about the situation, fearing they too would be expelled. Most U.N. officials were also reluctant, saying they were waiting for the results of a joint assessment by the U.N. and the government on the post-expulsion humanitarian situation.
The biggest concern is that recent improvements in nutrition and epidemic prevention will suffer a setback, especially with the rainy season starting in June. Last year was the first one without a cholera outbreak, but deteriorating sanitation could easily see its return.
Ali Youssef, a senior foreign ministry official, decried the international criticism of the expulsion, blaming the March 4 arrest warrant for threatening peace and security in all of Sudan and likened it to "a declaration of war."
The government dismisses the court and the allegations. Al-Bashir says more aid groups might be expelled if they overstep their mandate and insists the government can handle the situation.
But government workers in Darfur face a bigger challenge: refugee camp residents have little faith.
Gamila Youssef, 35 and a mother of three, said she rejects the government's offered hand.
"We don't want any health care from the government," she said. "They target us and then offer us health? How can that be?"
Pope condemns sorcery, urges Angolans to convert
AP
By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer
LUANDA, Angola – Tens of thousands of Angola's Catholics lined the streets of the capital Saturday for a blessing from Pope Benedict XVI, who urged the country's faithful to reach out and convert people who believe in witchcraft.
"In today's Angola," he said at Mass in Luanda, "Catholics should offer the message of Christ to the many who live in the fear of spirits, of evil powers by whom they feel threatened."
He also gave a message of hope to young people, including some wounded and maimed during Angola's long civil war, when he addressed a crowd of some 30,000 people later at a sports stadium, where a drum concert was held.
"I think of the many tears you shed for the loss of relatives," he told the crowd at a soccer stadium where he watched the drum concert by young men with painted faces, and dancers in colorful costumes. The civil war started with Angola's 1975 independence from Portugal and ended in 2002.
The 81-year-old pontiff, wearing white robes, looked tired and moved slowly in the tropical heat during the youth appearance in late afternoon.
Hours before he arrived at the Coqueiros stadium, a stampede broke out as the gates were opened to people waiting outside, and two people were killed in the crush, said Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi.
"The pope is very upset," Lombardi said late Saturday. Portuguese news agency LUSA cites an unidentified source at a local hospital as saying a man and a woman were killed, eight others were hospitalized with minor injuries, and 10 were given medical assistance at the site.
An AP reporter saw another stampede break out when the pope arrived, and at least 20 people were taken away in ambulances.
In the morning, Benedict attracted thousands onto the streets every time his motorcade passed and delighted the crowds by speaking in Portuguese.
Drawing on the more than 500 years of Roman Catholicism in Angola, he called Christianity a bridge between the local peoples and the Portuguese settlers. The country's history as a Portuguese colony gave the country Christian roots. Eighty percent of the 16 million people are Christian, about 65 percent Catholic.
The pope began his day addressing Catholic clergymen and nuns, telling them to be missionaries to those Angolans "living in fear of spirits, of malign and threatening powers. In their bewilderment they end up even condemning street children and the elderly as alleged sorcerers."
In Africa, some churchgoing Catholics also follow traditional animist religions and consult medicine men and diviners who are denounced by the church. People accused of sorcery or of being possessed by evil powers sometimes are killed by fearful mobs.
Local media have reported that police last year rescued 40 children who had been held by two religious sects after being accused by their own families of witchcraft.
Benedict counseled Catholics to "live peacefully" with animists and other nonbelievers and urged Angolans to be the "new missionaries" to bring people who believe in sorcery to Christ.
Benedict spoke at a Mass at the capital's blue-domed St. Paul's Church, where light streamed through stained glass windows onto veiled nuns and priests and bishops resplendent in white and lilac robes.
The pope lovingly caressed the faces of children and made the sign of the cross on their foreheads.
Security was unusually tight, with military sharpshooters atop buildings in the capital. The National Police said they have deployed 10,000 officers. Security agents blocked cell phones in the church, apparently by sending a signal.
"This is a very emotional day for me, my first time to get a Papal blessing," said Sister Iliria Olivera, from Oaxaca in Mexico, among hundreds of foreign missionaries in the church. Olivera for nine years has been working with her Sisters of the Divine Pastor, teaching children and running a maternal health clinic outside Luanda.
On Friday, Benedict lamented what he called strains on the traditional African family, condemning sexual violence against women and chiding countries that have approved abortion.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, who is traveling with the pope, told journalists at a briefing Saturday that Benedict in that speech was referring to abortion when used as a means of "population control."
Earlier in the weeklong trip, the pope's first to Africa, Benedict drew criticism from aid agencies and some European governments when he said condoms were not the answer to Africa's severe AIDS epidemic, suggesting that sexual behavior was the issue.
Among the young people in the stadium Saturday was Valdomero Dias, who said he understood the pope's message as leader of the church. "But abstinence is very difficult for young people," said Dias, a 27-year-old bachelor who helps run the scouting movement.
Amnesty International on Saturday called on the pope to use his influence to halt the threat of forced evictions for residents of Luanda to make rise for high-rise apartments and office buildings. Many have been given cheap houses in faraway satellite towns that have no running water or electricity.
Amnesty said that between 2003 and 2006, thousands of people were forcibly evicted from land belonging to the Catholic Church in three Luanda districts.
Asked at the press briefing about Amnesty's allegations, Lombardi referred the question to an Angolan bishop, Monsignor Jose Manuel Imbamba. The prelate denied that anyone had been evicted or houses destroyed. "We help the poor, we don't send them away," Imbamba said.
___
Associated Press Writer Michelle Faul and reporter Casimiro Siona contributed to this report.
By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer
LUANDA, Angola – Tens of thousands of Angola's Catholics lined the streets of the capital Saturday for a blessing from Pope Benedict XVI, who urged the country's faithful to reach out and convert people who believe in witchcraft.
"In today's Angola," he said at Mass in Luanda, "Catholics should offer the message of Christ to the many who live in the fear of spirits, of evil powers by whom they feel threatened."
He also gave a message of hope to young people, including some wounded and maimed during Angola's long civil war, when he addressed a crowd of some 30,000 people later at a sports stadium, where a drum concert was held.
"I think of the many tears you shed for the loss of relatives," he told the crowd at a soccer stadium where he watched the drum concert by young men with painted faces, and dancers in colorful costumes. The civil war started with Angola's 1975 independence from Portugal and ended in 2002.
The 81-year-old pontiff, wearing white robes, looked tired and moved slowly in the tropical heat during the youth appearance in late afternoon.
Hours before he arrived at the Coqueiros stadium, a stampede broke out as the gates were opened to people waiting outside, and two people were killed in the crush, said Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi.
"The pope is very upset," Lombardi said late Saturday. Portuguese news agency LUSA cites an unidentified source at a local hospital as saying a man and a woman were killed, eight others were hospitalized with minor injuries, and 10 were given medical assistance at the site.
An AP reporter saw another stampede break out when the pope arrived, and at least 20 people were taken away in ambulances.
In the morning, Benedict attracted thousands onto the streets every time his motorcade passed and delighted the crowds by speaking in Portuguese.
Drawing on the more than 500 years of Roman Catholicism in Angola, he called Christianity a bridge between the local peoples and the Portuguese settlers. The country's history as a Portuguese colony gave the country Christian roots. Eighty percent of the 16 million people are Christian, about 65 percent Catholic.
The pope began his day addressing Catholic clergymen and nuns, telling them to be missionaries to those Angolans "living in fear of spirits, of malign and threatening powers. In their bewilderment they end up even condemning street children and the elderly as alleged sorcerers."
In Africa, some churchgoing Catholics also follow traditional animist religions and consult medicine men and diviners who are denounced by the church. People accused of sorcery or of being possessed by evil powers sometimes are killed by fearful mobs.
Local media have reported that police last year rescued 40 children who had been held by two religious sects after being accused by their own families of witchcraft.
Benedict counseled Catholics to "live peacefully" with animists and other nonbelievers and urged Angolans to be the "new missionaries" to bring people who believe in sorcery to Christ.
Benedict spoke at a Mass at the capital's blue-domed St. Paul's Church, where light streamed through stained glass windows onto veiled nuns and priests and bishops resplendent in white and lilac robes.
The pope lovingly caressed the faces of children and made the sign of the cross on their foreheads.
Security was unusually tight, with military sharpshooters atop buildings in the capital. The National Police said they have deployed 10,000 officers. Security agents blocked cell phones in the church, apparently by sending a signal.
"This is a very emotional day for me, my first time to get a Papal blessing," said Sister Iliria Olivera, from Oaxaca in Mexico, among hundreds of foreign missionaries in the church. Olivera for nine years has been working with her Sisters of the Divine Pastor, teaching children and running a maternal health clinic outside Luanda.
On Friday, Benedict lamented what he called strains on the traditional African family, condemning sexual violence against women and chiding countries that have approved abortion.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, who is traveling with the pope, told journalists at a briefing Saturday that Benedict in that speech was referring to abortion when used as a means of "population control."
Earlier in the weeklong trip, the pope's first to Africa, Benedict drew criticism from aid agencies and some European governments when he said condoms were not the answer to Africa's severe AIDS epidemic, suggesting that sexual behavior was the issue.
Among the young people in the stadium Saturday was Valdomero Dias, who said he understood the pope's message as leader of the church. "But abstinence is very difficult for young people," said Dias, a 27-year-old bachelor who helps run the scouting movement.
Amnesty International on Saturday called on the pope to use his influence to halt the threat of forced evictions for residents of Luanda to make rise for high-rise apartments and office buildings. Many have been given cheap houses in faraway satellite towns that have no running water or electricity.
Amnesty said that between 2003 and 2006, thousands of people were forcibly evicted from land belonging to the Catholic Church in three Luanda districts.
Asked at the press briefing about Amnesty's allegations, Lombardi referred the question to an Angolan bishop, Monsignor Jose Manuel Imbamba. The prelate denied that anyone had been evicted or houses destroyed. "We help the poor, we don't send them away," Imbamba said.
___
Associated Press Writer Michelle Faul and reporter Casimiro Siona contributed to this report.
Israel police ban Arab culture day in Jerusalem
AP
By DIAA HADID, Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM – Israeli authorities broke up a series of Palestinian cultural events in Jerusalem on Saturday, disrupting a children's march and bursting balloons at a schoolyard celebration in a crackdown that underscored the emotional battle over control of the disputed holy city.
Elsewhere in Jerusalem, hundreds of Israelis gathered outside the residence of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to mark the 1,000th day in captivity of an Israeli soldier held by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip. The demonstration took place at a protest tent set up by the soldier's family, and many in the crowd quietly waved yellow glow sticks in a show of solidarity.
Palestinian activists called for Saturday's celebrations to mark the Arab League's designation of Jerusalem as the capital of Arab culture for 2009. The 23-nation group chooses a different city for the honor each year.
But Israel said the events violated a ban on Palestinian political activity in Jerusalem. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas criticized the crackdown.
Announcing the ban on Saturday's events, Israel's internal security minister, Avi Dichter, accused Abbas' Palestinian Authority of being behind the activities. Israel does not allow the Palestinian government to have a presence in Jerusalem, saying it undercuts Israel's claim to the city.
At one event, teenage girls at an east Jerusalem Catholic school released a few dozen balloons in the red, white, green and black colors of the Palestinian flag over the walled Old City. Israeli military police and soldiers quickly moved into the schoolyard and popped the remaining balloons, students said.
Zein, an 18-year-old student, said the police popped them with their hands and told them they weren't allowed to release them into the air. She asked not to use her last name, fearing further problems with the police.
An Israeli intelligence official at the school who refused to give his name said the balloons were burst "because they are Palestinian."
Police spokesman Shmuel Ben Ruby said 12 people were detained. Police also broke up attempts by Palestinian school children to march into the Old City.
The dispute over Jerusalem lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has been the most sensitive issue in peace talks.
Israel says the entire city of Jerusalem is its undivided capital. Palestinians want east Jerusalem — captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war and site of key Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites — as the capital of a future state.
Israel annexed the eastern part of the city after the 1967 war, and today, some 180,000 Jewish Israelis live in east Jerusalem neighborhoods. The annexation is not internationally recognized.
Speaking in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Abbas said Israel's policies in Jerusalem were undermining the chances for peace.
"The policy of discrimination, suppression, stealing the land, destruction of neighborhoods, and homes, the policy of falsifying the past, destroying the present and stealing the future should all stop if peace is to have a real opportunity in this land," he said.
He urged the incoming Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to resume stalled peace negotiations on all issues of dispute, including Jerusalem. The conservative Netanyahu rejects any division of the holy city.
Olmert had hoped to arrange a prisoner swap with Hamas that would bring home the captured soldier, Sgt. Gilad Schalit, before he leaves office. Netanyahu is putting together a coalition government following elections last month and has two more weeks to complete the task.
But earlier this week, Olmert said Hamas' demands were excessive, strongly signaling he would turn over the matter to Netanyahu. Hamas is seeking the release of some 450 imprisoned militants, including dozens convicted of killing Israelis, in exchange for Schalit.
Schalit's father, Noam, urged Olmert to continue his efforts. "We want Gilad Schalit back home immediately — immediately, not in another 1,000 days, not even in another 100 days," he told the crowd Saturday night.
Schalit's family set up the protest tent two weeks ago to push for a last-minute deal. In a country where military service is mandatory, the case has gripped the nation's attention, and thousands of people have stopped by the tent to support the family.
The family planned to return home to northern Israel later Saturday, but his father said their struggle would go on. "This hasn't ended, dear Gilad," he said.
_____
Associated Press writer Dalia Nammari contributed to this report from Bethlehem, West Bank.
By DIAA HADID, Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM – Israeli authorities broke up a series of Palestinian cultural events in Jerusalem on Saturday, disrupting a children's march and bursting balloons at a schoolyard celebration in a crackdown that underscored the emotional battle over control of the disputed holy city.
Elsewhere in Jerusalem, hundreds of Israelis gathered outside the residence of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to mark the 1,000th day in captivity of an Israeli soldier held by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip. The demonstration took place at a protest tent set up by the soldier's family, and many in the crowd quietly waved yellow glow sticks in a show of solidarity.
Palestinian activists called for Saturday's celebrations to mark the Arab League's designation of Jerusalem as the capital of Arab culture for 2009. The 23-nation group chooses a different city for the honor each year.
But Israel said the events violated a ban on Palestinian political activity in Jerusalem. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas criticized the crackdown.
Announcing the ban on Saturday's events, Israel's internal security minister, Avi Dichter, accused Abbas' Palestinian Authority of being behind the activities. Israel does not allow the Palestinian government to have a presence in Jerusalem, saying it undercuts Israel's claim to the city.
At one event, teenage girls at an east Jerusalem Catholic school released a few dozen balloons in the red, white, green and black colors of the Palestinian flag over the walled Old City. Israeli military police and soldiers quickly moved into the schoolyard and popped the remaining balloons, students said.
Zein, an 18-year-old student, said the police popped them with their hands and told them they weren't allowed to release them into the air. She asked not to use her last name, fearing further problems with the police.
An Israeli intelligence official at the school who refused to give his name said the balloons were burst "because they are Palestinian."
Police spokesman Shmuel Ben Ruby said 12 people were detained. Police also broke up attempts by Palestinian school children to march into the Old City.
The dispute over Jerusalem lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has been the most sensitive issue in peace talks.
Israel says the entire city of Jerusalem is its undivided capital. Palestinians want east Jerusalem — captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war and site of key Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites — as the capital of a future state.
Israel annexed the eastern part of the city after the 1967 war, and today, some 180,000 Jewish Israelis live in east Jerusalem neighborhoods. The annexation is not internationally recognized.
Speaking in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Abbas said Israel's policies in Jerusalem were undermining the chances for peace.
"The policy of discrimination, suppression, stealing the land, destruction of neighborhoods, and homes, the policy of falsifying the past, destroying the present and stealing the future should all stop if peace is to have a real opportunity in this land," he said.
He urged the incoming Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to resume stalled peace negotiations on all issues of dispute, including Jerusalem. The conservative Netanyahu rejects any division of the holy city.
Olmert had hoped to arrange a prisoner swap with Hamas that would bring home the captured soldier, Sgt. Gilad Schalit, before he leaves office. Netanyahu is putting together a coalition government following elections last month and has two more weeks to complete the task.
But earlier this week, Olmert said Hamas' demands were excessive, strongly signaling he would turn over the matter to Netanyahu. Hamas is seeking the release of some 450 imprisoned militants, including dozens convicted of killing Israelis, in exchange for Schalit.
Schalit's father, Noam, urged Olmert to continue his efforts. "We want Gilad Schalit back home immediately — immediately, not in another 1,000 days, not even in another 100 days," he told the crowd Saturday night.
Schalit's family set up the protest tent two weeks ago to push for a last-minute deal. In a country where military service is mandatory, the case has gripped the nation's attention, and thousands of people have stopped by the tent to support the family.
The family planned to return home to northern Israel later Saturday, but his father said their struggle would go on. "This hasn't ended, dear Gilad," he said.
_____
Associated Press writer Dalia Nammari contributed to this report from Bethlehem, West Bank.
Time to Debate
The Franklin Times -
The NEC and the Association of Franklin Reporters will host the election's first televised debate between the leaders of the five parties competing to become the nation's next prime minister. With all five party leaders scheduled to attend, the event promises to provide high political drama as all sides attempt to define themselves and their opponents in the eyes of voters. The rules of the debate, as provided by the NEC, are found below.
1) The debate will consist of all five party leaders
2) All debate participants will be sitting
3) Questions will be asked by the moderator
4) Participants will be given three minutes to respond to a question
5) Participants not directly asked the question will be given one minute to respond
6) Participants will be given one minute to deliver opening remarks at the beginning of the debate and one minute to deliver closing remarks at the debate's conclusion
7) Participants are allowed to use notes and take notes during the debate
8) All questions will focus on the economy and other domestic issues
9) Participants should be prepared to answer any question related to their own policies, past comments, or the general issues covered by the debate
The NEC and the Association of Franklin Reporters will host the election's first televised debate between the leaders of the five parties competing to become the nation's next prime minister. With all five party leaders scheduled to attend, the event promises to provide high political drama as all sides attempt to define themselves and their opponents in the eyes of voters. The rules of the debate, as provided by the NEC, are found below.
1) The debate will consist of all five party leaders
2) All debate participants will be sitting
3) Questions will be asked by the moderator
4) Participants will be given three minutes to respond to a question
5) Participants not directly asked the question will be given one minute to respond
6) Participants will be given one minute to deliver opening remarks at the beginning of the debate and one minute to deliver closing remarks at the debate's conclusion
7) Participants are allowed to use notes and take notes during the debate
8) All questions will focus on the economy and other domestic issues
9) Participants should be prepared to answer any question related to their own policies, past comments, or the general issues covered by the debate
Surprise Endorsement
The Franklin Times -
At a rally today in North Riegel, the TPP revealed a major endorsement that may impact the race to control the General Assembly. After being introduced by Party Spokeswoman Lauren Hensley, TPP Leader Chaffins took the stage in North Riegel's capital, Duluth. Chaffins message was clear and direct. He called for a government of reform. Pointing to the economic crisis gripping the country, Chaffins highlighted his party's plans to reform the education, energy, and economic systems.
Then to highlight his party's economic message he made the surprise introduction of National Workers Union President Doug Miller. Miller than took the podium and announced that his organization, the largest labor union in Franklin, was formally endorsing the TPP in the upcoming elections. Miller explained that the TPP was committed to the working and middle classes.
He added, "The TPP is the best representative in this race to represent the interests of middle class Franklin. Their policies will maintain jobs here while preserving our nation's ability to compete in the global economy. The NWU's membership fully supports this party and will actively work for its electoral victory."
The NWU endorsement will only add to the organizational strength the TPP has built. In the past two General Assembly elections, organized labor was very efficient at turning out its membership for their political allies.
At a rally today in North Riegel, the TPP revealed a major endorsement that may impact the race to control the General Assembly. After being introduced by Party Spokeswoman Lauren Hensley, TPP Leader Chaffins took the stage in North Riegel's capital, Duluth. Chaffins message was clear and direct. He called for a government of reform. Pointing to the economic crisis gripping the country, Chaffins highlighted his party's plans to reform the education, energy, and economic systems.
Then to highlight his party's economic message he made the surprise introduction of National Workers Union President Doug Miller. Miller than took the podium and announced that his organization, the largest labor union in Franklin, was formally endorsing the TPP in the upcoming elections. Miller explained that the TPP was committed to the working and middle classes.
He added, "The TPP is the best representative in this race to represent the interests of middle class Franklin. Their policies will maintain jobs here while preserving our nation's ability to compete in the global economy. The NWU's membership fully supports this party and will actively work for its electoral victory."
The NWU endorsement will only add to the organizational strength the TPP has built. In the past two General Assembly elections, organized labor was very efficient at turning out its membership for their political allies.
Wallup Announcements
The Wallup Polling Corp. is proud to announce that in conjunction with the National Election Commission the Wallup Daily Tracking Poll will be published daily on the NEC's website. To access up-to-date polling results and graphics please follow the link below. Once the link connects please select the Wallup Tracking Poll link on the page.
http://mcpedia.pbwiki.com/Campaign-09-Schedule#
Wallup Tracking Poll for 3/21/09:
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP: 32%
FP: 26%
RKP: 25%
MP: 7%
MDP: 6%
Don't Know/No Opinion: 4%
Analysis:
What a difference a week can make. While the FP and RKP appear to have stabilized their support and attracted a faithful following, the TPP has stopped its slide and appears to be once again picking up centralist voters. Also of note is the shrinking of the undecided voter numbers. With only four percent of voters indicating no preference the pool of uncommitted voters is shallow. This means that if parties are to gain in support they will have to begin to peel off their rivals' supporters. This is a more difficult task and will require message contrasts and perhaps negative ads. The problem seems especially difficult for the MP and MDP. These parties are trailing badly in the polls and few voters express confidence in their ability to lead. On the critical issue of competence, the TPP leads. Forty-one percent of respondents consider TPP Leader Blake Chaffins to be the most competent. He leads FP Leader Jeromos (30%) and RKP Leader Dillon (29%).
With the first debate on Tuesday, the upcoming week may prove critical. The televised debate offers the parties a perfect venue to challenge their rivals and shape the their image in the voters' minds.
http://mcpedia.pbwiki.com/Campaign-09-Schedule#
Wallup Tracking Poll for 3/21/09:
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP: 32%
FP: 26%
RKP: 25%
MP: 7%
MDP: 6%
Don't Know/No Opinion: 4%
Analysis:
What a difference a week can make. While the FP and RKP appear to have stabilized their support and attracted a faithful following, the TPP has stopped its slide and appears to be once again picking up centralist voters. Also of note is the shrinking of the undecided voter numbers. With only four percent of voters indicating no preference the pool of uncommitted voters is shallow. This means that if parties are to gain in support they will have to begin to peel off their rivals' supporters. This is a more difficult task and will require message contrasts and perhaps negative ads. The problem seems especially difficult for the MP and MDP. These parties are trailing badly in the polls and few voters express confidence in their ability to lead. On the critical issue of competence, the TPP leads. Forty-one percent of respondents consider TPP Leader Blake Chaffins to be the most competent. He leads FP Leader Jeromos (30%) and RKP Leader Dillon (29%).
With the first debate on Tuesday, the upcoming week may prove critical. The televised debate offers the parties a perfect venue to challenge their rivals and shape the their image in the voters' minds.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Wallup Poll 3/18/09
Wallup Poll 3/18/09
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 27%
FP - 25%
RKP - 25%
MP - 10%
MDP - 5%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 7%
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 27%
FP - 25%
RKP - 25%
MP - 10%
MDP - 5%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 7%
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Wallup Poll 3/17/09
Wallup Poll 3/17/09 -
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 26%
FP - 25%
RKP - 25%
MP - 12%
MDP - 6%
Don't Know/No Opinion: 6%
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 26%
FP - 25%
RKP - 25%
MP - 12%
MDP - 6%
Don't Know/No Opinion: 6%
NEC Announcements
NEC Newsbreak:
The National Election Commission is pleased to announced that the first nationally televised debate will be held on Tuesday, March 24th. All parties will be invited to participate. The debate, sponsored by the NEC and the Association of Franklin Reporters, will be the first of three. The first debate will focus on the economy and other domestic topics. The debate will be moderated by NEC Chairman J. McFarland and will consist of questions submitted by reporters from the major media outlets. The format will be straightforward. A question will be asked to a specific party and they will have three minutes to respond. After that time, another party may respond and elaborate. They will so be given three minutes. After the question's discussion has been exhausted the moderator will ask another question. The moderator will ask all questions and keep parties to the assigned time limits. Parties will be given one minute for opening and closing statements.
NEC Chairman Note:
Recently, the NEC has been criticized for its running of the upcoming election. It has been stated that the NEC's inability to hold the election on the prescribed date demonstrates lack of planning and organization. While I share parties' frustration with the date change, I do not share their critical evaluation. The NEC is charged with conducting free, fair, and open elections. This can not be achieved if all Franklin voters are not given equal opportunities to vote. The delay in voter machines is no fault of the NEC. However, it would be irresponsible to conduct an election with half the machines necessary. Furthermore, if critics would like a smoother election, I might suggest additional funding for the NEC. The NEC has seen its budget cut as the fiscal crisis worsens. The NEC understands and accepts criticism but also looks for understanding as budget and manufacturing difficulties interfere with the electoral process.
Sincerely,
J. McFarland
NEC Chairman
The National Election Commission is pleased to announced that the first nationally televised debate will be held on Tuesday, March 24th. All parties will be invited to participate. The debate, sponsored by the NEC and the Association of Franklin Reporters, will be the first of three. The first debate will focus on the economy and other domestic topics. The debate will be moderated by NEC Chairman J. McFarland and will consist of questions submitted by reporters from the major media outlets. The format will be straightforward. A question will be asked to a specific party and they will have three minutes to respond. After that time, another party may respond and elaborate. They will so be given three minutes. After the question's discussion has been exhausted the moderator will ask another question. The moderator will ask all questions and keep parties to the assigned time limits. Parties will be given one minute for opening and closing statements.
NEC Chairman Note:
Recently, the NEC has been criticized for its running of the upcoming election. It has been stated that the NEC's inability to hold the election on the prescribed date demonstrates lack of planning and organization. While I share parties' frustration with the date change, I do not share their critical evaluation. The NEC is charged with conducting free, fair, and open elections. This can not be achieved if all Franklin voters are not given equal opportunities to vote. The delay in voter machines is no fault of the NEC. However, it would be irresponsible to conduct an election with half the machines necessary. Furthermore, if critics would like a smoother election, I might suggest additional funding for the NEC. The NEC has seen its budget cut as the fiscal crisis worsens. The NEC understands and accepts criticism but also looks for understanding as budget and manufacturing difficulties interfere with the electoral process.
Sincerely,
J. McFarland
NEC Chairman
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Deportation Sounds Easy
The Franklin Times -
Like our neighbors, Franklin is a nation of immigrants. Our culture is one shaped by the mingling of dozens of ethnic, racial, and cultural groups. Almost our entire population finds immigrant populations in their ancestry. This fact, however, has not made the immigration issue any easier to address.
Also like our neighbors, Franklin has to define a clear and concise immigration policy. Yet, this may be easier said than done. The reason? Because defining an immigration policy also requires defining our nation's character.
Furthermore, the answer of simple deportation for the "undesirables" as advocated by some, may not be that simple. Consider the current problem facing the United States in the link below.
The Deportation Problem
Like our neighbors, Franklin is a nation of immigrants. Our culture is one shaped by the mingling of dozens of ethnic, racial, and cultural groups. Almost our entire population finds immigrant populations in their ancestry. This fact, however, has not made the immigration issue any easier to address.
Also like our neighbors, Franklin has to define a clear and concise immigration policy. Yet, this may be easier said than done. The reason? Because defining an immigration policy also requires defining our nation's character.
Furthermore, the answer of simple deportation for the "undesirables" as advocated by some, may not be that simple. Consider the current problem facing the United States in the link below.
The Deportation Problem
The Paradox of Thrift
The Franklin Times -
As the global economic crisis continues, a new economic principle is taking hold. The paradox of thrift revolves around the good and bad of personal savings. Saving, at the personal level, is a smart and economically rational decision. Saving is not only rational but is also responsible for it prevents one from spending outside one's means.
Yet, saving also as a dark side that is based in the aggregate. When taken collectively, some personal actions can be detrimental to the common good. Thus the paradox. Saving has a collectively negative effect on the economy. If everyone saves than consumer spending drops making it harder to emerge from a recession. Newsweek's cover story focuses on this problem. Please follow the attached link, read, and comment.
Newsweek: Stop Saving Now!
As the global economic crisis continues, a new economic principle is taking hold. The paradox of thrift revolves around the good and bad of personal savings. Saving, at the personal level, is a smart and economically rational decision. Saving is not only rational but is also responsible for it prevents one from spending outside one's means.
Yet, saving also as a dark side that is based in the aggregate. When taken collectively, some personal actions can be detrimental to the common good. Thus the paradox. Saving has a collectively negative effect on the economy. If everyone saves than consumer spending drops making it harder to emerge from a recession. Newsweek's cover story focuses on this problem. Please follow the attached link, read, and comment.
Newsweek: Stop Saving Now!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
G-20 officials wrestle with policy divisions
AP
By JANE WARDELL, AP Business Writer
HORSHAM, England – Brazil, Russia, India and China — the major emerging countries at a meeting of international finance officials here — have called on the United States and Europe to improve information sharing and demanded a bigger role in guiding the International Monetary Fund.
In a joint statement likely to be interpreted as a criticism of the main developed countries, the four said that the U.S. and the euro zone countries "should step up information sharing and policy coordination and work to ensure that macroeconomic policy is more balanced, proactive, coordinated and countercyclical with a view to promoting global economic recovery."
Developing countries have complained they are being sidelined in talks between finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 20 nations, which have so far been dominated by divisions between Europe and the United States over how to tackle the economic downturn.
In a communique released ahead of the full G-20 statement, the four countries also called for significantly more resources for the International Monetary Fund which lends to countries in financial trouble and said they wanted more voting weight in the IMF.
"We call for urgent action with regard to voice and representation in the IMF in order that they better reflect their real economic weights," the quartet said.
U.S. and European officials have agreed on the need to increase funding to the International Monetary Fund so it can help countries in trouble. The 16 nations that use the euro agreed this week to urge governments to double the IMF's resources to $500 billion and give it a key role overseeing risks to the global economy.
But the G-20, representing countries that account for more than 80 percent of the world economy, are in conflict over over whether to use fiscal stimulus — big spending packages and tax cuts — or better regulation to drag the world economy out of its slump.
The run-up to the gathering in a luxury hotel south of the British capital was marked by a trans-Atlantic dispute, with pointed comments from Washington that Europe was not doing enough to match Washington's $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel kept the battle lines drawn on Saturday after meeting separately with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, rejecting those calls and saying that action in Berlin, London and other European capitals had barely had time to produce results.
The debate has led many to fear that the gathering of finance chiefs will fail in its task set a common agenda on key issues for a full summit of G-20 heads of state and government on April 2, a major concern as black economic clouds continue to roll in.
The World Bank warned this week that the global economy will shrink this year for the first time since World War II and the United States reported Friday that its trade deficit plunged in January to the lowest level in six years as the economic downturn cut America's demand for imported goods, dashing hopes of a U.S.-led recovery.
China, meanwhile, has been battered by a plunge in global demand for its goods, with exports falling 25.7 percent in February.
With so much at stake, Britain is trying to act as a broker between European countries and the United States, pushing for a rescue package that includes both that and regulatory reform.
"I think you will find that countries will be agreeing together about what we are going to do in future, both in fiscal and monetary policy and in the regulatory system," Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in the joint press conference with Merkel.
But that confidence was undermined by Merkel, who pointed out the Germany, which has been criticised for not doing enough last year launched a fiscal stimulus equivalent to 4.2 percent of annual GDP.
"Nothing has actually yet taken effect on the ground," Merkel told reporters at London's Downing Street after meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. "If we want to strengthen the effect of such packages we will simply have to implement them first."
The International Monetary Fund estimates that only Saudi Arabia, Australia, China, Spain and the United States will introduce budget boosts worth 2 percent of gross domestic product this year, the level that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner considers "reasonable."
European nations claim that increased spending on social welfare and unemployment is a form of stimulus that will support the economy — and makes the total European Union rescue package higher than the U.S. program.
On the agenda at the gathering near Horsham, some 30 miles (about 50 kilometers) south of London, on Saturday were talks about principles for financial regulation and supervision, restoring credit channels and the reform of the International Monetary Fund.
Complicating matters, China has raised warnings about what Washington's drive to spend its way out of recession might do to U.S. government debt, which Beijing holds in large quantities. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has sent the U.S. a warning not to devalue the dollar — and China's estimated $1 trillion in dollar-denominated U.S. government debt — through reckless spending.
By JANE WARDELL, AP Business Writer
HORSHAM, England – Brazil, Russia, India and China — the major emerging countries at a meeting of international finance officials here — have called on the United States and Europe to improve information sharing and demanded a bigger role in guiding the International Monetary Fund.
In a joint statement likely to be interpreted as a criticism of the main developed countries, the four said that the U.S. and the euro zone countries "should step up information sharing and policy coordination and work to ensure that macroeconomic policy is more balanced, proactive, coordinated and countercyclical with a view to promoting global economic recovery."
Developing countries have complained they are being sidelined in talks between finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 20 nations, which have so far been dominated by divisions between Europe and the United States over how to tackle the economic downturn.
In a communique released ahead of the full G-20 statement, the four countries also called for significantly more resources for the International Monetary Fund which lends to countries in financial trouble and said they wanted more voting weight in the IMF.
"We call for urgent action with regard to voice and representation in the IMF in order that they better reflect their real economic weights," the quartet said.
U.S. and European officials have agreed on the need to increase funding to the International Monetary Fund so it can help countries in trouble. The 16 nations that use the euro agreed this week to urge governments to double the IMF's resources to $500 billion and give it a key role overseeing risks to the global economy.
But the G-20, representing countries that account for more than 80 percent of the world economy, are in conflict over over whether to use fiscal stimulus — big spending packages and tax cuts — or better regulation to drag the world economy out of its slump.
The run-up to the gathering in a luxury hotel south of the British capital was marked by a trans-Atlantic dispute, with pointed comments from Washington that Europe was not doing enough to match Washington's $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel kept the battle lines drawn on Saturday after meeting separately with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, rejecting those calls and saying that action in Berlin, London and other European capitals had barely had time to produce results.
The debate has led many to fear that the gathering of finance chiefs will fail in its task set a common agenda on key issues for a full summit of G-20 heads of state and government on April 2, a major concern as black economic clouds continue to roll in.
The World Bank warned this week that the global economy will shrink this year for the first time since World War II and the United States reported Friday that its trade deficit plunged in January to the lowest level in six years as the economic downturn cut America's demand for imported goods, dashing hopes of a U.S.-led recovery.
China, meanwhile, has been battered by a plunge in global demand for its goods, with exports falling 25.7 percent in February.
With so much at stake, Britain is trying to act as a broker between European countries and the United States, pushing for a rescue package that includes both that and regulatory reform.
"I think you will find that countries will be agreeing together about what we are going to do in future, both in fiscal and monetary policy and in the regulatory system," Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in the joint press conference with Merkel.
But that confidence was undermined by Merkel, who pointed out the Germany, which has been criticised for not doing enough last year launched a fiscal stimulus equivalent to 4.2 percent of annual GDP.
"Nothing has actually yet taken effect on the ground," Merkel told reporters at London's Downing Street after meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. "If we want to strengthen the effect of such packages we will simply have to implement them first."
The International Monetary Fund estimates that only Saudi Arabia, Australia, China, Spain and the United States will introduce budget boosts worth 2 percent of gross domestic product this year, the level that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner considers "reasonable."
European nations claim that increased spending on social welfare and unemployment is a form of stimulus that will support the economy — and makes the total European Union rescue package higher than the U.S. program.
On the agenda at the gathering near Horsham, some 30 miles (about 50 kilometers) south of London, on Saturday were talks about principles for financial regulation and supervision, restoring credit channels and the reform of the International Monetary Fund.
Complicating matters, China has raised warnings about what Washington's drive to spend its way out of recession might do to U.S. government debt, which Beijing holds in large quantities. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has sent the U.S. a warning not to devalue the dollar — and China's estimated $1 trillion in dollar-denominated U.S. government debt — through reckless spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
