Pages

Monday, August 2, 2010

Depression, Abuse, Suicide: Fishermen's Wives Face Post-Spill Trauma

Talk about post traumatic stress syndrome

"My husband's talking about finding BP CEOs and hurting them..."

"All I Wanted Was to See Happy Faces"

Louisiana fishermen's wives struggle to keep their kids—and themselves—from thinking about the oil spill.

Chamber of Commerce Goes After Climate Dissenters In Its Ranks


The pro-business lobby says a breakaway group of members calling for climate action is a front group for the NRDC.

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse

By DAVID STOCKMAN


IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.
More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.
This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.
The first of these started when the Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world. Now, since we have lived beyond our means as a nation for nearly 40 years, our cumulative current-account deficit — the combined shortfall on our trade in goods, services and income — has reached nearly $8 trillion. That’s borrowed prosperity on an epic scale.
It is also an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves. Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct.
It may be true that governments, because they intervene in foreign exchange markets, have never completely allowed their currencies to float freely. But that does not absolve Friedman’s $8 trillion error. Once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors.
In fact, since chronic current-account deficits result from a nation spending more than it earns, stringent domestic belt-tightening is the only cure. When the dollar was tied to fixed exchange rates, politicians were willing to administer the needed castor oil, because the alternative was to make up for the trade shortfall by paying out reserves, and this would cause immediate economic pain — from high interest rates, for example. But now there is no discipline, only global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve.
The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.
In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.
Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.
Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.
By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.
The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Here, Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation. As a result, the combined assets of conventional banks and the so-called shadow banking system (including investment banks and finance companies) grew from a mere $500 billion in 1970 to $30 trillion by September 2008.
But the trillion-dollar conglomerates that inhabit this new financial world are not free enterprises. They are rather wards of the state, extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives. They could never have survived, much less thrived, if their deposits had not been government-guaranteed and if they hadn’t been able to obtain virtually free money from the Fed’s discount window to cover their bad bets.
The fourth destructive change has been the hollowing out of the larger American economy. Having lived beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore. In the past decade, the number of high-value jobs in goods production and in service categories like trade, transportation, information technology and the professions has shrunk by 12 percent, to 68 million from 77 million. The only reason we have not experienced a severe reduction in nonfarm payrolls since 2000 is that there has been a gain in low-paying, often part-time positions in places like bars, hotels and nursing homes.
It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.
The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.


David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, is working on a book about the financial crisis.

Court missed the mark with ruling on immigration law (Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl


By Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) 07/29/10 11:07 AM ET

Arizona Sens. John McCain (R) and Jon Kyl (R) Wednesday made the following statement regarding the United States District Court of Arizona’s decision blocking enforcement of certain provisions of the Arizona immigration law:We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling today and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly "burden" the enforcement of federal immigration law.Instead of wasting tax payer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the Federal government has failed to take , it’s even more important to implement our Ten-Point Border Security plan to protect Arizonans and our country.



Despite injunction, Ariz. GOP believes court will uphold immigration law



By Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party - 07/29/10 09:08 AM ET


While we are disappointed in the federal court's decision to issue a temporary injunction, it is often the case that a judge will initially approve a temporary injunction until they have an opportunity to hear and read arguments and legal research from both sides. Our expectation is that Judge Bolton will rule in favor of S.B. 1070 as we believe that S.B. 1070 is constitutional.
Based on my prior experience with Proposition 200, I expect this case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The federal government's argument that S.B. 1070 would have placed and undue burden on them is as absurd as it is a complete dismissal of the tremendous burden placed on Arizona by the federal government not doing its job. The mere fact that they would rather sue the Grand Canyon state than allow us to protect ourselves is patently ridiculous and completely out of touch with needs of Arizonans.
Randy Pullen is chairman of the Arizona Republican Party and treasurer of the Republican National Committee.

'Sanctuary cities': A double standard on immigration (Rep. Charlie Dent)
By Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) 07/30/10 10:04 AM ET

Across the United States, discussions involving the state of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration enforcement law became very impassioned. Simultaneously, many Americans expressed concern surrounding the lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to prevent the law's implementation. Unfortunately, a very serious point was lost in the discourse.Working under the direction of President Obama, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in its suit that Arizona’s law must be struck down because it usurps federal authority to enforce current immigration law. Ironically, while the administration spends time and resources battling Arizona's law in court, dozens of "sanctuary cities" around the country candidly refuse to cooperate with federal officials on immigration enforcement. I am stunned by the hypocrisy exhibited by this administration’s decision to file a lawsuit against a state for enforcing laws to protect its residents from the harmful impact of border crime, while casting a blind eye to cities that provide safe haven to illegal and sometimes criminal aliens.During a recent hearing in the Committee on Homeland Security, I questioned James Dinkins, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) official tasked with conducting homeland security investigations, about this troubling double standard. Mr. Dinkins acknowledged that the lack of cooperation by sanctuary cities can be “challenging” for federal agencies and “does come at a cost,” especially when ICE experiences difficulties building a criminal case against an alien.

Arizona’s attorney general, who has been a vocal opponent of his state’s law, even admitted at the hearing there is an “inconsistency” in the federal government filing a lawsuit against his state for attempting to identify illegal aliens in their communities, given a recent public statement by the administration indicating it has no concern with addressing the dozens of sanctuary cities across the nation.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently released a report that found the cost of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is $113 billion annually. In my home state of Pennsylvania alone, the cost is an astonishing $1.3 billion. Surely these costs, borne by American taxpayers, would prompt swift action by the administration to crack down on cities deliberately providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case.
If this cost alone cannot garner the attention of the administration, certainly the dangerous activities of criminal aliens living in these communities must. Again, not the case. In 2007, the country was shocked by news that three young adults were brutally gunned down in a Newark, N.J., schoolyard by an illegal alien who was free on a $150,000 bond after being indicted on aggravated assault charges and 31 counts of child abuse.
Sadly, this assailant had an opportunity to kill these young people because the courts that set his bail were either unaware of or indifferent to the fact that he was living in this country illegally. This situation was not an aberration — at the time of the murders, the Newark Police Department had a policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” when it came to inquiring about a defendant’s immigration status. Though some may cast aside this case as a rare situation, the reality is there are cities with policies that mirror Newark’s across the country.
If this administration was serious about addressing the nation’s growing illegal immigration problem, it would be working to eliminate the alluring safe haven offered by sanctuary cities. Instead, it has prioritized a misguided lawsuit against a state taking steps to improve security for its residents in light of the federal government’s own failure to secure our southern border and enforce existing immigration laws.

Defining Prosperity Down






I’m starting to have a sick feeling about prospects for American workers — but not, or not entirely, for the reasons you might think.

 Yes, growth is slowing, and the odds are that unemployment will rise, not fall, in the months ahead. That’s bad. But what’s worse is the growing evidence that our governing elite just doesn’t care — that a once-unthinkable level of economic distress is in the process of becoming the new normal.
And I worry that those in power, rather than taking responsibility for job creation, will soon declare that high unemployment is “structural,” a permanent part of the economic landscape — and that by condemning large numbers of Americans to long-term joblessness, they’ll turn that excuse into dismal reality.
Not long ago, anyone predicting that one in six American workers would soon be unemployed or underemployed, and that the average unemployed worker would have been jobless for 35 weeks, would have been dismissed as outlandishly pessimistic — in part because if anything like that happened, policy makers would surely be pulling out all the stops on behalf of job creation.
But now it has happened, and what do we see?
First, we see Congress sitting on its hands, with Republicans and conservative Democrats refusing to spend anything to create jobs, and unwilling even to mitigate the suffering of the jobless.
We’re told that we can’t afford to help the unemployed — that we must get budget deficits down immediately or the “bond vigilantes” will send U.S. borrowing costs sky-high. Some of us have tried to point out that those bond vigilantes are, as far as anyone can tell, figments of the deficit hawks’ imagination — far from fleeing U.S. debt, investors have been buying it eagerly, driving interest rates to historic lows. But the fearmongers are unmoved: fighting deficits, they insist, must take priority over everything else — everything else, that is, except tax cuts for the rich, which must be extended, no matter how much red ink they create.
The point is that a large part of Congress — large enough to block any action on jobs — cares a lot about taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population, but very little about the plight of Americans who can’t find work.
Well, if Congress won’t act, what about the Federal Reserve? The Fed, after all, is supposed to pursue two goals: full employment and price stability, usually defined in practice as an inflation rate of about 2 percent. Since unemployment is very high and inflation well below target, you might expect the Fed to be taking aggressive action to boost the economy. But it isn’t.
It’s true that the Fed has already pushed one pedal to the metal: short-term interest rates, its usual policy tool, are near zero. Still, Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, has assured us that he has other options, like holding more mortgage-backed securities and promising to keep short-term rates low. And a large body of research suggests that the Fed could boost the economy by committing to an inflation target higher than 2 percent.
But the Fed hasn’t done any of these things. Instead, some officials are defining success down.
For example, last week Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, argued that the Fed bears no responsibility for the economy’s weakness, which he attributed to business uncertainty about future regulations — a view that’s popular in conservative circles, but completely at odds with all the actual evidence. In effect, he responded to the Fed’s failure to achieve one of its two main goals by taking down the goalpost.
He then moved the other goalpost, defining the Fed’s aim not as roughly 2 percent inflation, but rather as that of “keeping inflation extremely low and stable.”
In short, it’s all good. And I predict — having seen this movie before, in Japan — that if and when prices start falling, when below-target inflation becomes deflation, some Fed officials will explain that that’s O.K., too.
What lies down this path? Here’s what I consider all too likely: Two years from now unemployment will still be extremely high, quite possibly higher than it is now. But instead of taking responsibility for fixing the situation, politicians and Fed officials alike will declare that high unemployment is structural, beyond their control. And as I said, over time these excuses may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the long-term unemployed lose their skills and their connections with the work force, and become unemployable.
I’d like to imagine that public outrage will prevent this outcome. But while Americans are indeed angry, their anger is unfocused. And so I worry that our governing elite, which just isn’t all that into the unemployed, will allow the jobs slump to go on and on and on.



VIDEO: Obama's weekly address

By Bridget Johnson - 07/31/10 08:58 AM ET     



The Colombia free trade pact is bad policy

By Lauren Damme, policy adviser to International Program at Demos - 07/30/10 11:06 AM ET

Earlier this month, President Obama stated that he would push forward the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, along with those of Panama and South Korea, “as soon as possible.” This announcement came amid a concerted White House effort to appear more pro-business and was touted as an important step to fulfilling the president’s promise to double exports within five years.
It is hard to know whether the administration is serious about pushing the Colombia FTA or just posturing. Let’s hope the latter is true. Bringing up the agreement, which is strongly opposed by the AFL-CIO and other unions, would trigger an intra-party battle among Democrats over trade. And even if the White House prevailed, it would be a pyrrhic victory. The Colombia trade pact is plain bad policy. The deal would reward egregious labor and human rights violations, bring minimal benefits to the U.S. economy, and have destabilizing impacts on Colombia — which will be paid for by American taxpayers in the form of U.S. aid.
First, Colombia is infamously known as the most dangerous country in the world for unionists, but less well-known are the series of scandals that plagued Uribe’s tenure, including widespread party connections between Uribe’s close advisers and relatives to "demilitarized" paramilitaries, illegal wire-tapping of human and labor rights activists by DAS, the Colombian equivalent of the CIA, and the "falsos positivos" scandals in which the military murdered over 2,000 civilians and then dressed them as guerrillas to claim progress in Colombia’s internal war.
None of this may change with incoming president Juan Manuel Santos, Uribe’s handpicked successor who assumes power on Aug. 7, 2010. As former minister of defense and a closely held member of Uribe’s party, Santos’s proximity to these scandals means he will not take office with a clean slate, but must earn support by respecting human and labor rights as well as the independence of Colombia’s courts. The FTA is a big carrot the U.S. holds to push reform in Colombia, and it may be needed to make Santos prove what Uribe could not: that he can boost security while respecting human and labor rights.
Second, the small positive effects of the Colombia FTA on the U.S. economy may well be completely offset by the destabilizing impacts it will have on Colombia, for which American taxpayers will pay in the form of aid to Colombia.
In their June 2 letter, 39 members of Congress state that "further delay risks sacrificing the entire Colombian market to U.S. competitors." In reality, that "entire" market will represent (about two decades down the line after full implementation of the FTA) less than a 0.05 percent increase in U.S. gross domestic product, and the International Trade Commission predicts that the FTA will have "minimal or no effect on output or employment for most sectors in the U.S. economy."
While the Colombia FTA would likely confer few benefits on U.S. workers, its effect on Colombian workers would be severely negative. In particular, the FTA would be devastating to rural agricultural laborers, who constitute 20 percent of the country’s employment, provide 40 percent of its domestic food consumptionand generate 8 percent of Colombia’s GDP. By tearing down barriers to U.S. agricultural products, the FTA would put Colombia’s farmers in competition with giant U.S. agri-business firms subsidized by tax dollars. It is widely expected that thousands of rural workers would be displaced as cheap U.S. farm products — particularly rice, corn and beans — flood Colombia. Oxfam Colombia estimates that at least 15,000 rural jobs will be lost and small farmers’ incomes, which average less than $3.90 per day, will be reduced by almost half.
This means that the FTA is not just a bad deal for Colombia’s workers, but also for U.S. taxpayers — who would not only pay to subsidize U.S. agricultural products exported to Colombia, but would also foot the bill for increased security aid to Colombia (already a hefty $7.9 billion since 1996) when the displaced farmers turn to coca production or paramilitary employment to survive, perpetuating Colombia’s bloody civil war.
Rather than supporting an ally, passage of the FTA may actually increase instability in Colombia.
The FTA should be kept on ice until President-elect Santos can prove that he is more than just Uribe’s protégé; he must improve respect for human and labor rights in Colombia. The U.S. should also insist that Santos shows that he has a plan to offset the destabilizing impacts of the FTA. Only when these conditions are met should Congress give the deal with Colombia another look.
Lauren Damme is a policy adviser to the International Program at Demos, a New York-based think tank.



VIDEO: Weekly GOP address

By Bridget Johnson - 07/31/10 09:03 AM ET     

GOP leaders say focus on economic policies will be key to victory

By Bridget Johnson - 08/01/10 09:33 AM ET


Leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner said Sunday they couldn't bank on Democrats' ethics troubles to win in November.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) sounded a careful note Sunday about Republican chances, but insisted that a GOP takeover of Congress would be done on tax-and-spend arguments rather than Democrats' highly publicized Ethics Committee woes.
The two Republican leaders in Congress appeared jointly for the first time on "Fox News Sunday," where they were asked about about their confidence in a poll last week that showed the GOP expanding its lead in a generic ballot from four points to an 11-point lead.
"I'd love to have the election tomorrow," McConnell said. "Remember there's still three months to go; it's a long way to November.
"They're not going to go down easily," the Senate minority leader said of the Democrats.
Boehner echoed the sentiment. "I think we're having a good year but we've got a lot of work to do," he said, stressing that Republicans were sent home over recess with instructions to "talk about the better solutions that Republicans have been offering over the last 18 months."
While slamming the Democrats over their "job-killing" agenda, McConnell defended last week's blocking of the small-business bill in the Senate, calling the legislation "son of TARP."
Like the bailouts before it, McConnell said, the small-business bill "puts the government in a position of taking equity positions ... That's not the way out. The way out is to kill this job-killing tax increase that's coming."
Though expressing confidence that Republicans' best campaign strategy is to focus on Democrats' economic policy, Boehner didn't leave the ethics dilemma -- possibly two ethics trials for House Democrats in the run-up to midterm elections -- untouched.
"I cannot believe it's taken some two years to investigate the Charlie Rangel case," the House minority leader said. "The swamp is alive and well."




Pelosi strikes confident note on midterms: 'I'm not nervous at all'

By Elise Viebeck - 08/01/10 10:27 AM ET

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended House Democrats' prospects for November on ABC's "This Week" Sunday, saying that her members have a series of legislative victories to take home to constituents in August.

Christiane Amanpour, the new host of "This Week," quickly confronted the Speaker about comments made by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' comments in June that Republicans could be successful in their effort to reclaim the House.
"I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about what the president's employees say about one thing or another," Pelosi said of Gibbs' remark.

"We feel very confident about where we are, whether that's well known to that gentleman [Gibbs] or not," she added later.

House members begin their district work periods on Monday.

Pelosi was reticent when asked how she would have voted on the $33 billion supplemental appropriations bill for Afghanistan and Iraq, which passed the House 308-114 on Tuesday.

Amanpour noted that 102 Democrats voted against the measure this year, or 70 more than last year. Many were members of the leadership or committee chairmen.

Members who voted against the bill have said that there was less pressure than last year from Democratic leadership to support. Pelosi had said in advance that it would be "a different kind of vote." 

Pelosi explained on Sunday that there were "varying degrees of expression" in the 'nay' votes.

"How does this [the war] figure into our protecting the American people? Is it worth it? That's the question," she said.

She also responded to Vice President Biden's recent estimate that a 2011 drawdown could amount to "as few as a couple thousand troops."

"I know it's not going to be turn out the lights and let's all go home on one day," she said. "But I do think the American people expect it to be somewhere between that [a full-scale withdrawal] and a few thousand troops."

In discussing ethics charges against Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Pelosi gave no personal opinion.

"What we have done is to wait and see what the [House Ethics] Committee decides. I respect what they do. I'm totally out of the loop. It is independent. It is confidential, classified, secret, whatever."


Graham: GOP critics may unravel Afghan war effort

By Alexander Bolton - 08/01/10 01:14 PM ET


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that conservative critics could undermine the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan.

Graham cited recent comments by Republican Party chairman Michael Steels, who called the Afghanistan conflict “a war of Obama’s choosing.”

Steele said the war was “not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in” and alluded to Afghanistan’s reputation as the graveyard of empires.

Graham warned that liberal and conservative war critics could form “an unholy alliance,” during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Graham predicted that some Republicans would argue the U.S. can’t win because President Obama has set a goal of July 2011 to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

He said some Republicans will say that Obama “made it impossible for us to win, so why should we throw good money after bad, why should any more lives be lost in a hopeless cause because Obama screwed up?”

Graham noted that liberals oppose Obama’s Afghanistan policy because it is a continuation of a war policy set by President George W. Bush and liberals also doubt the prospects for success.

“My concern is that for different reasons, they join forces, and we lose the ability to hold this thing together,” Graham said.

Obama: GOP blocking Small Business Aid