http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/watch.html
The above link takes you to the transcript of a conversation between Bill Moyers and Wendell Potter, who is a former health-insurance executive. The conversation was broadcast on Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. If you haven't seen the broadcast, then I strongly encourage you to read the transcript. You can also watch a video of the program.
If you agree with what Potter has to say, then please go to the following link:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/transcript4.html?print
and print up the transcript and send or fax it to your Congressional representatives and Senators, especially if you live in a state represented by "Blue Dog" Democrats. Better yet, hand it to them personally. However you do it, tell them that you expect a response from them.
A Show Of Confidence From The Top Will End Economic Turmoil
By Ben Stein
Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/08/sunday/main4852193.shtml#
March 8, 2009
by Rabbi Arthur Waskow 01-29-2009
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/01/29/beyond-gaza-an-abrahamic-peace/
Beyond anguish, what can we say about the massive death and destruction in Gaza and the traumatic fear of falling rockets in Israel? How do we shape not just the temporary palliative of “cease-fire,” but a true alternative? Not just in pretty theory, but in political practicality?
The Obama administration could start by insisting that the Israeli and Egyptian governments open the borders of Gaza to shipments of food and medicine and fuel, while improving the prevention of importing weapons. At the same time, it could refuse to supply Israel with white phosphorus and other weapons that the Israeli government illegally used against the civilian population of Gaza.
But such changes –- only the beginning –- will not happen without public demand for change from a new political alliance inside the U.S. and a new nonviolent campaign by Palestinians, Israelis, and Europeans.First of all, Palestinians could change reality on the ground by mounting vigorous, assertive, nonviolent resistance to the blockade/embargo. In the weeks just before the invasion of Gaza, small boatloads of people were bringing food and medical supplies to Gaza, ignoring or violating the Israeli blockade. After the invasion began, two more such boats were forced to turn back by the Israeli Navy.
These “ship-ins” were building support in much of the world, pointing out the injustice and violence of the blockade. Instead of canceling the cease-fire and firing rockets once again, Hamas could have turned those boats into a multitude. They might have built an enormous popular pressure in Europe and the U.S. for an end to the blockade and negotiations between Israel, the various powers, and Hamas.
Even now, with or without support from Hamas, European doctors, academics, clergy, political leaders, and peace activists could sponsor a flotilla of “ship-ins.” And Palestinians who live in Israel and in the allegedly “annexed” East Jerusalem could start blockading Israeli roads in a strictly nonviolent way –- not even stone-throwing. They could and would be joined by some Israelis.
Such an effort to challenge in a new way the assumptions behind Israeli power could galvanize a new response from the world at large –- even from the United States. But even if such a nonviolent campaign does not emerge, there are the beginnings of a more conventional approach to peacemaking.
Any effort to heal the wounds of the Middle East must include the Palestinian-Israeli relationship but cannot stop there. For years, the Arab League, led by Saudi Arabia, has proposed a regional peace settlement that would bring peace to Israel in exchange for the recognition of a new and viable Palestinian state. The Israeli government, with support from the U.S. government, has ignored the proposal. But for many Israelis, this would actually be the fulfillment of the dream of a secure and peaceful life.
Can an Israeli government now say, “We are ready to join in these negotiations”? We are ready to deal with a new Palestinian government of national unity that includes Hamas, which obviously has considerable strength among the Palestinian community. For us the deal must include only very small symbolic numbers of Palestinian refugees returning to Israel itself, and control of the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem.
Perhaps now, after the Gaza invasion, any Israeli government can do this and say that they have not rewarded terrorism, are not negotiating from weakness, have shown they can be bloody. But would they want to? That would require a deep rethinking because it would mean a serious commitment to ending the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as the blockade of Gaza. Settlers and other opponents of doing this, though fewer in numbers than those who will support it, will be much more intense in their opposition. So the government is likely to be paralyzed, refusing to do what is necessary for peace, resorting to old slogans and the institutional and cultural power of the military to justify paralysis.
So the necessary counterweight for this domestic paralysis will have to come from outside -– that is, the United States. Appointing George Mitchell, the weaver of the Irish peace settlement, as peace envoy to the Middle East is an excellent start. But it will mean little unless the U.S. adopts a whole new policy toward the region.
The alternative policy for the U.S. government would be to use the disaster of Gaza to insist on a regional Middle East peace conference; to insist that even a Netanyahu government of Israel and even a Hamas leadership of Gaza or Palestine take part and accept a decent peace; to connect the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq with serious diplomacy with Iran and a political settlement of the Afghan agony; and to move swiftly off the fossil fuel addiction that drives a planetary disaster and drives American policy into corruption or conquest in the Middle Eastern oil pools.
Only the biggest response can meet the need. Half-measures, the normal response of governments facing complex conflict, will not work.
And what might make such a break with automatic U.S. policy possible? The presidency of an unusual person chanting “change” is not enough. There are only two clusters of power in the U.S. with enough passion about the Middle East to matter. One is Big Oil. The other is the ethnic and religious passion of American Christians, Jews, and Muslims. If sizeable parts of these groups could work together for such a policy, it might be possible.
For many Jews and Muslims, that is even harder now than it was a month ago. But for others, the shock of so much blood has already brought about unexpected alliances -– and could make it possible.
At the grassroots in some American communities, some Jews have joined with some Muslims in local demonstrations calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. The peace-oriented American Jewish organizations might be willing to take their previous positions one step further. They might be able to work with American Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and others to press the new administration toward a grand peace.
The building blocks for such a coalition now exist. Can they be mortared together? A roused Muslim-American community, not yet well organized for political action but speedily getting more so; the beginnings of an independent base in the Jewish community (Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, J Street, Americans for Peace Now, The Shalom Center, the Israel Policy Forum, Tikkun, Jewish Voice for Peace) that could draw strength from the majority of real live American Jews – who support such a result but whose politics are unvoiced by the big American Jewish organizations; mainstream Protestant groups that are raring to go and will be effective if they can focus on changing U.S. policy instead of parading their own personal purity as in the divestment campaigns, and if they have Jewish allies so as not to be accused (or accuse themselves) of anti-Semitism; a vague Roman Catholic support for the same result, which might be stimulated into action; black community support, pro-peace and ready to affirm Palestinian self-determination, but so far not focused on this issue because there are other urgencies and they feel the need for Jewish allies to address those urgencies; and non-religiously or ethnically identified progressives, if they can get over their habit of treating the word “Zionist” as a curse word and start clearly condemning terrorist attacks on civilians by the underdogs, as well as military attacks, occupation, and blockade by the uber-dogs.
The effort to shape such a Grand Abrahamic Alliance should begin now.
Rabbi Arthur Waskow is director of The Shalom Center, which voices a new prophetic agenda in Jewish, multireligious, and American life. He is co-author of The Tent of Abraham: Stories of Hope and Peace for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, as well as the author of many books on Jewish thought and practice and U.S. public policy.
Stephen Zunes wrote this article as part of A Just Foreign Policy, the Summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine. Link: http://www.yesmagazine.org/other/pop_print_article.asp?ID=2683
Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is possible悠sraeli security and Palestinian rights are not mutually exclusive, but rather each is impossible without the other.
The Palestinian Authority and virtually all the Arab states are now on record expressing their willingness to recognize Israel and to provide security guarantees in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands conquered in the June 1967 war. This would leave the Palestinians with just 22 percent of historic Palestine. Nonetheless, the U.S.-backed Israeli position is that the Palestinians should be allowed an independent 都tate・on even less territory and only in a series of non-contiguous cantons surrounded by Israel and with the Israeli government controlling the air space, water resources, and the movement of people and goods.
Unlike some earlier periods in Israel痴 past, the country痴 survival is no longer at stake. The Israeli military is far more powerful than any combination of Arab armies. Despite the threat of periodic shelling and suicide bombings from Islamic extremists, most Israelis are relatively secure within their country痴 internationally recognized borders. Where Israeli soldiers and civilians are most vulnerable is in the occupied Palestinian territories. In these areas, illegal Israeli settlements and roads 650;eserved for Jews only幼reate an apartheid-like situation, and make it extremely difficult for Israeli forces to defend against a population angry at the occupiers who have confiscated what is often their best land. Israel would be far more secure defending a clearly defined and internationally recognized border than an archipelago of illegal outposts within Palestinian territory.
It is the ongoing Israeli occupation and colonization of the West Bank, along with the siege of the Gaza Strip, which creates the hopelessness and desperation that breed extremist violence. Only when the occupation ends will the threat from Palestinian terrorism finally have a realistic chance of being controlled.
U.S. policy in this troubled region has become increasingly controversial, but it should not be criticized as being too 菟ro-Israel.・U.S.-backed Israeli policies are not only jeopardizing the human rights of their Arab victims, they are hurting Israel痴 legitimate interests as well.
撤eace・proposals that allow Israel to annex large swathes of occupied Palestinian territory様ike those the Clinton administration pushed at Camp David in 2000 and the Bush administration has been supporting subsequently幼annot provide rights or security to either side. A truly pro-Israel policy would maintain the U.S. commitment to the security and well-being of the Jewish state, but would insist that Israel end its occupation, withdraw from its illegal settlements, and allow for the emergence of a viable, contiguous, independent Palestinian state.
This may require that the United States apply pressure 768;uch as withholding military and economic aid擁f the Israeli government continues to violate its obligations under international humanitarian law. Such aid does not help Israel much anyway. Indeed, most of the more than $2 billion in annual 杜ilitary assistance・to Israel amounts to a credit line to American arms manufacturers and actually ends up costing Israelis two to three times that amount for personnel, training, and spare parts. The additional $2 billion in U.S. economic aid is little more than the interest Israel is required to pay American banks from loans for previous arms purchases.
Many of those in Washington who call themselves supporters of Israel are supporting Israel痴 hawks who are making the country more dependent upon the United States. This increases Israel痴 vulnerability by preventing it from recognizing its natural alliance with the world痴 Afro-Asian majority. Within Israel, there is a solid progressive minority that supports the necessary compromises for peace and a similar-sized militaristic minority that does not. Most Israelis are in the middle and, as Israeli scholar and peace activist Galia Golan describes it, 典hey will lean left when Israel is feeling pressure from the United States but lean right in situations like today when there is no U.S. pressure.・
The combination of Israeli technology, Palestinian entrepreneurship and industriousness, and Arabian oil wealth could result in an economic, political, and social transformation of the Middle East. This would be highly beneficial to the region痴 inhabitants, but not necessarily to powerful U.S. interests who benefit from the current policy of divide-and-rule. An Israel at peace with its neighbors would be far less likely to be willing to serve as a reliable ally in support of U.S. hegemonic designs in this critical region.
If the United States really wants to be a friend of Israel, the U.S. government must apply some 鍍ough love.・This would entail unconditional support for Israel痴 right to exist in peace and security, but with an insistence that Israel uphold its international obligations and withdraw its settlers and troops from the occupied territories. Only then can the violence end and peace become a reality. And only then will the United States be a true friend of Israel.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, where he chairs the Middle East Studies program. He is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage, 2003) and a member of the advisory board of the Tikkun Community. www.stephenzunes.org
FORECASTER OF THE MONTH
Economy needs help urgently, top forecasters say
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Economy-needs-help-urgently-top/story.aspx?guid=%7bA2887F22-E41D-452D-9106-9FC1F57F6611%7d&print=true&dist=printMidSection
Feb. 9, 2009
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Congress and the Federal Reserve should act with more urgency to help the economy, say top economic forecasters at IHS Global Insight.
Even with the expected approval of the economic stimulus plan and a new program at the Fed to fix consumer credit markets, the nation will likely endure at least several more quarters of economic misery, said Nigel Gault and Brian Bethune, domestic economists for Global Insight, who won the January forecaster of the month award from MarketWatch.
Gault and Bethune now have won three of the past four monthly contests, an unprecedented stretch of forecasting fortune in the five years we've been running the contest to honor those forecasters who do the best job of anticipating the monthly economic numbers that move markets.
Gault said the U.S. economy desperately needs the fiscal stimulus now being debated in Congress. "It doesn't fix the fundamental problems, but it prevents things from getting worse while we take care of the other problems."
"It's big and it's going to make a difference, I just wish it were happening sooner," Gault said. "We could be in a much deeper hole by the time the stimulus kicks in."
"We need aggressive monetary policy and aggressive fiscal policy," Bethune agreed. Bethune, who focuses on the financial side of the economy, says the Fed has dragged its feet on two promising programs that would provide support for mortgage lending and other consumer loans. The Fed's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (or TALF) will finally get under way later this month.
Gault doesn't buy the argument that the economy would be better off without the stimulus plan, that what's needed is some "cathartic bloodletting," that we "need to take our lumps."
"The Great Depression tells what happens if you try to let the private economy sort it out," Gault said. "The private economy can get stuck at an abnormally low level of activity."
The economy is falling so fast now, that the economy will have plenty of slack for a long time. The unemployment rate won't fall back to a normal level for years, Gault said. That's an incredible waste of human potential. There's almost no chance that the stimulus will work too well.
IHS Global Insight is forecasting the economy will contract at a 6% annual pace in the current quarter, followed by a 3.4% annualized decline in the second quarter. Growth should be flat in the third quarter and grow at a 1.7% annualized rate in the fourth quarter. Those figures assume a vigorous response by the Congress and the Fed.
Government spending is needed to fill the gap left by businesses and households, which are hoarding as much cash as they can. When everyone saves, it reduces economic activity so much that you end up with less savings than before, Gault said.
"The private sector is acting in its own self-interest," Bethune said. "But they neglect to see what they are doing collectively."
Getting credit flowing again is as essential as the stimulus is.
"Banks are in a very difficult position," Bethune said. "Whenever you have depletion of capital, the natural reaction is to tighten credit. Securitization is contracting at an incredible rate."
Bethune figures banks need between $50 billion and $300 billion in capital. The Treasury plan to be announced on Tuesday should help. "That might be starting to push the sled downfield," Bethune said.
In the January contest, Gault and Bethune narrowly beat Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. The other runners-up in January were Brian Fabbri of BNP Paribas, the team of Maury Harris and Jim O'Sullivan of UBS, and Neal Soss's team at Credit Suisse.
The Global Insight team had the most accurate forecasts among 46 economists on three of the 10 indicators tracked in the contest: ISM, the trade gap and new home sales
The median forecasts that MarketWatch publishes each week in the Economic Calendar come from the forecasts of the 10 economists who've scored the highest in our contest over the past 12 months, as well as the forecasts of the most recent winner and the forecasts of MarketWatch chief economist Irwin Kellner.
Over the past 12 months, the top economists are, in order: Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital; Harris and O'Sullivan of UBS; Gault and Bethune of Global Insight, Dean Maki and Ethan Harris's team at Barclays Capital; Michael Feroli at J.P. Morgan; Soss's team at Credit Suisse; Stephen Gallagher and Aneta Markowska of Societe Generale; David Greenlaw and Ted Wieseman of Morgan Stanley; Jan Hatzius's team at Goldman Sachs; and Michael Moran at Daiwa America Securities.
Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch.
02.04.09
By Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/02/dire_news.php
Behind all the back and forth over the Stimulus Bill is a simple fact: the debate in Washington is rapidly moving away from any recognition that the US economy -- and the global economy, for that matter -- is in free-fall. The range of outcomes stretches from severe recession to something closer to a replay of the Great Depression, though that label is perhaps better seen as a placeholder for 'catastrophic economic collapse' since the underlying place of the US economy in the world economy is very different from what it was in 1929. This reality was palpable in the political debate until as recently as a few weeks ago. But Republicans are using a strategy of conscious denial to push it off the stage.
Take stock of the last few weeks and you can almost visualize the two conversations -- path toward economic calamity and debate over Stimulus Bill -- diverging.
The other key into the current debate is that the Republican position is ominously similar to their position on global warming or, for that matter, evolution. The discussion of what to do on the Democratic side tracks more or less with textbook macroeconomics, while Republican argument track either with tax cut monomania or rhetorical claptrap intended to confuse. It's true that macro-economics doesn't make controlled experiments possible. And economists can't speak to these issues with certainty. But in most areas of our lives, when faced with dire potential consequences, we put our stock with scientific or professional consensus where it exists, as it does here. Only in cases where it goes against Republican political interests or economic interests of money-backers do we prefer the schemes of yahoos and cranks to people who study the stuff for a living.
Of course, at some level, why would Republicans be trying to drive the country off a cliff? Well, not pretty to say, but they see it in their political interests. Yes, the DeMints and Coburns just don't believe in government at all or have genuinely held if crankish economic views. But a successful Stimulus Bill would be devastating politically for the Republican party. And they know it. If the GOP successfully bottles this up or kills it with a death of a thousand cuts, Democrats will have a good argument amongst themselves that Republicans were responsible for creating the carnage that followed. But the satisfaction will have to be amongst themselves since as a political matter it will be irrelevant. The public will be entirely within its rights to blame Democrats for any failure of government action that happened while Democrats held the White House and sizable majorities in both houses of Congress.
Link to column: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/02/whats-the-count.html
By David M. Walker
Not only is our country in a deep recession, but our federal financial condition is deteriorating rapidly. We need to pull a triple play, and soon, to avoid a "super subprime crisis."
First, to get our economy back on track, we need a fiscal stimulus package that is timely, targeted and temporary — large enough to make a difference but not so large as to guarantee significant waste. Its provisions should be designed to stimulate short-term consumption and create or save jobs — within this calendar year. While it may involve temporary time extensions of unemployment and other federal benefits, benefit expansions should be avoided until we get our fiscal house in order.
The stimulus being considered by the Congress is very large. Many believe that we could achieve much more stimulus with a lower price tag if a vast majority of the legislation's provisions met the above criteria. Only time will tell whether the bill that goes to President Obama's desk is modified to better meet these standards.
The federal government has engaged in a number of major "bailout" or "assistance" efforts already. More will undoubtedly occur, and we need to learn from past mistakes to increase the chance of future success.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), for example, has been a major disappointment. This should not be surprising since it was enacted in a crisis atmosphere without clearly defined and transparent objectives and conditions to be met before the "funds flowed." As a result, it is difficult to assess the benefit of the first $350 billion in taxpayer funds. Proponents assert how much worse it would have been had they not acted, but the absence of any clear positive accomplishment is telling.
Second, the federal government needs an independent and professional person or board (e.g., three persons) who would serve as a gatekeeper and help ensure that any proposed federal assistance is consistent with the program's objectives and meets certain criteria before the funds flow. Once the funds flow, the person or board would ensure transparency and accountability.
Having been on the front lines of fighting waste and abuse for almost 10 years as comptroller general of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), I have concluded that the traditional transparency and accountability mechanisms are not enough to protect the taxpayers' interests when huge incremental spending amounts are involved.
Third, while turning the economy around is the priority now, we also need to take steps to put an extraordinary process in place to put our nation's finances in order and maintain investor confidence. President Obama was right when he said in January that we need to achieve a "grand bargain" during his presidency. But we need to start now — our fiscal clock is ticking, and time is not working in our favor.
As a former head of three federal agencies and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare, I have learned that the process that one employs is critically important when transformational changes are needed. It has also led me to the conclusion that the "regular order" in Congress is broken and that achieving progress on multiple fronts within a relatively short time frame is not possible on a piecemeal basis.
What does this mean? The president and the Congress need to work together to establish a "Fiscal Future Commission (or Task Force)" that, unlike most Washington commissions, would be designed to accelerate action and get the ball across the goal line rather than punt it down the field. Ideally, this commission would be created by statute to ensure buy-in from both the Congress and the president. It should include selected congressional members and administration and non-governmental officials. It should engage the American people outside Washington's Beltway while also leveraging digital technology and the Web. After engaging the public and key stakeholders, it would make a range of budget control, entitlement, other spending and tax reform recommendations that would be subject to an "up or down" vote in Congress, with limitations on amendments so they would not undercut the fiscal "bottom line" of the commission's recommendations.
To achieve initial success and gain both enhanced credibility and momentum, the commission could be tasked with reporting on selected issues in an expedited manner — for example, Social Security reforms. Hopefully, action would be taken on any such interim recommendations. But if it weren't, then any related recommendations would be included in the group's final report. This approach would serve to provide a fail-safe mechanism to help ensure that the commission's recommendations are given appropriate consideration by the Congress.
We can and must come to grips with our both current and structural fiscal challenges. Employing this three-pronged approach would enable the Obama administration and the Congress to focus on our immediate challenges while putting a credible process in place to help put our nation's financial house in order. The time for action is now.
David M. Walker is former comptroller general of the United States and president and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes public awareness of the nation's economic challenges.
24 Hours to Help Turn the Economy Around
Some Senate offices report that calls from constituents are running 100 to 1 against the economic recovery legislation. This bill is an essential first step toward reviving the U.S. economy, creating or saving an estimated 3 to 4 million jobs, and taking giant steps toward a new, green economy. The same advocates of "no taxes, no government intervention" that got the United States into the current unregulated economic mess are now trying to derail legislation that is one critical part of the solution. You can help change this dynamic by calling both of your senators within the next 24 hours to urge them to pass the economic recovery package. The U.S. economy is in trouble, unemployment is escalating, millions of people are in danger of losing their homes, and local governments are laying off public workers that provide essential services ranging from street repair to teaching in schools. The government needs to move fast and not get bogged down by partisan bickering. To be effective, the economic recovery legislation needs to focus money on the people who will spend it the fastest - the poor, the most vulnerable in our society, and the people who are losing or have already lost their jobs. We at FCNL would like to see more money, not less, invested in mass transit, aid for children in low-income families, unemployment insurance benefits and other key priorities.Take ActionPlease call your senators in the next 24 hours. Reach them through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your senator by name. The phones lines may be busy, so keep calling back. Urge your senators to support the economic recovery act, to focus on getting money out fast to help those in need. Here's the message to give to the person who answers the phone in your senator's office:
If you don't know your senators' names, you can look them up on our website.
BackgroundCongress has already approved nearly $1 trillion to help major banks and wealthy Wall Street stockbrokers. So far, much of what the government has spent to address the economic crisis paid for mergers of large corporations or huge bonuses for corporate executives.The Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act would make a hefty down payment on reviving the U.S. economy, but it's just a first step in a long-term effort to address the economy's structural problems. Some economists estimate the government will ultimately need to invest a sum equivalent to 8 to 10 percent of the country's annual economic output to dig the United States out of the economic hole we are in right now. This legislation is an essential first step. Call 202-224-3121 and ask for your senator by name. Tell the person who answers the phone you want the economic recovery legislation to be approved this week. Urge them to vote yes on the package and to support two specific increases in the funding in the bill:Increase funding for public transportation. Sen. Charles Schumer (NY) has introduced an amendment to add $6.5 billion to public transit funding in the Senate bill, which would bring the total to $14.9 billion. More money for public transit is a good investment in energy security, a cleaner environment, and more jobs for transit and construction workers. Read a press release from Schumer's office.
Help Children in Poor Families. Accept the House's resolution to let the lowest income working families claim the Child Tax Credit starting at the first $1 of earned income. As millions of families lose their jobs and struggle to make ends meet, this amendment will help support children in the most vulnerable families in the United States. Right now the Senate bill would only give the tax credit to families that make more than $6,000 a year. Allowing families to claim the credit starting at the first $1 of earned income would help 2.2 million more children. See more on this tax credit from the Half in 10 anti-poverty campaign.
See FCNL's commentary on the House and Senate recovery plans.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11348&view=print
During 2007 and 2008, and Obama campaign sent out around one thousand action alerts. Time and time again, Obama supporters were encouraged to donate, register voters, talk to neighbors, hold house parties, knock on doors, phonebank and vote early. Millions responded, including over four million campaign donors, and even more people taking some sort of action for the campaign. Barack Obama's calls to action were regular, convincing, and clear. Millions answered.
Both during the election and afterward, there were regular implications that these same supporters would be called upon to act after the election, as well. In a post-election survey sent out to Obama activists, "pass legislation through grass-roots efforts" was one of the four activities supporters were asked to rank. During the campaign, Obama regularly spoke of change "from the bottom up," and made it clear that such change did not end with the election.
Given all of this, I feel compelled to ask: what does President Obama want his supporters to do now?
Should we be making calls Republican members of Congress, asking them to pass the stimulus bill? Should we be calling Democrats in Congress, asking them to compromise more with Republicans? Should we be pushing for right-wingers like Mitt Romney or Jim Cooper to become the new HHS Secretary, as the Village clearly desires? Should we be holding cocktail parties and / or dinners with Republicans in our neighborhoods, as President Obama himself is doing? Should we be shopping more? Should we be conserving energy--and, if so, how? Should we be buying American?
More in the extended entry.
There is a major leadership vacuum right now. For the past two years, there was a consistent implication that Obama's grassroots network would play some sort of role in helping President Obama govern. So far, however, they have played no role whatsoever, and been asked to play none. This is even though the Senate is about to vote on a stimulus package that is supposedly designed to help the American people get out of an economic free fall.
What does President Obama want his supporters to do? For that matter, what does President Obama want the American people to do? We are in the midst of a major crisis right now, and shown time and time again that we are willing to take action to help remedy the problem. Millions, tens of millions, of people feel incredibly frustrated, trapped even, and are unsure what to do next. While they are ready to act, someone needs to make the ask. Right now, the person to make the ask is President Obama, but he isn't doing it. What does President Obama want us to do? The silence is deafening.
Early voting has begun. We strongly recommend using paper ballots whenever possible. Many states allow the use of paper ballots, but you have to ask for one. Ask.
But in some states and counties, voters are required to use the electronic voting machines. And there are a growing number of reports about electronic voting machines flipping some votes from one candidate to another.
So if you're voting on an electronic voting machine and you see your votes being flipped (or if the machine malfunctions in any other way), what should you do?
Here are some suggestions from election integrity experts at TrueVote.us, and from Emily Levy of Velvet Revolution's StandingForVoters.org and Ellen Theisen of VotersUnite.org.
And also, please keep in mind that not seeing flipped votes does not indicate that votes are recorded correctly, as they can be flipped invisibly. That's just one reason why we strongly recommend using paper ballots whenever possible.
Happy voting. And may your vote be counted and counted accurately.
Video the Vote is a national initiative to protect voting rights by monitoring the electoral process. We organize citizen journalists—ordinary folks like you and me—to document election problems as they occur. And then we distribute their footage to the mainstream media and online to make sure the full story of Election Day gets told. Watch our 2006 highlights and join us as we Video the Vote this November.
Commentary: It's not a given that Republican candidate has the right stuff
Link to article: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-mccain-would-mediocre-president/story.aspx?guid={4914192B-12AF-4623-AB18-5EFE91204B04}&print=true&dist=printMidSection
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In his frivolous Paris and Britney ad, Sen. John McCain has asked the right question: Is Barack Obama ready to lead this country?
Since last January, Sen. Obama's fitness for the presidency has been the only question that matters in American politics. The pollsters and pundits agree that if Obama can show the voters that he's up to the job, he'll win. If not, he won't.
But that begs another question: Is McCain fit to lead America?
That question hasn't been asked, nor has it been answered.
The assumption seems to be that McCain's years of experience in the military and in Congress of course give him the background and tools he'd need in the White House. As Britney might say, "Duh! For sure he's qualified!!! He's Mac!!!"
But is that true? Does McCain have the right stuff?
A careful look at McCain's biography shows that he isn't prepared for the job. His resume is much thinner than most people think.
Here are some reasons why McCain would be a mediocre president.
Lack of accomplishments
Like the current occupant of the White House, McCain got his first career breaks from the connections and money of his family, not from hard work.
The son and grandson of Navy admirals, he attended Annapolis where he did poorly. Nevertheless, he was commissioned as a pilot, where he performed poorly, crashing three planes before he failed to evade a North Vietnamese missile that destroyed his plane. McCain spent more than five years in a prison camp.
After his release, McCain knew his weak military record meant he'd never make admiral, so he turned his sights to a career in politics. With the help of his new wife's wealth, his new father-in-law's business connections and some powerful friends had made as a lobbyist for the Navy, he was elected in 1982 to a Congress in a district that he didn't reside in until the day the seat opened up. A few years later, he succeeded Barry Goldwater as a senator.
McCain hasn't accomplished much in the Senate. Even his own campaign doesn't trumpet his successes, probably because the few victories he's had still rankle Republicans.
His campaign finance law failed to significantly reduce the role of money in politics. He failed to get a big tobacco bill through the Senate. He's failed to change the way Congress spends money; his bill to give the president a line-item veto was declared unconstitutional, and the system of pork and earmarks continues unabated. He failed to reform the immigration system.
Every senator who runs for president misses votes back in Washington, so it's no surprise that McCain and all the others who ran in the primaries have missed a lot of votes in the past year. But between the beginning of 2005 and mid-2007, no senator missed more roll-call votes than McCain did, except Tim Johnson, who was recovering from a near-fatal brain aneurysm.
Shallow
McCain says he doesn't understand the economy. He's demonstrated that he doesn't understand the workings of Social Security, or the political history of the Middle East. He doesn't know who our enemies are. He says he wants to reduce global warming, but then proposes ideas that would stimulate -- not reduce -- demand for fossil fuels.
McCain has done one thing well -- self promotion. Instead of working on legislation or boning up on the issues, he's been on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" more than any other guest. He's been on the Sunday talk shows more than any other guest in the past 10 years. He's hosted "Saturday Night Live" and even announced his candidacy in 2007 on "The Late Show with David Letterman."
McCain has not articulated any lofty goals. So far, his campaign theme has mostly been "McCain: He's None of the Above."
In the primaries, he campaigned on "I'm not that robotic businessman, I'm not that sanctimonious hick, I'm not that crazy libertarian, I'm not that washed-up actor, I'm not that delusional 9/11 guy." In the general election, he's emphasized that he's not that treasonous dreamer.
No leadership
McCain has frequently taken on near-impossible missions that go against the grain of his party. It's the basis of his reputation as a maverick. But McCain has never been able to bring more than a handful of Republicans along with him on issues such as campaign finance reform or immigration. Democrats on the Hill have accepted McCain's help on some issues, but except for a few exceptions (John Kerry and Joe Lieberman), they've never warmed to him.
To achieve anything as president, McCain would have to win over two hostile parties: The Democrats and the Republicans.
Living in the Sixties
McCain is still fighting the Vietnam War. But he's not fighting the real historic war, which taught us the folly of injecting ourselves into a civil war that was none of our business. We learned that, in a world where even peasants have guns, explosives and radios, a determined and popular guerrilla force can defeat a modern army equipped with the mightiest technology if that army has no vital national interest to protect.
Instead, McCain is fighting an imaginary Vietnam War, where a sure victory could have been achieved with just a little more bombing, just a little more "pacification," just a little more will to win at home. This fantasy clouds McCain's judgment on foreign policy.
Most of the other high-profile politicians who fought in Vietnam -- Colin Powell, Chuck Hegel, John Kerry, and Jim Webb -- aren't stuck in the past, and they don't view the Iraq War as a chance to get Vietnam right.
No principles
After years of honing a reputation as a guy who'll say the truth regardless of the political consequences, McCain has crashed the Straight Talk Express. On almost every issue where he took a principled stand against the Republican line -- taxes, immigration, oil drilling, the Religious Right -- he's changed his views.
We ought to like politicians who change their mind when the facts change; it shows maturity, judgment and flexibility. But politicians who change their mind to suit the prevailing winds show the opposite.
The bottom line
Successful presidents come from two molds: visionaries, or mechanics. The visionaries -- think Reagan or FDR -- see what others can't and say 'Why not?" to inspire the country. The mechanics -- think LBJ or Eisenhower -- know the ins and outs of government and are able to harness the power of millions of humans to accomplish great things, or at least keep the wheels from coming off.
McCain fits neither style. He's neither a dreamer, nor a detail guy. His major accomplishment, in Vietnam and in the Senate, has been merely to survive.
Just surviving doesn't make you're a hero, or a decent president. America needs to do more than survive the next four years.
Welcome to Hooverville
By Rotwang
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/19/welcome_to_hooverville/
. . . [E]conomic freedom. . . . Freedom for men to choose their own callings, to accumulate property in protection of their children and old age, freedom of private enterprise that does not injure others. . . . A large number of the men administering our preparedness program do not believe in this freedom. With a long war--and it will be long if we put our boys into it--then their methods with the inevitable debt, inflation, unemployment and demoralized agriculture will make us over into State Socialism, probably under some other name. -- Herbert Hoover, 1941
Someone, I forget who, once said the history of the world is the history of class struggle. In the current politically morbid period, where the predators and the stupids have unearned market power in the marketplace of ideas, the history of the world is the history of class struggle over taxes. But maybe not for long.
What's the difference between what John McCain characterizes as capitalism and socialism? According to the Urban Institute, it's annual tax revenues of 6/10ths of a percent of GDP, or almost $100 billion a year. (For an idea of scale, current Federal outlays are $2,955 billions.) That's the difference between the tax collections of McCain and Obama, as these plans are described by the respective campaigns. By this metric, under Bill Clinton we had Ginormous Socialism.
But Clinton's was an odd sort of socialism. The ranks of Federal civilian employees were drastically reinvented reduced. Federal non-defense public investment grew more slowly than GDP. Millions were pushed off the welfare rolls. With the see- hear- and speak-no-evil Clinton policy with respect to the Federal Reserve, coupled with Bob Rubin's inclination towards financial deregulation, Alan Greenspan helped inflate some mighty financial bubbles, first in tech stocks, then in housing, the bursting of which has destroyed trillions of dollars in middle class savings. No wonder the working class hates socialism.
Getting back to taxes, what currently passes for debate in the Gabby Hayes campaign is the charge that Obama wants to 'share the wealth.' If it isn't obvious, and it isn't because of Gabby's general political incompetence in the higher discourse, what they are actually referring to is refundable tax credits. A refundable tax credit is one that you are allowed to receive in its entirety, whether or not you pay as much (or anything) in income tax. Barack Obama has a bouquet of refundable tax credit proposals. The credits are geared to earnings, mortgage payments, child care, savings, and reducing marriage penalties. McCain never refers directly to the benefits, either because he can't remember them, understand them, or because he is afraid a more specific description might have the reverse of the desired effect. What we do hear is payments to those "who don't pay taxes." This is a replay of the Earned Income Tax Credit debates.
As with the rest of McCainian doctrine, this is an appeal to ignorance. You can't get these credits unless you work. If you work you pay payroll taxes, a good part of which funds general government activities, since there is a surplus over and above what is required to pay somebody else's Social Security benefits. So anybody who works pays taxes. Anybody carrying a mortgage is likely to be working, or living off saved earnings. And of course everyone pays gas taxes, state and local sales taxes, etc. etc. etc.
Meanwhile Gabby has his own refundable tax credit, in his case for his farkakta health insurance plan. If Obama's refundable credits send money to "those who don't pay taxes," so does Gabby's.
Broadly speaking, the logic of condemning a shift of tax burden from rich to not-rich as "class war," but the reverse as excellent economic policy, is another bit of Republican intellectual poo.
Which brings us to Joe the Plumber (sic). I know everyone is tired of hearing about him, but we have to say a few things. First of all, for Jeebus's sake lay off his personal life. The fact that he has a tax lien has not the least significance. People have been ranting about the fact that he is in no position to buy a business and would actually get lower taxes as a citizen in Obama Nation. In so doing, they miss something important.
Workers would like to escape the servitude of wage labor. (See class struggle, above.) They would like to provide for their own by their own devices, not with handouts. They would like to work for themselves, in their own business. They value autonomy. In the absence of a professional degree, privileged lineage, or a winning lottery ticket, this is the only way to become financially comfortable. Joe's type views liberal policies as an obstacle to this goal. So we get Joe foolishly mouthing libertarian nostrums that actually defeat his own self-interest, while a progressive tax system and ObamaCare would help him.
Now it's difficult to become financially secure in the only way open to most workers. Gazing over the fence to where the grass is greener, Joe cannot easily diagnose his inability to make the transition. Nobody likes to blame themselves. Joe is vulnerable to conservative propaganda, which subsists on displacing blame from corporate predators to government, reinforced by racism ("He did a tap dance like Sammy Davis"), nativism, xenophobia, and other pathologies. So we get Joe's murky understanding of tax policy, fed by the refrain of government taking from the productive and subsidizing the shiftless. This ceases to work when the Joes of the world realize that the shiftless category means anyone not rich and is defined to include their very selves.
In the 1930s, a far more benighted and miseducated white population elevated enough Democrats to at one point give them 76 seats in the U.S. Senate, plus two Farmer-Labor and one progressive. In the House, the Republicans were reduced to 88 seats. These are the logical fruits of the Republicans' bankrupt rants about socialism and sharing the wealth.
You’re the best person to connect with the political fence-sitters in your life and show them why progressive ideas are what America needs now!
For a helpul resource for doing that visit: http://www.ourfuture.org/tipafencesitter
Excerpt of conversation between Bill Moyers and Mark Crispin Miller:
BILL MOYERS: What do you make of the ACORN case? I mean, even as we are talking there's an investigation, the Department of Justice, the FBI, they started investigating ACORN. Fox News has been beating the ACORN issue over and again for the last week or so. John McCain brought it up Wednesday night in his debate with Obama, tried to tie Obama to ACORN. What do you make of the ACORN controversy?
MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Well, I make of it what it is a first-class propaganda drive. The entities you've mentioned are all participating in it - Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, the McCain campaign, despite the inconvenient fact that John McCain gave the keynote speech at ACORN's annual conference in 2006. We won't talk about that. The fact is that what we're hearing about ACORN is, without exception, false. It is false. ACORN itself flagged the suspicious voter registration forms that caused this whole thing to begin in Las Vegas about ten days ago. It brought those forms to the attention of the secretary of state who then turned around and said, "Ah-ha, evidence that you're conspiring to commit voter fraud."
Well, filling out voter registration forms dishonestly to pick up a couple of bucks, which is what the ACORN volunteers had done, is not voter fraud. What ACORN does is it pays people to register others. So naturally there are people who will turn in funny forms because that's the incentive system, that's a way to make a couple of bucks. And that's why ACORN has been quite scrupulous over the years in going through these forms and then turning in the ones that strike them as suspicious.
BILL MOYERS: And it's done that. I mean, ACORN admits that some of these registration cards are problematic, such as the name "Mickey Mouse." "Mickey Mouse" is registered, and ACORN has pointed that out. The entire Dallas Cowboy football team was registered in Las Vegas, Nevada. So, so that part of the argument is true, right? Some people do fill out bogus registration cards.
MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Yeah. And ACORN turned them in. That's the point I'm making. These are infractions by grass-roots volunteers who do the wrong thing. That's not voter fraud, however. Voter fraud would be if somebody showed up to vote and said, "Hi, I'm Mickey Mouse. May I vote now?" That's not going on.
BILL MOYERS: And does that happen very often?
MARK CRISPIN MILLER: It never happens. Let's just talk statistically about this, okay? As of 2007 the Department of Justice had prosecuted - are you ready for this? This number? 120 cases of voter fraud.
BILL MOYERS: Over what period?
MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Over, well, this is, like four years. Okay? 120 cases. And there were 82 convictions. Now, I think the republic will probably withstand that attack, right? We're talking about voter fraud that's being perpetrated in the tens. And I can tell you, moreover, that not one of those cases of fraud actually involved a person showing up to vote improperly. They were other kinds of fraud. You know, election judges breaking the law and so on.
The point I'm making to you here, Bill - and this is the most important thing I'm going to say to you tonight - is that this is a pretext being used by a party, okay, that is itself committing election fraud and vote suppression on an enormous scale. In other words, we have a party that is itself engaged in disenfranchising, actively disenfranchising millions of Americans. It is itself complaining about a group that is supposedly planning to do the same thing but that isn't doing that at all.
BILL MOYERS: What's the evidence that say the Republican Party is disenfranchising millions of people?
MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Well, first of all, all of these voter purges, the caging of voters, as I described before.
BILL MOYERS: Well, I mean, the Brennan Center report two weeks ago said perhaps hundreds of thousands of people have been improperly purged from the rolls without even knowing about it. But they didn't talk about millions.
MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Well, I, in the aggregate, it does and could easily add up to millions of voters because we're talking about a very, very broad range of devices, you know, both legal and illegal that will have a dramatic effect and that will add up. If hundreds of thousands of people are disenfranchised nationwide simply through voter purges alone, you see? That is significant. If the caging of voters results in the disenfranchisement of another 200,000, 300,000, we're talking here about numbers that definitely do add up, you see, and that make a difference, are meant to make a difference come Election Day.
BILL MOYERS: This term "caging," what's a simple understanding of that?
MARK CRISPIN MILLER: It's really very simple. The Republican Party, in a particular state, will get a list of the names and addresses of Democrats and send them letters that look sort of like junk mail, you know? Often they'll have windows in the envelope, the kind of thing that people are going to be inclined to throw away. And if people don't open those envelopes and take out forms that are in them and fill them out and send them in, their names will be stricken from the voter rolls on that basis. They've also been known to send these kinds of forms to people who are overseas serving in the military. Well, they're not home to check their mail, so if they don't fill out the forms, their names are stricken from the voter roll.
In recent presidential debates, Senator John McCain has said things like, "I know the veterans. I know them well. And, I know that they know that I'll take care of them." It was stunning, because nothing could be further from the truth. It's something that our friend Charlie Fink even made an issue of in his new video at Lunatics and Liars.
A lot of you have asked VoteVets.org to explain why Senator McCain gets consistently low ratings from veterans groups. Below is a full list of votes, statements, and positions of Senator McCain's, which shows that Senator McCain has consistently bailed on troops and veterans.
It's a very long, but comprehensive list. I encourage you to take a look and pass it around. An even more robust list, complete with video, can be found at VetVoice.com, as well.
Sincerely,Brandon FriedmanIraq and Afghanistan War VeteranVice Chairman, VoteVets.org
Senator John McCain’s Record on Troop and Veterans’ Issues
Voting Against Veterans
· Veterans Groups Give McCain Failing Grades. In its most recent legislative ratings, the non-partisan Disabled American Veterans gave Sen. McCain a 20 percent rating for his voting record on veterans’ issues. Similarly, the non-partisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a "D" grade for his poor voting record on veterans’ issues, including McCain’s votes against additional body armor for troops in combat and additional funding for PTSD and TBI screening and treatment.
· McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans’ Health Care. Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans’ health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans’ health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R. 1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)
· McCain Voted At Least 28 Times Against Veterans’ Benefits, Including Healthcare. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 1987, McCain has voted at least 28 times against ensuring important benefits for America’s veterans, including providing adequate healthcare. (2006 Senate Vote #7, 41, 63, 67, 98, 222; 2005 Senate Votes #55, 89, 90, 251, 343; 2004 Senate Votes #40, 48, 145; 2003 Senate Votes #74, 81, 83; 1999 Senate Vote #328; 1998 Senate Vote #175; 1997 Senate Vote #168; 1996 Senate Votes #115, 275; 1995 Senate Votes #76, 226, 466; 1994 Senate Vote #306; 1992 Senate Vote #194; 1991 Senate Vote #259)
· McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to Veterans. McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for certain veterans’ benefits. (S. 869, Vote 259, 11/20/91)
· McCain Voted to Underfund Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion. (H.R. 2099, Vote 470, 9/27/95)
· McCain Voted Against a $13 Billion Increase in Funding for Veterans Programs. McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. (S.C.R. 57, Vote 115, 5/16/96)
· McCain Voted Against $44.3 Billion for Veterans Programs. McCain was one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies. (H.R. 2684, Vote 328, 10/15/99)
· McCain Voted Against $47 Billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (H.R. 4635, Vote 272, 10/12/00)
· McCain Voted Against $51 Billion in Veterans Funding. McCain was one of five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the conference report that provided $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and emergency management agencies and NASA. (H.R. 2620, Vote 334, 11/8/01; Vote 269, 8/2/01)
· McCain Voted Against $122.7 Billion for Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and other related agencies. (H.R. 2861, Vote 449, 11/12/03)
· McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders. McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634, Vote 343, 11/17/05)
· McCain opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans’ Health Care. McCain opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans’ health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans’ population and inflation. (S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)
· McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans’ Care. McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. (S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06)
· McCain Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs. McCain opposed an amendment that would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. (S.Amdt. 2673 to H.R. 2642, Vote 315, 9/6/07)
· McCain Opposed the 21st Century GI Bill Because It Was Too Generous. McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would "encourage more people to leave the military." (S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642, Vote 137, 5/22/08; Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/2/08; Boston Globe, 5/23/08; ABCNews.com, 5/26/08)
· Disabled American Veterans Legislative Director Said That McCain’s Proposal Would Increase Costs For Veterans Because His Plan Relies On Private Hospitals Which Are More Expensive and Which Could Also Lead To Further Rationing Of Care. "To help veterans who live far from VA hospitals or need specialized care the VA can’t provide, McCain proposed giving low-income veterans and those who incurred injury during their service a card they could use at private hospitals. The proposal is not an attempt to privatize the VA, as critics have alleged, but rather, an effort to improve care and access to it, he said. Joe Violanti, legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, a nonpartisan organization, said the proposal would increase costs because private hospitals are more expensive. The increased cost could lead to further rationing of care, he said." (Las Vegas Sun, 8/10/08)
Lack of Support for the Troops
· McCain co-sponsored the Use of Force Authorization. McCain supported the bill that gave President George W. Bush the green light--and a blank check--for going to war with Iraq. (SJ Res 46, 10/3/02)
· McCain Opposed Increasing Spending on TRICARE and Giving Greater Access to National Guard and Reservists. Although his campaign website devotes a large section to veterans issues, including expanding benefits for reservists and members of the National Guard, McCain voted against increasing spending on the TRICARE program by $20.3 billion over 10 years to give members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families greater access to the health care program. The increase would be offset by a reduction in tax cuts for the wealthy. (S.Amdt. 324 to S.C.R. 23, Vote 81, 3/25/03)
· McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. McCain opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. (S.Amdt. 1275 to H.R. 2658, Vote 284, 7/16/03)
· McCain voted Against Establishing a $1 Billion Trust Fund for Military Health Facilities. McCain voted against establishing a $1 billion trust fund to improve military health facilities by refusing to repeal tax cuts for those making more than $1 million a year. (S.Amdt. 2735 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297, Vote 7, 2/2/06)
· Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military--a policy that is having a devastating impact on our troops. McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. (S.Amdt.. 2909 to S.Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 341, 9/19/07; S.Amdt. 2012 to S.Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 241, 7/11/07)
· McCain announced his willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for decades--a statement sure to inflame Iraqis and endanger American troops. McCain: "Make it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." (Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08)
· McCain voted against a ban on waterboarding--a form of torture--in a move that could eventually endanger American troops. According to ThinkProgress, "the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) establishing one interrogation standard across the government. The bill requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding." McCain voted against the bill. (H.R. 2082, Vote 22, 2/13/08)
· McCain Also Supported Outsourcing at Walter Reed. McCain opposed an amendment to prevent the outsourcing of 350 federal employee jobs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center--outsourcing that contributed to the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed that McCain called a "disgrace." (S.Amdt. 4895 to H.R. 5631, Vote 234, 9/6/06; Speech to VFW in Kansas City, Mo., 4/4/08)
· Senator McCain has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq--a policy that has directly weakened American efforts in Afghanistan. Senator McCain repeatedly voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. (S.Amdt. 3876 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #438, 12/18/07; S.Amdt. 3875 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #437, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.3164 to H.R. 3222, Vote #362, 10/3/07; S.Amdt. 2898 to S. Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #346, 9/21/07; S. Amdt. 2924 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R.1585, Vote #345, 9/21/07; S.Amdt.2 087 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #252, 7/18/07; S.Amdt. 643 to H.R. 1591, Vote #116, 3/27/07; S.Amdt. 4320 to S. 2766, Vote #182, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766, Vote #181, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 2519 to S.1042, Vote #322, 11/15/05)
· McCain said it’s "not too important" when U.S. troops leave Iraq. This exchange occurred on NBC’s Today Show with Matt Lauer:
LAUER: If it's working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?
McCAIN: No, but that's not too important.
(NBC, Today Show, 6/11/08)
Cheerleading for War with Iraq--While Afghanistan was Unfinished
· McCain suggested that the war in Iraq could be won with a "smaller" force. "But the fact is I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991." (CBS News, Face the Nation, 9/15/02)
· McCain said winning the war would be "easy." "I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women." (CNN, 9/24/02)
· McCain also said the actual fighting in Iraq would be easy. "We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies." (CNN, 9/29/02)
· Continuing his pattern, McCain also said on MSNBC that we would win the war in Iraq "easily." "But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." (MSNBC, 1/22/03)
· McCain argued Saddam was "a threat of the first order." Senator McCain said that a policy of containing Iraq to blunt its weapons of mass destruction program is "unsustainable, ineffective, unworkable and dangerous." McCain: "I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom." (Speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2/13/03)
· McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s rationale for going to war. McCain: "We're going to win this victory. Tragically, we will lose American lives. But it will be brief. We’re going to find massive evidence of weapons of mass destruction . . . It’s going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East." (Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 2/21/03)
· "But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." (NBC, 3/20/03)
· March 2003: "I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short." (NBC, Meet the Press, 3/30/03)
· McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time. McCain: "It’s clear that the end is very much in sight . . . It won’t be long . . . it’ll be a fairly short period of time." (ABC, 4/9/03)
Staunch Defense of the Iraq Invasion
· McCain maintained that the war was a good idea and that George W. Bush deserved "admiration." At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in Iraq, said that while weapons of mass destruction were not found, Saddam once had them and "he would have acquired them again." McCain said the mission in Iraq "gave hope to people long oppressed" and it was "necessary, achievable and noble." McCain: "For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration." (Speech, Republican National Convention, 8/31/04)
· Senator McCain: "The war, the invasion was not a mistake. (Meet the Press, 1/6/08)
· McCain said the war in Iraq was "worth" it. Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, McCain: "It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them." (Republican Debate, 1/24/08)
Dangerous Lack of Foreign Policy Knowledge
· When questioned about Osama bin Laden after the 1998 U.S. missile strikes in Afghanistan, McCain surmised that the terrorist leader wasn’t as "bad" as "depicted." "You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before." (Interview with Mother Jones magazine, 11/1998)
· McCain was unaware of previous Sunni-Shia violence before the Iraq War. "There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along." (MSNBC, Hardball, 4/23/03)
· McCain said our military could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan. While giving a speech, McCain was asked about Afghanistan and replied, "I am concerned about it, but I’m not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I’d be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan." (Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, 11/5/03)
· McCain stated that Sunni al Qaeda was "supported" by the Shia Iranians. (2/2008)
· McCain again confused Sunni Muslim al Qaeda operatives with Shi’a Muslim insurgents. The Washington Post reported of McCain: "He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.
"Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives ‘taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.’
"Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was ‘common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate.’" (Press conference, Amman, Jordan, 3/18/2008)
· Yet again, McCain demonstrated that he didn’t know whether al Qaeda was a Sunni or Shiite organization. While questioning General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing, the following exchange occurred:
MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi'ites overall?
PETREAUS: No.
MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.
(Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 4/8/08)
· McCain incorrectly thought General David Petraeus was in charge of Afghanistan. The Army Times reported: "Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
‘I would not do that unless Gen. (David) Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,’ McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
"Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq." (Annual meeting of the Associated Press, 4/14/08)
· McCain credited the "surge" for the "Anbar Awakening"--even though the Anbar Awakening preceded the surge by nearly a year. (7/22/08)
· John McCain has also recently demonstrated either serious knowledge gaps in terms of foreign policy, or mounting confusion, when discussing an array of other countries: Spain: McCain refused to commit to meeting with the president of Spain, a NATO ally, after becoming confused about America’s relationship with Spain, its leader, and, possibly, exactly where Spain is located. (9/17/08)
Czech Republic and Slovakia: McCain referred to the two countries using the name "Czechoslovakia" several times--despite the fact that Czechoslakia split apart and hasn't existed since 1993. (7/15/08; (7/14/08))
Venezuela: McCain said that Venezuela was a Middle Eastern country. (9/30/08)
Smash The Spin!
This widget, from Public Agenda, is a great way to help visitors to your web site get all the facts before casting their vote. This widget links visitors to the Voter's Survival Kit, a nonpartisan guide to the hottest issues in this election, as well as resources on voter registration, the latest news from the campaign trail, and the candidate's specific proposals.
Election Day Countdown Clock
The Countdown To Election Day clock, from Public Agenda, automatically updates the number of days, hours and minutes remaining until the polls open on November 4th, 2008. This clock is a great way to remind yourself – and all who visit your web site – that time is running out to get the facts and get ready to cast your vote.
For more free widgets, visit: http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/electionguides/#getwidgets
Under McCain's newly announced plan, the government would take the hit for writing down mortgage balances for at-risk borrowers.
By Les Christie, CNNMoney..com staff writer
Last Updated: October 8, 2008
McCain's original plan called for lenders to write down the value of these mortgages and take those losses. But the Republican presidential candidate unveiled a new $300 billion plan in response to the first question of the debate.
He said, "I would order the Secretary of Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes, at the diminished values of those homes, and let people make those - be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."
The government would convert failing mortgages into low-interest, FHA-insured loans.
"Millions of borrowers" would be eligible for the program, dubbed the American Homeownership Resurgence Plan, according to McCain economic advisor Doug Holtz-Eakin.
To qualify, homeowners would have to be delinquent in their payments already, or be likely to fall behind in the near future. They would have to live in the home in question - no investment properties would be eligible - and have had demonstrated their credit-worthiness when they purchased the property by making a substantial down payment and by providing documentation of their income and assets - no liar loans.
Holtz-Eakin said on a conference call Wednesday that the McCain plan could be put into place quickly because the groundwork and the authority for it has already been provided by last week's $700 billion bailout bill, the Hope for Homeowners program authorized by the housing rescue bill passed in July and the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This proposal is strikingly different from both McCain's original idea, and from the housing rescue bill adopted by Congress in July.
Congress struggled for months to pass the Hope for Homeowners rescue plan for mortgage borrowers - a bill that neither McCain nor Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama voted on. To make it palatable to both conservative Republicans and ordinary taxpayers, Hope for Homeowners requires that lenders write down mortgage balances to 90% of a home's current market value to qualify for a FHA-insured refinancing. The lenders would then take the loss on the difference between the current value and the mortgage balance.
"[McCain's] original plan relied on lenders taking the hit," said Holtz-Eakin. "This bypasses that step."
Instead, taxpayers pay for it, with the funding already provided by the $700 billion bailout bill.
That could prove to be very unpopular with homeowners who aren't in trouble, as well as ordinary Americans who objected to the Hope for Homeowners plan as a bailout for delinquent borrowers and irresponsible lenders.
The Obama campaign issued its response to the plan Wednesday afternoon.
"Last night . . . [Senator McCain] threw out a proposal that appeared to give the Treasury authority it already has to re-structure troubled mortgages. But now that he's finally released the details of his plan, it turns out it's even more costly and out-of-touch than we ever imagined," said the statement. "John McCain wants the government to massively overpay for mortgages in a plan that would guarantee taxpayers lose money, and put them at risk of losing even more if home values don't recover."
The statement claimed the biggest beneficiaries would be the "same financial institutions that got us into this mess, some of whom even committed fraud."
"Since this beginning of this crisis, Barack Obama has demanded that any rescue plan must protect taxpayers and ensure that they share in any profit once the economy recovers, and he worked to include that principle in the plan that passed Congress," said Obama's economic policy director Jason Furman.
Some Washington analysts were perplexed by the McCain proposal.
"The proposal is hard to understand," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. For one thing, Baker pointed out, it provides even less help for targeted borrowers than the Hope for Homeowners program does. In that plan, lenders must lower mortgage balances down to 90% of the home's current value, while McCain's plan will reduce loans to 100% of a home's current value.
And, of course, under McCain, the cost of the write-down is picked up by taxpayers rather than by the lenders. That is a radical departure from McCain's earlier responses to the housing crisis.
"We have a very different set of risks facing the nation now, including the crisis in financial markets," said Holtz-Eakin, "and it calls for a much more aggressive response."
The plan is supported by Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors, who says it could help stabilize housing markets.
"It's certainly a positive for the foreclosure problem," he said, "although it was already embedded in the Treasury's bailout plan."
Indeed, the bailout passed last week authorizes the Treasury to buy up as much as $700 billion in mortgage backed securities - but the bill also authorizes Treasury to buy mortgages directly.
Christopher Mayer, Paul Milstein Professor of Real Estate at Columbia Business School, isn't convinced that the McCain proposal makes sense.
"As the plan stands now, it helps the people who got into the most debt, and it helps the lenders, but it doesn't really help the housing market," he said.
To help the market as a whole, according to Mayer, a plan has to target all mortgage borrowers rather than just at-risk homeowners. In an op-ed piece in the Oct. 2 Wall Street Journal, he and his Columbia colleague, R. Glenn Hubbard, he proposed that the government allow all residential mortgages to be refinanced into 30-year, fixed rate loans at 5.25% interest.
That would bring down payments for everyone, not just the borrowers most at risk, which would in turn help prop up house prices by lowering the monthly cost of homeownership. Many more people would benefit.
"A rescue has to be broad enough to help a great many Americans," he said, "not just the ones that took on the most debt."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/news/economy/McCain_mortgage_plan/index.htm?postversion=2008100811
