I wrote last year that "The future is Dubai". But now the future has changed its stripes - and Dubai is in free fall Can't say I'm sorry.
The future is Dubai.
Dr. Who tipped me off.
They cylindrical space station
Circling the earth
Its occupants watching
While Earth
Explodes.
Marianne’s grandson
Has always lived in a high rise.
His friend moved to a house.
“What do you mean
There’s no elevator.
How do you
get out?”
The millionaire in Mumbai
Building a sixty story high palace
For himself, his family
And his
six hundred staff.
The Dubai theme park
The world recreated in miniature.
You can buy
For a very large sum
A small piece of one of the continents
Or you can look down on the whole
From one of the multistory
Luxury
Hotels.
Water – we make our own
Floods – we are high in the sky
Air – pollution be damned, ours is clean.
The rest of you out there?
Too bad.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Palestine - no new mindset
In his speech to State Department Employees on January 22 President Obama revealed that his thinking about the war in Gaza contains all too much of the old mindset on this conflict.
Hamas, said the President, “must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements”. There is no call for Israel to recognize Palestine’s right to exist, renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.
The speech contains a number of statements that indicate a sense of the weighing of several factors:
“The terror of rocket fire” suffered by “innocent Israelis” was given the same weight as a “future without hope for the Palestinians”. The "loss of Palestinian and Israeli life” were evidently of an equal level of deep concern. The “substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza”; the need of Palestinian civilians for “immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care”, and the fact that they have “faced suffocating poverty for far too long” were mentioned. However any long-term causes of this suffering were not.
The President stated what he sees as the terms of the outline for a durable cease-fire, involving steps to be taken by Hamas and Israel. However, these demands suggested a limited viewpoint. “Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza.” There is no requirement that Israel end its attacks on Palestinian territory, withdraw its forces and its settlers from Palestinian lands, and end its efforts to destroy Palestinian lives and livelihoods.
The US and its allies also have a role in bringing about a ceasefire - and here too the old mindset is clear: “the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm”. Meanwhile the US and its allies will undoubtedly continue to arm and rearm the Israeli Defense Forces.
The US must also, the President stated, “extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace” and called for Gaza's border crossings to be opened to allow relief to reach “innocent Palestinians” and to restore the flow of commerce. But rather than permitting Gazans to rebuild their economy and restore a normal level of commercial activity, the United States will look to foreign donors for “short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy”, assistance that will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority. Not, in other words, to Hamas, which is still to be viewed as a terrorist organization, not as the duly elected government of the Palestinian people.
The President believes that “lasting peace requires more than a long cease-fire" and affirmed his "active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security.” But lasting peace requires something other than the old mindset, and I find it hard to believe that George Mitchell, or any other US statesperson, can honestly mediate a fair and just resolution as long as thinking in Washington remains unchanged. As a mediator I find it hard to believe that the old mindset will lead to lasting peace.
Hamas, said the President, “must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements”. There is no call for Israel to recognize Palestine’s right to exist, renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.
The speech contains a number of statements that indicate a sense of the weighing of several factors:
“The terror of rocket fire” suffered by “innocent Israelis” was given the same weight as a “future without hope for the Palestinians”. The "loss of Palestinian and Israeli life” were evidently of an equal level of deep concern. The “substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza”; the need of Palestinian civilians for “immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care”, and the fact that they have “faced suffocating poverty for far too long” were mentioned. However any long-term causes of this suffering were not.
The President stated what he sees as the terms of the outline for a durable cease-fire, involving steps to be taken by Hamas and Israel. However, these demands suggested a limited viewpoint. “Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza.” There is no requirement that Israel end its attacks on Palestinian territory, withdraw its forces and its settlers from Palestinian lands, and end its efforts to destroy Palestinian lives and livelihoods.
The US and its allies also have a role in bringing about a ceasefire - and here too the old mindset is clear: “the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm”. Meanwhile the US and its allies will undoubtedly continue to arm and rearm the Israeli Defense Forces.
The US must also, the President stated, “extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace” and called for Gaza's border crossings to be opened to allow relief to reach “innocent Palestinians” and to restore the flow of commerce. But rather than permitting Gazans to rebuild their economy and restore a normal level of commercial activity, the United States will look to foreign donors for “short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy”, assistance that will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority. Not, in other words, to Hamas, which is still to be viewed as a terrorist organization, not as the duly elected government of the Palestinian people.
The President believes that “lasting peace requires more than a long cease-fire" and affirmed his "active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security.” But lasting peace requires something other than the old mindset, and I find it hard to believe that George Mitchell, or any other US statesperson, can honestly mediate a fair and just resolution as long as thinking in Washington remains unchanged. As a mediator I find it hard to believe that the old mindset will lead to lasting peace.
Monday, January 19, 2009
In honor of today
I, too, sing America.
I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
. . . When company comes."
Tomorrow
I’ll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody’ll dare
Say to me,
"Eat in the kitchen,"
Then.
Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful
I am
And be ashamed —
I, too, am America.
— Langston Hughes (1934)
I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
. . . When company comes."
Tomorrow
I’ll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody’ll dare
Say to me,
"Eat in the kitchen,"
Then.
Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful
I am
And be ashamed —
I, too, am America.
— Langston Hughes (1934)
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
bombing prisoners in a cage
There are 4 points I want to make today about the situation in Gaza.
1. Israel is bombing prisoners in a prison camp
Gaza is a tiny strip of land with about one-and-a-half million Arabs, half of them refugees. It is one of the most crowded places on earth. Civilians in the Gaza Strip are fenced in -- the sea on the west and heavily guarded borders on the land perimeter. As Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian surgeon working at a Gaza hospital, put it, the aerial bombardment of Gaza is like "bombing 1 1/2 million people in a cage." (LA Times)
2. Gazans are being collectively punished for their choice of Hamas in a free and fair election
In January 2006 Hamas was elected in a fair and free election. The election was monitored by a number of international observers, including President Jimmy Carter and declared free and fair. So Hamas is a democratically elected government of the Palestinian people and the representative of the Palestinian people in Gaza, as well as the West Bank. Israel, supported by the US and the EU (shame on them both) refused to recognize the Hamas-led government. Israel then proceeded to isolate Gaza, to destroy the infrastructure of Palestinian government, withhold supplies, and tax revenues owed to the Palestinian people.
3. Who starts the violence?
A recent statistical analysis by three academics (one at MIT, one at Harvard and one from Tel Aviv University) found that an overwhelming majority of lulls in violence since 2000 (when the second intifada began) ended when Israelis killed Palestinians, sparking renewed tit-for-tat violence. According to Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki, "79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks." The pattern was "more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. ... Of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%."
(also from the LA Times story)
And finally:
4. Palestinians, apparently, have no right to self-defense.
The resolution passed in Congress recently supports Israel’s right to self-defense. No such right apparently belongs to the imprisoned population of Gaza. The slaughter will continue until Israel is asked to commit to the right of existence of the people of Palestine!
1. Israel is bombing prisoners in a prison camp
Gaza is a tiny strip of land with about one-and-a-half million Arabs, half of them refugees. It is one of the most crowded places on earth. Civilians in the Gaza Strip are fenced in -- the sea on the west and heavily guarded borders on the land perimeter. As Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian surgeon working at a Gaza hospital, put it, the aerial bombardment of Gaza is like "bombing 1 1/2 million people in a cage." (LA Times)
2. Gazans are being collectively punished for their choice of Hamas in a free and fair election
In January 2006 Hamas was elected in a fair and free election. The election was monitored by a number of international observers, including President Jimmy Carter and declared free and fair. So Hamas is a democratically elected government of the Palestinian people and the representative of the Palestinian people in Gaza, as well as the West Bank. Israel, supported by the US and the EU (shame on them both) refused to recognize the Hamas-led government. Israel then proceeded to isolate Gaza, to destroy the infrastructure of Palestinian government, withhold supplies, and tax revenues owed to the Palestinian people.
3. Who starts the violence?
A recent statistical analysis by three academics (one at MIT, one at Harvard and one from Tel Aviv University) found that an overwhelming majority of lulls in violence since 2000 (when the second intifada began) ended when Israelis killed Palestinians, sparking renewed tit-for-tat violence. According to Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki, "79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks." The pattern was "more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. ... Of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%."
(also from the LA Times story)
And finally:
4. Palestinians, apparently, have no right to self-defense.
The resolution passed in Congress recently supports Israel’s right to self-defense. No such right apparently belongs to the imprisoned population of Gaza. The slaughter will continue until Israel is asked to commit to the right of existence of the people of Palestine!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
what is happening in Gaza?
The reaction of so many so-called leaders to what is happening in Gaza chokes me.
I learnt as a child that many Jews were ashamed of the widespread acceptance of the appalling situation in the Warsaw Ghetto and other horrors imposed by the Nazis on Jewish populations under their control. Yet many in Israel and elsewhere seem to have internalized the lesson as meaning that they now must retaliate with violence regardless of circumstances. They seem not to be able to walk in the shoes of another population imprisoned, cut-off, surrounded and suffering deprivation, starvation and bombardment.
An op ed by Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia in Thursday's New York Times provides a background to recent events that is all too sadly missing from Mainstream Media's coverage. IT also includes this statement:
This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”
A detailed description of life in Gaza before and after the recent renewal of hostilities is provided by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. You can read a summary, or download a full copy, at http://www.anera.org/aboutUs/ANERA-Gaza_Compare.php
The violence against humanity was bad enough before December 27th. Afterwards it shames every human being that we can tolerate such inhumane violence without protest.
Make your voice heard:
1. Go to Change.gov to let the Obama transition team know that you demand:
• Pressure on Israel for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire
• Unimpeded access of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and a lifting of Israel's siege
• An investigation into Israel's misuse of U.S. weapons as a first step toward ending arms transfers to Israel
2. Contact your congressional representatives
You can do so easily from this address: http://tools.advomatic.com/11/Gaza-Ceasefire-Now [ABOUT J STREET: J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israel conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. We support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the U.S. role in the region. info@jstreet.org
Alternatively: US Campaign to End the occupation: http://www.endtheoccupation.org/form.php?modin=137
Or
http://www.avaaz.org/avaaz_gaza_congress_action
I learnt as a child that many Jews were ashamed of the widespread acceptance of the appalling situation in the Warsaw Ghetto and other horrors imposed by the Nazis on Jewish populations under their control. Yet many in Israel and elsewhere seem to have internalized the lesson as meaning that they now must retaliate with violence regardless of circumstances. They seem not to be able to walk in the shoes of another population imprisoned, cut-off, surrounded and suffering deprivation, starvation and bombardment.
An op ed by Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia in Thursday's New York Times provides a background to recent events that is all too sadly missing from Mainstream Media's coverage. IT also includes this statement:
This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”
A detailed description of life in Gaza before and after the recent renewal of hostilities is provided by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. You can read a summary, or download a full copy, at http://www.anera.org/aboutUs/ANERA-Gaza_Compare.php
The violence against humanity was bad enough before December 27th. Afterwards it shames every human being that we can tolerate such inhumane violence without protest.
Make your voice heard:
1. Go to Change.gov to let the Obama transition team know that you demand:
• Pressure on Israel for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire
• Unimpeded access of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and a lifting of Israel's siege
• An investigation into Israel's misuse of U.S. weapons as a first step toward ending arms transfers to Israel
2. Contact your congressional representatives
You can do so easily from this address: http://tools.advomatic.com/11/Gaza-Ceasefire-Now [ABOUT J STREET: J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israel conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. We support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the U.S. role in the region. info@jstreet.org
Alternatively: US Campaign to End the occupation: http://www.endtheoccupation.org/form.php?modin=137
Or
http://www.avaaz.org/avaaz_gaza_congress_action
Monday, January 5, 2009
Keynes in the ascendancy again?
I suspect not, but as an unapologetic anti-Friedmanite and pro-Keynesian, I love to read this:
Paul Krugman, this year’s Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, writes:
For many years most economists believed that preventing another Great Depression would be easy.
In 2003, Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago, in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, declared that the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”
Milton Friedman, in particular, persuaded many economists that the Federal Reserve could have stopped the Depression in its tracks simply by providing banks with more liquidity, which would have prevented a sharp fall in the money supply. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, famously apologized to Friedman on his institution’s behalf: “You’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”
It turns out, however, that preventing depressions isn’t that easy after all. Under Mr. Bernanke’s leadership, the Fed has been supplying liquidity like an engine crew trying to put out a five-alarm fire, and the money supply has been rising rapidly. Yet credit remains scarce, and the economy is still in free fall.
Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment.
The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Mr. Obama’s plans to rescue the economy.
THANK YOU MR. KRUGMAN.
Paul Krugman, this year’s Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, writes:
For many years most economists believed that preventing another Great Depression would be easy.
In 2003, Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago, in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, declared that the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”
Milton Friedman, in particular, persuaded many economists that the Federal Reserve could have stopped the Depression in its tracks simply by providing banks with more liquidity, which would have prevented a sharp fall in the money supply. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, famously apologized to Friedman on his institution’s behalf: “You’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”
It turns out, however, that preventing depressions isn’t that easy after all. Under Mr. Bernanke’s leadership, the Fed has been supplying liquidity like an engine crew trying to put out a five-alarm fire, and the money supply has been rising rapidly. Yet credit remains scarce, and the economy is still in free fall.
Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment.
The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Mr. Obama’s plans to rescue the economy.
THANK YOU MR. KRUGMAN.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Straws in the wind – Labor
While Bush takes a last swipe at labor in his proposal to bailout GM and Chrysler, there are signs of a change in the climate for workers.
For several decades
* Working people have been treated like enemies, a class to be preyed upon.
* Labor unions were ferociously attacked.
* Jobs were shipped overseas by the millions.
* People were hired as temps or consultants so benefits could be denied.
In the words of Leo Gerard, president of the steelworkers union: “Washington will bail out those who shower before work, but not those who shower afterwards.”
Promising developments
A labor secretary, Hilda Solis, who is pro-labor: she “is pro-worker to her core, a politician who knows what it’s like to walk a picket line”.
More than 200 laid-off workers staged a successful six-day sit-in at a factory in Chicago, demanding and eventually getting severance pay and benefits that they were owed by law.
In Tar Heel, N.C., last week workers, after a brutal 15-year struggle, succeeded in organizing the notorious Smithfield Packing slaughterhouse, the largest hog-killing and processing plant in the world.
From Bob Herbert
For several decades
* Working people have been treated like enemies, a class to be preyed upon.
* Labor unions were ferociously attacked.
* Jobs were shipped overseas by the millions.
* People were hired as temps or consultants so benefits could be denied.
In the words of Leo Gerard, president of the steelworkers union: “Washington will bail out those who shower before work, but not those who shower afterwards.”
Promising developments
A labor secretary, Hilda Solis, who is pro-labor: she “is pro-worker to her core, a politician who knows what it’s like to walk a picket line”.
More than 200 laid-off workers staged a successful six-day sit-in at a factory in Chicago, demanding and eventually getting severance pay and benefits that they were owed by law.
In Tar Heel, N.C., last week workers, after a brutal 15-year struggle, succeeded in organizing the notorious Smithfield Packing slaughterhouse, the largest hog-killing and processing plant in the world.
From Bob Herbert
Obama Watch - the stimulus plan
Stimulus plan to be ready to sign after the inauguration - maybe.
From the NYT 12/20/08, expect to see some of this included.
It will be for about $1 trillion for a two-year program. Only items that "spend out quickly, create jobs and constitute sound national policy" will be considered.
The plan will involve these areas:
1. health care financing: about a fifth of the package
• Up to $100 billion to subsidize the states’ Medicaid caseloads
• a down payment on the $50 billion to help medical providers buy information technology and save costs on health records. {Not the most progressive answer to cutting health care costs - wonder who he owes this to?}
2. Tax relief: roughly $200 billion in tax relief for low-wage and middle-class workers, including a payroll tax holiday to "fatten paychecks and encourage Americans to spend more and spur economic activity". {We are to go back to buying in order to save the economy?}
3. Energy-saving programs
4. Public works projects, school construction and renovation,
5. Expanded jobless aid and food stamps
From the NYT 12/20/08, expect to see some of this included.
It will be for about $1 trillion for a two-year program. Only items that "spend out quickly, create jobs and constitute sound national policy" will be considered.
The plan will involve these areas:
1. health care financing: about a fifth of the package
• Up to $100 billion to subsidize the states’ Medicaid caseloads
• a down payment on the $50 billion to help medical providers buy information technology and save costs on health records. {Not the most progressive answer to cutting health care costs - wonder who he owes this to?}
2. Tax relief: roughly $200 billion in tax relief for low-wage and middle-class workers, including a payroll tax holiday to "fatten paychecks and encourage Americans to spend more and spur economic activity". {We are to go back to buying in order to save the economy?}
3. Energy-saving programs
4. Public works projects, school construction and renovation,
5. Expanded jobless aid and food stamps
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Myth-building on housing crisis
The Republicans are well on the way to a rewrite of history on what caused the housing crisis.
Case in point: Housing Goals We Can’t Afford by HOWARD HUSOCK
He writes: "The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 when bank competition was sharply limited by law and lenders had little incentive to seek out business in lower-income neighborhoods. But in 1995 the Clinton administration added tough new regulations. The federal government required banks that wanted “outstanding” ratings under the act to demonstrate, numerically, that they were lending both in poor neighborhoods and to lower-income households."
Hmm. The way I understood it was that the CRA forced banks to stop discriminating and redlining.
Case in point: Housing Goals We Can’t Afford by HOWARD HUSOCK
He writes: "The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 when bank competition was sharply limited by law and lenders had little incentive to seek out business in lower-income neighborhoods. But in 1995 the Clinton administration added tough new regulations. The federal government required banks that wanted “outstanding” ratings under the act to demonstrate, numerically, that they were lending both in poor neighborhoods and to lower-income households."
Hmm. The way I understood it was that the CRA forced banks to stop discriminating and redlining.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
How much are Auto CEO's offering to give up? Not Much!
In order to get their billions from the US taxpayer, The Big Three CEOs and in some cases the Directors, are offering to reduce their 2009 salaries to $1. To find out how much this would actually cost them, I did a little research.
What is the compensation for auto industry executives?
In 2006, the CEOs of Chrysler Group, Ford and GM earned a combined total of $24.5 million in salaries, bonuses and other compensation in 2006. The next four highest paid executives received average salary and other compensation of $1.3 million at Ford and $1.4 million at GM.
Looks like they will lose a few million each. But, are they planning to forego all compensation except $1, or only salary? Or salary and bonuses? What about stocks and stock options that were also part of executive compensation, which were not included in the figures above.
We can see more clearly what else they might give up in these figures for Ford’s top 5 employees, from Ford’s Annual Report for 2007.
• Alan Mulally, Ford president and chief executive officer, earned $2,000,000 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $7 million. His total 2007 compensation was $21,670,674, which includes salary, bonuses, the Company-recognized expense for stock options and other stock-based awards, as well as all other compensation. His salary, in other words, was a mere 9.23% of his total compensation.
• Don Leclair, Ford executive vice president and chief financial officer, earned $1,005,633 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $3 million. His 2007 compensation totaled $11,703,127. (Salary was 8.6%)
• Mark Fields, Ford executive vice president and president, The Americas, earned $1,255,634 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $2,850,000. His 2007 compensation totaled $8,389,898. (15%)
• Lewis Booth, Ford executive vice president, Ford of Europe and Premier Automotive Group, earned $868,133 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $2,250,000. His 2007 compensation totaled $10,264,463. (8.46%)
• Mike Bannister, Ford executive vice president and CEO, Ford Motor Credit Company earned $708,700 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $2,150,000. His 2007 compensation totaled $8,677,747. (8.17%)
In other words in 2007, while salary and bonuses were approximately $6 million dollars, this represented only 8-15% of the total compensation they received for their year’s efforts. These top 5 Ford employees actually received approximately $60.72 million in total compensation. For the same period GM’s top 2 earned $15.7 million for 2007, up 64 percent from the previous year, (while GM lost a record $38.7 billion). Because Chrysler is privately owned it does not have to publish this information - but I imagine the figures are much the same.
How much of this total compensation are the CEO’s offering to give up? That is not clear!
Just for comparison, what else could these dollars cover?
If you divided the $60.72 million compensation paid to Ford’s top 5 between the approximately 245,000 employees worldwide they would each receive an additional $24,836.74 each. A nice additional annual wage for many of them. In fact, paying every single one of Ford's employees as much as the best paid UAW-represented skilled-trades workers ($67,225 /yr) would cost the company a mere $16.4 million. That's less than three-quarters of Mulally's take home pay!
What were the “Labor costs” which the Republicans are so anxious to reduce?
Wage rates for 2006, according to the UAW, which covers about 721,025 employees at the big 3, were as follows;
• A typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. ($58,240/yr)
• A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. ($67,225 /yr)
In addition to regular hourly pay, labor cost figures include overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.
How much value do UAW members contribute to their employers?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour. This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.
How much are labor costs in relation to the total price of a new vehicle?
The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants. This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006. The vast majority of the costs of producing a vehicle and transporting it to a dealership and preparing it for sale – including design, engineering, marketing, raw materials, executive compensation and other costs – are not related to direct or indirect manufacturing labor.
So this is what the Republicans are so keen to destroy - a union-negotiated wage which provides a decent income to automobile workers, while preserving the obscene compensation packages of the grossly overpaid executives. What a bill of goods!
What is the compensation for auto industry executives?
In 2006, the CEOs of Chrysler Group, Ford and GM earned a combined total of $24.5 million in salaries, bonuses and other compensation in 2006. The next four highest paid executives received average salary and other compensation of $1.3 million at Ford and $1.4 million at GM.
Looks like they will lose a few million each. But, are they planning to forego all compensation except $1, or only salary? Or salary and bonuses? What about stocks and stock options that were also part of executive compensation, which were not included in the figures above.
We can see more clearly what else they might give up in these figures for Ford’s top 5 employees, from Ford’s Annual Report for 2007.
• Alan Mulally, Ford president and chief executive officer, earned $2,000,000 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $7 million. His total 2007 compensation was $21,670,674, which includes salary, bonuses, the Company-recognized expense for stock options and other stock-based awards, as well as all other compensation. His salary, in other words, was a mere 9.23% of his total compensation.
• Don Leclair, Ford executive vice president and chief financial officer, earned $1,005,633 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $3 million. His 2007 compensation totaled $11,703,127. (Salary was 8.6%)
• Mark Fields, Ford executive vice president and president, The Americas, earned $1,255,634 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $2,850,000. His 2007 compensation totaled $8,389,898. (15%)
• Lewis Booth, Ford executive vice president, Ford of Europe and Premier Automotive Group, earned $868,133 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $2,250,000. His 2007 compensation totaled $10,264,463. (8.46%)
• Mike Bannister, Ford executive vice president and CEO, Ford Motor Credit Company earned $708,700 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $2,150,000. His 2007 compensation totaled $8,677,747. (8.17%)
In other words in 2007, while salary and bonuses were approximately $6 million dollars, this represented only 8-15% of the total compensation they received for their year’s efforts. These top 5 Ford employees actually received approximately $60.72 million in total compensation. For the same period GM’s top 2 earned $15.7 million for 2007, up 64 percent from the previous year, (while GM lost a record $38.7 billion). Because Chrysler is privately owned it does not have to publish this information - but I imagine the figures are much the same.
How much of this total compensation are the CEO’s offering to give up? That is not clear!
Just for comparison, what else could these dollars cover?
If you divided the $60.72 million compensation paid to Ford’s top 5 between the approximately 245,000 employees worldwide they would each receive an additional $24,836.74 each. A nice additional annual wage for many of them. In fact, paying every single one of Ford's employees as much as the best paid UAW-represented skilled-trades workers ($67,225 /yr) would cost the company a mere $16.4 million. That's less than three-quarters of Mulally's take home pay!
What were the “Labor costs” which the Republicans are so anxious to reduce?
Wage rates for 2006, according to the UAW, which covers about 721,025 employees at the big 3, were as follows;
• A typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. ($58,240/yr)
• A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. ($67,225 /yr)
In addition to regular hourly pay, labor cost figures include overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.
How much value do UAW members contribute to their employers?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour. This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.
How much are labor costs in relation to the total price of a new vehicle?
The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants. This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006. The vast majority of the costs of producing a vehicle and transporting it to a dealership and preparing it for sale – including design, engineering, marketing, raw materials, executive compensation and other costs – are not related to direct or indirect manufacturing labor.
So this is what the Republicans are so keen to destroy - a union-negotiated wage which provides a decent income to automobile workers, while preserving the obscene compensation packages of the grossly overpaid executives. What a bill of goods!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Changing generations
For all the moving photos of the campaign trail, of the rally at Grant Park, and of the headlines around the world, the most moving photo for me was the photo in the New York Times on November 5, of ""Latrice Barnes and her daughter.
Judith Warner wrote of this photo in the same paper the following day: "For me, this will be the enduring memory of election night 2008: One generation released its grief. The next looked up confusedly, eager to please and yet unable to comprehend just what the tears were about."
Barack Obama is right. Younger people are indeed growing up in a world of new sensibilities!
Judith Warner wrote of this photo in the same paper the following day: "For me, this will be the enduring memory of election night 2008: One generation released its grief. The next looked up confusedly, eager to please and yet unable to comprehend just what the tears were about."
Barack Obama is right. Younger people are indeed growing up in a world of new sensibilities!
now for some good economics maybe?
“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
To which Paul Krugman adds:
And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump. So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.
I am SO glad to hear that!
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
To which Paul Krugman adds:
And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump. So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.
I am SO glad to hear that!
Keeping a list
of items I want to action on in an Obama administration
Supreme Court items to watch out for include:
* Roe v Wade
* National security - guantanamo
* Church-state separation
* Gay rights
* Affirmative action
* Electoral issues - gerrymandering, FEC
* First Amendment protection
Then there is the whole matter of the corruption of the judiciary by the Republicans - can we reclaim the benches?
Supreme Court items to watch out for include:
* Roe v Wade
* National security - guantanamo
* Church-state separation
* Gay rights
* Affirmative action
* Electoral issues - gerrymandering, FEC
* First Amendment protection
Then there is the whole matter of the corruption of the judiciary by the Republicans - can we reclaim the benches?
New York Times catches up
See my posts on this dated September 20 2008
From the New York Times, November 7, 2008
Georgia Claims on Russia War Called Into Question
By C. J. CHIVERS and ELLEN BARRY
Newly available accounts raise questions about the accuracy and honesty of Georgia’s insistence that it acted defensively against Russian aggression.
From the New York Times, November 7, 2008
Georgia Claims on Russia War Called Into Question
By C. J. CHIVERS and ELLEN BARRY
Newly available accounts raise questions about the accuracy and honesty of Georgia’s insistence that it acted defensively against Russian aggression.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Was the bank bailout bill a bill of goods?
Joe Nocera, New York Times business analyst, thinks so.
Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat and chair of the Senate Banking Committee On Thursday, asked Neel Kashkari - the former Goldman Sachs Vice President Henry Paulson appointed to oversee the bailout - why the banks were being slow to make loans.
Senator Dodd: "How was Treasury going to ensure that banks used their new government capital to make loans — “besides rhetorically begging them?”
Kashkari: “We share your view. We want our banks to be lending in our communities.”
According to Nocera, what is actually happening is quite different. He suggests that Paulson’s rationale for the bailout - that banks would start lending again - "is a fig leaf.”
Instead the real agenda is more bank mergers.
Treasury recently introduced a new tax break that, according to Nocera, has only one purpose: to encourage bank mergers”. He cites tax expert Robert Willens: “It couldn’t be clearer if they had taken out an ad.”
As a result of this and other moves, “investors no longer trust Treasury.”
"First it says it has to have $700 billion to buy back toxic mortgage-backed securities.
"Then, as Mr. Paulson divulged to The Times this week, it turns out that even before the bill passed the House, he told his staff to start drawing up a plan for capital injections. Fearing Congress’s reaction, he didn’t tell the Hill about his change of heart.
"Now, he’s shifted gears again, and is directing Treasury to use the money to force bank acquisitions."
And loans to the public meantime?
“The dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans”. Nocera listened in on a conference call between Chase executives and caught the following discussion of how Chase was going to spend the $25 billion it received from the Treasury:
“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”
“Read that answer as many times as you want”, says Nocera, “you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy.”
Nocera chased down Senator Dodd “and asked him what he was going to do if the loan situation didn’t improve. “All I can tell you is that we are going to have the bankers up here .... If it turns out that they are hoarding, you’ll have a revolution on your hands. ... There will be hell to pay.”
Nocera’s summary:
“I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to feel as if we’ve been sold a bill of goods.”
So When Will Banks Give Loans? By Joe Nocera, NYT. Published: October 24, 2008
Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat and chair of the Senate Banking Committee On Thursday, asked Neel Kashkari - the former Goldman Sachs Vice President Henry Paulson appointed to oversee the bailout - why the banks were being slow to make loans.
Senator Dodd: "How was Treasury going to ensure that banks used their new government capital to make loans — “besides rhetorically begging them?”
Kashkari: “We share your view. We want our banks to be lending in our communities.”
According to Nocera, what is actually happening is quite different. He suggests that Paulson’s rationale for the bailout - that banks would start lending again - "is a fig leaf.”
Instead the real agenda is more bank mergers.
Treasury recently introduced a new tax break that, according to Nocera, has only one purpose: to encourage bank mergers”. He cites tax expert Robert Willens: “It couldn’t be clearer if they had taken out an ad.”
As a result of this and other moves, “investors no longer trust Treasury.”
"First it says it has to have $700 billion to buy back toxic mortgage-backed securities.
"Then, as Mr. Paulson divulged to The Times this week, it turns out that even before the bill passed the House, he told his staff to start drawing up a plan for capital injections. Fearing Congress’s reaction, he didn’t tell the Hill about his change of heart.
"Now, he’s shifted gears again, and is directing Treasury to use the money to force bank acquisitions."
And loans to the public meantime?
“The dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans”. Nocera listened in on a conference call between Chase executives and caught the following discussion of how Chase was going to spend the $25 billion it received from the Treasury:
“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”
“Read that answer as many times as you want”, says Nocera, “you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy.”
Nocera chased down Senator Dodd “and asked him what he was going to do if the loan situation didn’t improve. “All I can tell you is that we are going to have the bankers up here .... If it turns out that they are hoarding, you’ll have a revolution on your hands. ... There will be hell to pay.”
Nocera’s summary:
“I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to feel as if we’ve been sold a bill of goods.”
So When Will Banks Give Loans? By Joe Nocera, NYT. Published: October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A sleazy blizzard
It's a blizzard of really nasty robocalls and flyers in the mail.
After several last week we got 2 calls yesterday, but one friend got 3 in an hour - all disgusting anti-Obama stuff, from the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign - they aren't even using cover.
Here' s one we got (I got the text from Democracy Now's website, but it is word for word)
McCAIN ROBOCALL: Hello, I’m calling for John McCain and the RNC, because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the US Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home, and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500.
The flyer covers the same ground.
Unlike John Kerry, who was slow responding to the Swift Boat crap, Obama folk move fast. Here is their response:
OBAMA ROBOCALL: Hi. This is Jeri Watermolen calling for the Campaign for Change. I live in Green Bay, and like you, I’ve been getting sleazy phone calls and mail from John McCain and his supporters, viciously and falsely attacking Barack Obama. I used to support John McCain, because he honorably served our country. But this year he’s running a dishonorable campaign. We know McCain will continue many of Bush’s policies, and now he’s using George Bush’s divisive tactics. In fact, he hired the Bush strategist whose attacks even McCain once called hateful. Barack Obama will turn the page on these negative politics and stand up for the middle class. That’s the change we need, and it is why I have changed my mind about John McCain. Join me in voting for Barack Obama. Paid for by the Campaign for Change, a project of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, 608-255-5172, and authorized by Obama for America. (Again, text from Democracy Now website).
And the reaction is good. For one, a Madison man who quit his job rather than make these calls is getting national attention, including in the NYT today. And this from that same story.
"On MSNBC, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was launching into the Obama/terrorist spin when she suggested that the news media should investigate “the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America.” So far, the only person who’s felt the impact of her call to reinvent McCarthyism for a post-Communist planet has been her opponent, a hitherto totally ignored Democrat named Elwyn Tinklenberg, who was stunned to discover in the following days that he had received close to $1 million in donations."
MAYBE sleaze isn't going to pay off this time.
After several last week we got 2 calls yesterday, but one friend got 3 in an hour - all disgusting anti-Obama stuff, from the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign - they aren't even using cover.
Here' s one we got (I got the text from Democracy Now's website, but it is word for word)
McCAIN ROBOCALL: Hello, I’m calling for John McCain and the RNC, because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the US Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home, and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500.
The flyer covers the same ground.
Unlike John Kerry, who was slow responding to the Swift Boat crap, Obama folk move fast. Here is their response:
OBAMA ROBOCALL: Hi. This is Jeri Watermolen calling for the Campaign for Change. I live in Green Bay, and like you, I’ve been getting sleazy phone calls and mail from John McCain and his supporters, viciously and falsely attacking Barack Obama. I used to support John McCain, because he honorably served our country. But this year he’s running a dishonorable campaign. We know McCain will continue many of Bush’s policies, and now he’s using George Bush’s divisive tactics. In fact, he hired the Bush strategist whose attacks even McCain once called hateful. Barack Obama will turn the page on these negative politics and stand up for the middle class. That’s the change we need, and it is why I have changed my mind about John McCain. Join me in voting for Barack Obama. Paid for by the Campaign for Change, a project of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, 608-255-5172, and authorized by Obama for America. (Again, text from Democracy Now website).
And the reaction is good. For one, a Madison man who quit his job rather than make these calls is getting national attention, including in the NYT today. And this from that same story.
"On MSNBC, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was launching into the Obama/terrorist spin when she suggested that the news media should investigate “the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America.” So far, the only person who’s felt the impact of her call to reinvent McCarthyism for a post-Communist planet has been her opponent, a hitherto totally ignored Democrat named Elwyn Tinklenberg, who was stunned to discover in the following days that he had received close to $1 million in donations."
MAYBE sleaze isn't going to pay off this time.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Goldman Sachs fingers in Wall Street bailout?
I was struck by the fact that no-one in power seemed to have noticed that we were in economic trouble until their pockets were threatened, when all of a sudden they decided to pick ours.
So I was intrigued by the question as to whether Henry Paulson's Goldman Sachs background and connections had anything to do with his sudden discovery of the problem. (Or rather whether there were any smoking pistols). Seems pretty clear from the following timeline:
On Sept 14 Lehmans was allowed to go into bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch was in trouble, and AIG asked The Fed for $40b.
Over the weekend Sept 14-15, there were meetings at the New York Federal Reserve. Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, attended as did Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs attended the weekend meetings.
On Sept 15 the Fed said no to AIG, the Dow Jones sank over 500 points.
On Sept 16 there was another high level meeting to discuss financial aid for A.I.G. which Henry Paulson did not attend, but Blankfein was the ONLY Wall Street chief executive who attended this meeting. The Fed changed its mind and gave AIG $85b.
Why let Lehman collapse, but first deny then save AIG?
Probably not the only reason, but my guess is not unrelated, Goldman Sachs was deeply threatened by an AIG collapse, though few people were aware of this at first. A Goldman spokesman, declined to detail how badly hurt his firm might have been had A.I.G. collapsed and Goldman’s chief financial officer, assured analysts on Sept. 16 that his firm’s exposure was “immaterial". But other stories have confirmed that GS was in danger. By one calculation Goldman had $20 billion worth of risk tied to A.I.G.
On Sept. 16 the government announced its two-year, $85 billion loan to A.I.G. What is notable is that the plan saved the insurer’s trading partners - such as Goldman Sachs - but decimated its shareholders.
A Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment about Goldman’s role in the A.I.G. rescue. However turn around again and suddenly Goldman had changed its regulatory status to help bolster its finances.
Regarding Mr. Blankfein’s presence at the Fed during talks about an A.I.G. bailout, Goldman's CFO said: “I think it would be a mistake to read into it that he was there because of our own interests. We were engaged because of the implications to the entire system.”
On Sept 18 Secretary Paulson went the next step and proposed the $700 billion to bailout 'the entire system'.
So I was intrigued by the question as to whether Henry Paulson's Goldman Sachs background and connections had anything to do with his sudden discovery of the problem. (Or rather whether there were any smoking pistols). Seems pretty clear from the following timeline:
On Sept 14 Lehmans was allowed to go into bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch was in trouble, and AIG asked The Fed for $40b.
Over the weekend Sept 14-15, there were meetings at the New York Federal Reserve. Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, attended as did Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs attended the weekend meetings.
On Sept 15 the Fed said no to AIG, the Dow Jones sank over 500 points.
On Sept 16 there was another high level meeting to discuss financial aid for A.I.G. which Henry Paulson did not attend, but Blankfein was the ONLY Wall Street chief executive who attended this meeting. The Fed changed its mind and gave AIG $85b.
Why let Lehman collapse, but first deny then save AIG?
Probably not the only reason, but my guess is not unrelated, Goldman Sachs was deeply threatened by an AIG collapse, though few people were aware of this at first. A Goldman spokesman, declined to detail how badly hurt his firm might have been had A.I.G. collapsed and Goldman’s chief financial officer, assured analysts on Sept. 16 that his firm’s exposure was “immaterial". But other stories have confirmed that GS was in danger. By one calculation Goldman had $20 billion worth of risk tied to A.I.G.
On Sept. 16 the government announced its two-year, $85 billion loan to A.I.G. What is notable is that the plan saved the insurer’s trading partners - such as Goldman Sachs - but decimated its shareholders.
A Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment about Goldman’s role in the A.I.G. rescue. However turn around again and suddenly Goldman had changed its regulatory status to help bolster its finances.
Regarding Mr. Blankfein’s presence at the Fed during talks about an A.I.G. bailout, Goldman's CFO said: “I think it would be a mistake to read into it that he was there because of our own interests. We were engaged because of the implications to the entire system.”
On Sept 18 Secretary Paulson went the next step and proposed the $700 billion to bailout 'the entire system'.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Who's rich, who's poor
John McCain thinks the line between rich and poor is about $5 million a year. That makes the vast majority of us poor, but also shows he doesn't know much about how the vast majority of us live. I guess he only knows rich folk.
But then many people think that the Republicans make life better for most of us, too - another error. The historical record shows that under Democrats we all do better. Under Republicans even the rich don't do as well as they would with a Dem President - but pity the poor!
Family Income Growth, annual average 1948-2005
By income level (Adjusted for inflation)
Percentile Under Dem. Pres. Under Rep. Pres
20th + 2.64% + 0.43%
40th + 2.46% + 0.8 %
60th + 2.47% + 1.13%
80th + 2.38% + 1.39%
95th + 2.12% + 1.90%
The 20th percentile is a plausible dividing line between the poor and the non-poor.
The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich - well below the $5 million threshold John McCain used. It’s closer to $180,000.
Source: Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?
By ALAN S. BLINDER, August 30, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?scp=1&sq=Blinder&st=cse
But then many people think that the Republicans make life better for most of us, too - another error. The historical record shows that under Democrats we all do better. Under Republicans even the rich don't do as well as they would with a Dem President - but pity the poor!
Family Income Growth, annual average 1948-2005
By income level (Adjusted for inflation)
Percentile Under Dem. Pres. Under Rep. Pres
20th + 2.64% + 0.43%
40th + 2.46% + 0.8 %
60th + 2.47% + 1.13%
80th + 2.38% + 1.39%
95th + 2.12% + 1.90%
The 20th percentile is a plausible dividing line between the poor and the non-poor.
The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich - well below the $5 million threshold John McCain used. It’s closer to $180,000.
Source: Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?
By ALAN S. BLINDER, August 30, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?scp=1&sq=Blinder&st=cse
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Want more wars? Vote Johnny ‘shoot ‘em down’ McCain
Let’s be clear: Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili started this particular outbreak of violence. On the night of Aug. 7, Saakashvili ordered an artillery barrage against Tskhinvali, in South Ossetia, and sent an armored column to occupy the town, killing a number of Russian peacekeepers. As a result of a three-day battle Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people fled. However Russian claims of genocide appear to have been exaggerated.
The big question is Why? Was Saakashvili under the impression that NATO or the US military would intervene if Russia fought back? It seems hard to imagine that he would have invaded South Ossetia if he did not think he had American backing. How could he have had that idea?
Well now ... joint US-Georgian military exercises ended just hours before Georgian troops moved into the province. A senior Bush administration official acknowledged that “it’s possible that Georgians may have confused the cheerleading from Washington with something else.”
And the 'confusing cheerleading' goes back longer than that. The US foreign policy teams have crammed NATO expansion down the Russians’ throats since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The West has expanded military alliances up to Russian borders, and assumed that Russia would do nothing about it.
A Russian perspective
Former Soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev points out that Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts on a number of issues:
On the independence of Kosovo, the Russians had insisted that independence for Kosovo would be a serious affront. Last February, the United States and the European Union, over Russia’s vehement objections, recognized an independent Kosovo.
On the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries:(today) August 20 2008 the US and Poland announced an agreement on the siting of 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland.
On the unending expansion of NATO: Mr. Bush has promised NATO membership and its accompanying umbrella of American military support to Georgia.
Mr. Putin, angry at what he saw as American infringement right in his backyard, decided that Georgia was the line in the sand that the West would not be allowed to cross.
The McCain connection: McCain adviser also Georgia lobbyist.
Was McCain himself involved in setting this Russian bear trap? The Georgian crisis has created a campaign issue McCain can run on. The new trumped up threats about Russia make his antic-Soviet experience "relevant" again. And John McCain and friends were busy stirring the pot.
On April 17 McCain spoke with Saakashvili by phone, a call arranged by Randy Scheunemann, his major foreign policy adviser. Scheunemann is a leading neo-conservative lobbyist for oil companies and arms manufacturer. He was until recently a registered foreign agent for Georgia, and was Director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. After the conversation, McCain issued a statement, saying that “we must not allow Russia to believe it has a free hand to engage in policies that undermine Georgian sovereignty.” Later that day, Scheunemann's Orion Strategies lobbying firm signed a new $200,000 deal with Georgia.
Bush team divided
Within the Bush administration, there is discord, as “the fight between the hawks and the doves” erupted anew, according to one administration official.
The hawks: Cheney and his aides and allies including the assistant secretary of state for Europe, Daniel Fried, see Georgia as a role model for their democracy promotion campaign. They have argued for more American military aid for Georgia, including Stinger antiaircraft missiles, so that it could defend itself against possible Russian aggression.
The “doves”: Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Burns, the new under secretary of state for political affairs, have urged restraint. They argued that such a sale would provoke Russia, which would see it as arrogant meddling in its turf, the officials and diplomats said. Ms. Rice, for the time being, has won the fight against adding American-provided Stinger missiles to Georgia’s arsenal.
Is Saakashvili a democrat?
By last November, Mr. Saakashvili’s democratic credentials were becoming checkered. Accused by the opposition of corruption, arrogance and centralization, he declared a state of emergency. He won a snap election this year on a vote that the opposition said was rigged.
The oil connection:
If Saakashvili did believe he had US support, why did he not get it? Perhaps this is where that favorite foreign policy addiction – oil – plays a role in this dispute. The United States has poured hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and military hardware, mostly to protect the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that bypasses Russia and Iran on its way to Turkey.
Sources
U.S. Watched as a Squabble Turned Into a Showdown, Helene Cooper, C.J. Chivers, Clifford Levy, The New York Times, August 18, 2008 US troops train Georgians amid tension by Douglas Birch and Misha Dzhindzhikhashvili Associated Press, Jul 21st, 2008 | TBILISI, Georgia What Did We Expect? By Thomas Friedman, The New York Times: August 19, 2008 Russia Never Wanted a War, by Mikhael Gorbachev, The New York Times: August 19, 2008 The Battle of Tskhinvali Tour of Tskhinvali undercuts Russian claim of genocide, By Tom Lasseter | McClatchy Newspapers, Associated Press, Sunday, August 17, 2008Oil pipelines
The big question is Why? Was Saakashvili under the impression that NATO or the US military would intervene if Russia fought back? It seems hard to imagine that he would have invaded South Ossetia if he did not think he had American backing. How could he have had that idea?
Well now ... joint US-Georgian military exercises ended just hours before Georgian troops moved into the province. A senior Bush administration official acknowledged that “it’s possible that Georgians may have confused the cheerleading from Washington with something else.”
And the 'confusing cheerleading' goes back longer than that. The US foreign policy teams have crammed NATO expansion down the Russians’ throats since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The West has expanded military alliances up to Russian borders, and assumed that Russia would do nothing about it.
A Russian perspective
Former Soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev points out that Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts on a number of issues:
On the independence of Kosovo, the Russians had insisted that independence for Kosovo would be a serious affront. Last February, the United States and the European Union, over Russia’s vehement objections, recognized an independent Kosovo.
On the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries:(today) August 20 2008 the US and Poland announced an agreement on the siting of 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland.
On the unending expansion of NATO: Mr. Bush has promised NATO membership and its accompanying umbrella of American military support to Georgia.
Mr. Putin, angry at what he saw as American infringement right in his backyard, decided that Georgia was the line in the sand that the West would not be allowed to cross.
The McCain connection: McCain adviser also Georgia lobbyist.
Was McCain himself involved in setting this Russian bear trap? The Georgian crisis has created a campaign issue McCain can run on. The new trumped up threats about Russia make his antic-Soviet experience "relevant" again. And John McCain and friends were busy stirring the pot.
On April 17 McCain spoke with Saakashvili by phone, a call arranged by Randy Scheunemann, his major foreign policy adviser. Scheunemann is a leading neo-conservative lobbyist for oil companies and arms manufacturer. He was until recently a registered foreign agent for Georgia, and was Director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. After the conversation, McCain issued a statement, saying that “we must not allow Russia to believe it has a free hand to engage in policies that undermine Georgian sovereignty.” Later that day, Scheunemann's Orion Strategies lobbying firm signed a new $200,000 deal with Georgia.
Bush team divided
Within the Bush administration, there is discord, as “the fight between the hawks and the doves” erupted anew, according to one administration official.
The hawks: Cheney and his aides and allies including the assistant secretary of state for Europe, Daniel Fried, see Georgia as a role model for their democracy promotion campaign. They have argued for more American military aid for Georgia, including Stinger antiaircraft missiles, so that it could defend itself against possible Russian aggression.
The “doves”: Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Burns, the new under secretary of state for political affairs, have urged restraint. They argued that such a sale would provoke Russia, which would see it as arrogant meddling in its turf, the officials and diplomats said. Ms. Rice, for the time being, has won the fight against adding American-provided Stinger missiles to Georgia’s arsenal.
Is Saakashvili a democrat?
By last November, Mr. Saakashvili’s democratic credentials were becoming checkered. Accused by the opposition of corruption, arrogance and centralization, he declared a state of emergency. He won a snap election this year on a vote that the opposition said was rigged.
The oil connection:
If Saakashvili did believe he had US support, why did he not get it? Perhaps this is where that favorite foreign policy addiction – oil – plays a role in this dispute. The United States has poured hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and military hardware, mostly to protect the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that bypasses Russia and Iran on its way to Turkey.
Sources
U.S. Watched as a Squabble Turned Into a Showdown, Helene Cooper, C.J. Chivers, Clifford Levy, The New York Times, August 18, 2008 US troops train Georgians amid tension by Douglas Birch and Misha Dzhindzhikhashvili Associated Press, Jul 21st, 2008 | TBILISI, Georgia What Did We Expect? By Thomas Friedman, The New York Times: August 19, 2008 Russia Never Wanted a War, by Mikhael Gorbachev, The New York Times: August 19, 2008 The Battle of Tskhinvali Tour of Tskhinvali undercuts Russian claim of genocide, By Tom Lasseter | McClatchy Newspapers, Associated Press, Sunday, August 17, 2008Oil pipelines
Caucasian War Timeline
Timeline: 2008
January: Georgian Ministry of Defense released a “strategic defense review” that laid out its broad military planning for the breakaway regions.
March 19: Saakashvili was in Washington to push for NATO membership for Georgia
April 3: Bush lobbied NATO leaders for Ukraine and Georgia to be welcomed into a Membership Action Plan that prepares nations for NATO membership, the night before the NATO summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania. Mr. Bush lost that battle.
April 4: NATO leaders agreed to endorse a United States missile defense system based in Eastern Europe, and the Europeans said invitations to the membership plan for Georgia and Ukraine might come in a year, at the next summit.
April 17: McCain spoke with Saakashvili by phone, a call arranged by Randy Scheunemann, his major foreign policy adviser. After the conversation, McCain issued a statement, on that “we must not allow Russia to believe it has a free hand to engage in policies that undermine Georgian sovereignty.”
Scheunemann is a leading neo-conservative lobbyist for oil companies and arms manufacturer. He was until recently a registered foreign agent for Georgia, and was Director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Later that day, Scheunemann's Orion Strategies lobbying firm signed a new $200,000 deal with Georgia.
April 21: a Georgian pilotless reconnaissance plane flying over Abkhazia was shot down. Georgia accused Russia of shooting it down while Mr. Putin expressed “bewilderment” at Georgia’s sending planes over Abkhazia.
May and June: Russia increased the number of troops in South Ossetia and sent troops into Abkhazia for ‘humanitarian’ reasons.
July: Condaleeza Rice in Tbilisi, where, aides said, she privately told Mr. Saakashvili not to let Russia provoke him into a fight he could not win. But her public comments were far more supportive.
July 21 - Aug 6: Joint US-Georgian military exercises involving more than 1,000 U.S. Marines and soldiers at a former Soviet base Monday, amid heightened tensions with Moscow.
August 1-5: Shelling from South Ossetia to Georgia proper increased significantly Georgian police officers were wounded by remotely detonated explosions in South Ossetia. Troops from Georgia battled separatist fighters, killing at least 6 people; the Georgians accused the South Ossetian separatists of firing at Georgian towns behind the shelter of Russian peacekeepers.
August 6: Separatists fired on several Georgian villages. The Russian Defense Ministry and South Ossetian officials say that Georgians provoked the escalation by shelling Russian peacekeeping positions in the region’s capital of Tskhinvali, along with civilian areas.
January: Georgian Ministry of Defense released a “strategic defense review” that laid out its broad military planning for the breakaway regions.
March 19: Saakashvili was in Washington to push for NATO membership for Georgia
April 3: Bush lobbied NATO leaders for Ukraine and Georgia to be welcomed into a Membership Action Plan that prepares nations for NATO membership, the night before the NATO summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania. Mr. Bush lost that battle.
April 4: NATO leaders agreed to endorse a United States missile defense system based in Eastern Europe, and the Europeans said invitations to the membership plan for Georgia and Ukraine might come in a year, at the next summit.
April 17: McCain spoke with Saakashvili by phone, a call arranged by Randy Scheunemann, his major foreign policy adviser. After the conversation, McCain issued a statement, on that “we must not allow Russia to believe it has a free hand to engage in policies that undermine Georgian sovereignty.”
Scheunemann is a leading neo-conservative lobbyist for oil companies and arms manufacturer. He was until recently a registered foreign agent for Georgia, and was Director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Later that day, Scheunemann's Orion Strategies lobbying firm signed a new $200,000 deal with Georgia.
April 21: a Georgian pilotless reconnaissance plane flying over Abkhazia was shot down. Georgia accused Russia of shooting it down while Mr. Putin expressed “bewilderment” at Georgia’s sending planes over Abkhazia.
May and June: Russia increased the number of troops in South Ossetia and sent troops into Abkhazia for ‘humanitarian’ reasons.
July: Condaleeza Rice in Tbilisi, where, aides said, she privately told Mr. Saakashvili not to let Russia provoke him into a fight he could not win. But her public comments were far more supportive.
July 21 - Aug 6: Joint US-Georgian military exercises involving more than 1,000 U.S. Marines and soldiers at a former Soviet base Monday, amid heightened tensions with Moscow.
August 1-5: Shelling from South Ossetia to Georgia proper increased significantly Georgian police officers were wounded by remotely detonated explosions in South Ossetia. Troops from Georgia battled separatist fighters, killing at least 6 people; the Georgians accused the South Ossetian separatists of firing at Georgian towns behind the shelter of Russian peacekeepers.
August 6: Separatists fired on several Georgian villages. The Russian Defense Ministry and South Ossetian officials say that Georgians provoked the escalation by shelling Russian peacekeeping positions in the region’s capital of Tskhinvali, along with civilian areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)