Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.
Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.
We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.”
I believe him. After all, the main author of the Stimulus package was Nancy Pelosi, so the chimp, in the cartoonist’s mind, was akin to one of those monkeys I referred to in my earlier post. It was too “overtly racist”, if you will, to refer to Obama. However, the key phrase in Murdoch’s statement is “sensitivities”. Old racist stereotypes die hard, and they are still alive in many people’s minds.
Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics professor and says,
"I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?"
The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my office, but
if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I'll be glad to explain
it to you." The student agreed.
At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor's house.
The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool.
They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the student a bucket.
Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end,
and fill your bucket with as much water as you can." The student did as he was instructed.
The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump
all the water from your bucket into it." The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.
The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times,
and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.
The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?"
The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper.
The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he
would find out the real story soon enough.
However, after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student
began to become worried that his economics professor had gone mad. The student finally
replied, "All we're doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits.
Even worse, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it
was before, so all you'll really have accomplished is the destruction of what could
have been truly productive action!"
The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile,
"Congratulations! You now understand the stimulus bill."
- Author Unknown
First, the cartoon, by Sean Delonas.
THAT CARTOON
Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Period.
But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.
However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.
Third, my attempt to logically analyze this.
I should point out the difficulties in trying apply logic to what is written in newspapers, let alone newspaper cartoons, but here goes.
The Post said that the cartoon was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Surely the caption gave the strong impression that the dead chimpanzee represented in some way the writer(s) of said bill. Now there’s that old joke about if you had enough monkeys on typewriters, one would do Hamlet. By the same token, one would do the stimulus bill. Is that where the cartoonist was going? One dead chimp to a lot of (dead) monkeys?
Then there’s the Post’s disclaimer that their apology doesn’t apply to opportunists looking for payback. So their apology only applies to people who were genuinely offended, as opposed to those who are always looking for ways to be offended by the Post.
But let’s ask ourselves, who in fact wrote the Stimulus Bill. Evidently it was written by Congressional Democrats and their staffers (the monkeys?), with guidance from the White House. However, at the end of the day, if one name has to be attached to the bill, it is that of our president, Barack Obama, who just happens to be an African-American.
Enter stage right the longtime racist identification of black people with apes of various kinds. So was the chimpanzee, and a dead one at that, meant to represent our president? If so, we should bring on the Patriot Act.
End of my analysis. To paraphrase Fox News, I pontificate, you decide.
PS. I’m sure you’re dieing to know where I come down on this. I think that, subconsciously, the cartoonist associated Obama with an ape, though not a dead one. Such associations should really be banished, even from humor. They just aren’t funny, not to mention disrespectful. The New York Post has plenty of other ways to spread its venom.
Will Obama’s stimulus plan work……… NO
You don’t need to be great economist to figure it out. First look into why US went into this recession. Is it just irresponsible sub-prime lending by financial institution??? …….NO. That is just one of the superficial reasons which brought recession. The main reason is overall US foreign policies. For the US economy to sustain and grow, it has to do business with ALL over the world. The stimulus plan will create only short term growth. For long term sustained growth, it has to sell its products & services all over the world. To sell all over the world it has to make friends & allies. Thanks to US foreign polices over the years and mainly during George “W” Bush tenure, it has made more adversaries than allies. Even the last biggest recession in 1970’s came thanks to US foreign policy of unilaterally supporting Israel by air lifting more than 25,000 tons of military equipment for its war against its neighboring countries, which made them turn against US and block sale of oil to US. This time, its direct war with Iraq which cost it more than 600 billion and counting. Why did US did attack on Iraq when Atomic energy agencies had given it clean chit that it doesn’t have any nuclear war heads or WMD? (Till not a single was found). Effortless answer is to get rid of tyrant Saddam Hussein………..NO It was to demolish a country that was challenging the existence of Israel. US fought on behalf of Israel and itself into recession for second time. Zionist lobbies in US capitol is making US take those decision which just benefitting Israel become a more and more diabolic & regional terror, by which it not just making 57 Muslim countries adversary of US but also many other countries are becoming its foe. What is US getting in return from Israel …….. nothing except recessions & enemies. Till the time US does not close this hole in the economy, till will never grow to true potential and long term sustained growth.
In-depth Study: How much is US Tax payers are funding Israel????
Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.
In an article in The Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.
On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.
There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.
There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel's half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.
Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.
The only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.
The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.
Benefits to Israel of U.S. AidSince 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)Foreign Aid Grants and Loans$74,157,600,000Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)$9,047,227,200Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments$1,650,000,000Grand Total$84,854,827,200Total Benefits per Israeli$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.Aid to IsraelGrand Total$84,854,827,200Interest Costs Borne by U.S.$49,936,680,000Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers$134,791,507,200Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli$23,240
Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.
In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.
Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.
AID does not term economic aid to Israel as development assistance, but instead uses the term "economic support funding."
For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)
Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.
All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.
The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary, one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.
Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group.
More recently, FBI raids on ADL's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.
The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.
Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL's Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.
Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such "enemies" files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called "terrorism experts," and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in black-listing, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC's "opposition research" department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.
But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.
An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.
Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.
There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
In fact, the congress members know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don't know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much "hard money" into any candidate's election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.
Although AIPAC, Washington's most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can't hide all of the results.
Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.
Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.
According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.
Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.
The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.
These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for The Washington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.
As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.
But that's not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That's the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that's $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.
It's worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.
Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.
Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.
Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.
Although it's beyond the parameters of this study, it's worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.
By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi atrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel's Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
My fellow Americans, our elected officials have made it clear that there is no stopping this $787 billion dollar "economic stimulus plan". While we the people will be forced to pay for this plan, the government has seen it fit to hide the details of this plan from our view before they force it down our throats. So I'd like to respond to this new "transparency in government" policy with a few predictions about how this is all likely to go down...
1) Total spending for this plan will exceed 5 TRILLION dollars before this administration leaves office. As the children's book states, "If you give a moose a muffin... he'll want some jam to go with it". Giving this criminally negligent government $787 billion to do with as they see fit will only open the floodgates of more "stimulus" in the coming months. I suspect within 6 months we'll see Mr. President on the TV again (made possible by all the MASSIVE dollars in this stimulus for DTV converters) saying "well, it didn't work like we had hoped, but if we just put this additional money behind it...". SIX MONTHS. Mark your calendars the day this thing passes.
2) Following passage of this bill the stock market will show a brief rebound followed by a collapse of most if not all key market indicators. The stimulus bill itself states that Americans "borrowed and borrowed and when they couldn't borrow any longer, the bottom fell out". Yet, this is exactly what this plan is proposing. Our government continues to borrow and borrow and eventually when there's no potential for any more free money, the bottom is going to fall out, decimating every segment of the American economy. We complain now that the DOW is under 8K, but what's going to happen when it drops below 6K? 4K? Lower, perhaps? I believe a time is coming during this administration when we will look back fondly at when the stock market was in the 7000 range, with hopes that maybe, just maybe, it may get that high again in our lifetime.
3) Countless Americans will lose their lives under the provisions of this "plan". When the free money finally runs out and the hope of any economic future whatsoever has been completely decimated by this "plan", the rate of suicide, homicide, and other violent crimes will likely skyrocket. Others with no bent towards criminality will simply starve. More egregiously, with this "plan" having no appreciable increase in support for social services (police, fire, emergency) there will be little for local governments to do but watch the people die and the property burn. This administration has, however, planned to spend loads of cash improving medical record keeping. With this they should have no problems keeping track of how many Americans their recklessness has killed.
4) The plan will not work as expected. How can it? The President himself stated in his latest news conference "We don't know how this is going to work." If the author of this thing doesn't know how the last page is going to read, then what confidence do we – that is, the people who are paying for it – have that we're not going to be the victims in this story? While I applaud the President for being bold in taking action, he should have considered that taking the wrong action is worse than no action at all. Striding boldly forward without a clear picture of the end game didn't fare so well for the Titanic, and it won't likely fare any better for the American economy. Of course, he might get lucky... or he might not. In other words, our President is gambling a large percentage of OUR future earnings with no more chance of success than a game of roulette. What do you suppose it might do to the economy if the president of Coca Cola or the head of one of the auto makers or a CEO of any of the large banks took a large percentage of their company's earnings and went to Las Vegas to bet it all on a single number? If they pick a winner, people keep their homes. If they lose, a lot of people are going to be negatively impacted, many displaced, and some even economically destroyed. Yet, isn't this exactly the risk that this administration is assigning to "we the people"?
5) Despite the total decimation of the American economy, the Obama administration will be completely sheltered from its impacts and exempted from responsibility. Now that the President has spent all that free Party money he has the microphone and a contingent in this country so in love with his mantra of change that they would starve themselves and their children simply for the chance to shift blame away from him and his administration. But let us not forget this plan is the brainchild of one man with a dream of change. And regardless of how this turns out, there will be change. In that way, this administration stands to be a roaring success. The question remains, however: Can we – the American people – survive such success?
I thought the President looked and sounded good yesterday and have only have a couple of words of advice.
One. No excuses. It makes no sense to mention and then repeat that he inherited the crippling deficit. Few people, including economists, understand the concept but one thing is certain, no one wants to hear excuses. Truthful or not, they sounds evasive. Two. No slice of life examples, i.e., single mom keeping her home. Too general. No one believes them or should, after the Clintons abuse of the "technique," it has lost all credibility and persuades no one of anything. Who is the single mom? Should she have had a house to begin with and can she afford one understand any condition? Obama should avoid making statements that can be interpreted in seven different ways, none of which he intends.
Just policy. Just the intent. Just move forward. He is now the President. Bush is the distant past. And, Clinton's luck in everything from a distracted, inattentive electorate and the economy to the weak and shivering Russia was too improbable to be repeated. It's going to be hard work and Obama must make it his work.
Slow Down, Mr President. We really don't want to feel that you are panicing. This crisis took years to come to fruition. It doesn't need to be voted on immediately. It will take some time to remove the pork, and ensure that we spend the money wisely, and build in proper oversight to monitor and ensure effectiveness (Jobs). Remember, HAPPINESS is found in the PURSUIT of our DREAMS. Just knowing that people in Washington are focusing on the problem is hope enough to keep everyone going for a while. If it takes a few months to get it right, then it should take a few months. Kindest regards to you and your family. I truely appreciate your hard work. Mike Sullivan, US Citizen, 44 y/o.
Though banks and other financial institutions enjoyed an influx of funding and were expected to pass this funding on to consumers, the banks have instead beefed up their own causes with out regard for the consumer.
Last week my small business got notice of a serious interest rate increase on our credit line. We have always paid on time and doubled our payments to the bank. A few days later, the bank reduced our credit line by 30%. A conversation with the bank, (Bank of America) was fuitless. We were told that there is NOTHING then can do for us.
I was in the process of bidding on a few government RFPs that were worth tens of thousands of dollars. With the reduction of our credit line, I had to set the Bids on a shelf. Even if we were to win the bid, we would NOT be able to purchase the products and then float this money for 30-60 days before we were paid.
It isn't just the small business that needs serious consideration and help, but it is also the impact on their suppliers that need to be looked at. The fact is that when business doors close and people no longer have a job, that company stops all purchasing from everyone else as well. This is the domino effect that we are seeing in every city and town in our great country.
President Obama, please talk some sense into the Senators that oppose the Stimulus Bill. Even the money allocated to Electric Golf Carts will help retain and create jobs. The carts, and every part of the cart all the way from tires to nuts and bolts, are being manufactured and assembled by people. If these Golf Carts are purchased, the company selling the carts will be able to pay their bills, taxes, insurance and wages as a result. What in the world are the Senators thinking when they pass an Amendment that halts stimulating the economy?
I am sorry to say that what I knew would be true is coming to pass. President Obama's true colors are showing of his liberalism. He wants to change America and he is on course to doing just that, but in the wrong direction! He is dismantling those things which made Amercia great and has traded it for a shopping spree.
What was to be a stimulus package has now become a porker fest! Instead of stimululating the economy it will stifle it with pet programs and promises. Most Amercians do not support the stimulus bill in its present form and I don't blame them. Why should we support the mishandling, not of Washington's money, but our money?
Just some food for thought!
God bless,MarkIsaiah 40:31
P.S. The only true hope that Amercia has is in Jesus Christ.
Senators talk about the "Trillion" dollars that is about to be spent along with the cost of Tarp 1, 2 and 3. If we add it all together the amount of borrowing will go beyond 2 trillion dollars. Will this money help Americans pull out of the economic crises? I honestly do not know. But what I do know is that the 2 point something million jobs the SB creates, however long it takes, will ultimately put money back into the system; the "entire system" including the government via payroll, state and federal taxes.
I also know that behind every job is an establishment that represents the backbone of each position. When an Amendment is brought to the table, instead of looking at the cost, they need to look at the ultimate benefit instead. For example, an Amendment was passed yesterday that will prevent Casinos, Golf Courses and Museums from being included in the SB. Was this a wise move?
If we take a look at The Ford Theater that was just restored to its original condition, and think about what it took to accomplish this feat, perhaps the Senators that voted for the Amendment would understand how counter productive their vote was in creating jobs for Americans.
It is a known fact that to build a single commercial building, over 2000 products are used. These products include everything from toilet paper holders to door handles and everything in between. Behind every product is a manufacturer that produces the product. Each of these had a designer, engineer, tool maker, manager, and business owner. It takes an Architect to create Blue Prints for the building project that everyone involved follows. The Architect has an office full of people that support his efforts. They research products then announce what is needed in RFQs or RFPs for manufacturers to bid on. Thousands of manufacturers (people) bid with the hope of having their products officially spec'd into the project. In addition to this, computers, software, printers and paper are used to create the Blue Prints, RFPs, RFQs and proposals. Manufacturers mail their "Sealed Bids" to the Architect, using envelopes, paper and postage. Behind each of these products is another crew of people either producing the product or transitioning the parcel. Once the bids are in and the manufacturers are selected, they are spec'd (included) in the Blue Print. The final Blue Print ends up in one of the "public" Spec Rooms for anyone to see. These rooms are manned by people who take care of the rolls and rolls of data. These rooms belong to a building that contains specialty shelving along with over 2000 products that it took to build the building.
It takes a General Contractor to oversee the construction project. The sub contractors hire workers to do the actual construction and install each product. These products come from mines, manufacturing plants, retail stores and businesses that are all manned by people. Further...Building inspectors approve various stages of completion. Interior Designers hire people to complete special effects on walls, floors, ceilings and furniture. They also purchase huge amounts of room accessories. Each finish/product that is applied or used, is manufactured by a person or "man made" machine that is owned by someone. Clothes worn by everyone are created and sewn with machines using fabrics that come from textile plants. The fabric originates from raw goods purchased from farmers and chemical plants. The workers eat food that is grown by farmers and ranchers that hire people to work the fields and animal pens. These fields and animal pens utilize equipment, people to plow fields, plant seeds, water, harvest and sell. The animals go to slaughter houses, the goods to mills. The cycle goes on and on and on. And it does so for every building that is built and every restoration project that exists! It isn't just the "job" for an American; it’s the whole machine that operates behind each job that matters just as much.
With the above in mind, the Amendment like the one that cut off funding for Casinos, Golf Courses and Museums, in reality halted thousands of opportunities for people to earn money and help breath life back into the system. Way to go Congressmen and Congresswomen!
In the future, please think about the whole picture when you are making decisions that ultimately impact Americans. If you cannot see beyond your own personal bias, then step down so someone else can do the job they way it should be done. And if you do not care about anything else, then at least realize that EVERY product made is taxed and EVERY person involved in making and installing these products pay taxes!
The long and the short of it is that President Obama "gets it". However, many of our well educated Senators do not! And we dear Americans are at their mercy.
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.
Let’s be honest. We didn’t really expect Congress to come up with a "bold" stimulus plan, did we? But do we agree that NO action will only aggravate our current crisis?
The GOP surprised us when it failed to respond more constructively to the bipartisan overture from Barack Obama. I personally witnessed the precedent-setting bipartisan dinner for his defeated opponent (my photo of the President-elect at the dinner honoring McCain, January 19) and noted the subsequent meetings with Congressional Republicans. And what did we get in the way of proposals from the loyal opposition? More of the dogma-driven, supply-side ideology that contributed to our current mess: tax cuts!
On the other hand, GOP critics have a point: the bill that passed the House and was embraced by Obama essentially is an accumulation of favorite Democratic spending proposals.
What is missing is CHANGE. The CHANGE Obama advocated in his campaign for the Presidency. The CHANGE that won him a resounding mandate to govern for four years. The CHANGE from policies that have worked to benefit few and imperil many. Where are the first steps toward affordable health care, a sustainable green economy and alternative energy? And why are we not moving boldly to address the systemic failures that underlie the current crisis in credit markets?
Obama asked for ideas. And Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, among others, obliged. But what these brilliant men offer is predictable: rationales for orthodox Keynesian solutions and concern about labor market distortions, respectively. More is needed, not just in additional spending, but in fresh ideas that advance the President's policy agenda. So, if suggestions are still welcomed, here is my two-cents worth. And please do keep the CHANGE.
Health Care
Obama has promised the nation affordable health care similar to his own Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), to be available to all by the end of his first term. There is no need to back off this goal. Health care is one of the largest drags on our economy and the stimulus bill provides a real opportunity to begin managing its cost. In addition to the bill’s provisions to help state governments fund Medicare and work projects, I suggest that the federal government reimburse all state and local governments for their employer's share of health care for the rest of this year. In exchange, recipients may not fire government workers and must commit to integrating their health care plans with the existing FEHBP starting in 2010. That provides additional and immediate financial assistance to state and local governments, while paving the way for the establishment of a Public Employees Health Benefits Program. By January 2010, the federal government’s negotiated health care program would expand its base and economies of scale. The next step will be to apply the system to businesses, and subsequently to capture the un- and under-insured.
Energy Independence
Most honest leaders recognize that in due course government will have to produce the substantial additional revenue to pay for the stimulus. But good luck finding a politician willing to propose increasing taxes of any kind. So let me suggest instead a hefty tariff on imported oil to fund the “green economy.” A tariff of 50 percent or more on the landed cost of all imported energy (probably with some form of accommodation for our NAFTA partners) can be justified because of national security as well as the external costs to our environment inherent in the use of fossil fuels. And such a levy would promote conservation, subsidize domestic production, and help to fund and protect our investments in alternative energy. This is a measure that should be welcomed by Republicans who advocate "drill, baby, drill” as well as environmentalists interested in promoting clean energy. The windfall earned by American producers could be invested domestically or taxed as profits. And while there may be a marginal increase of fuel cost at the pump, it will pale in comparison with the amounts we forked over to foreign potentates rather than our own Treasury these past few years, when oil was effectively 200% greater than its current price.
Reestablish a ‘Risk-Free’ Investment Benchmark
Explanations for our current credit crisis and financial market meltdown abound, including the Washington Post's excellent series. But absent from all the expert analyses is any mention of the Treasury Department's October 2001 decision to discontinue issuing 30-year Bonds. That decision, on the heels of 9/11 and the cusp of Bush's costly war on terror, both lowered mortgage yields and prompted increased sales of bundled mortgages marketed as alternative 'risk-free' instruments, which in turn fueled the housing bubble and distorted both government and corporate credit point spreads. Treasury Bond auctions have resumed, but a clear provision to finance America’s recovery through borrowing would repair yield spreads – both between short and long term sovereign debt and in relation to all other debt instruments. Transparent budget financing will help re-establish more realistic risk pricing and global confidence in the US economy. But the 30-year Bond will not regain its position as a benchmark for 'risk-free' long-term investment if Fed meddling in the market, as it proposes to do with its planned purchase of Treasuries from troubled banks. In fact, this central-bankers-gone-wild approach will only create a greater Treasury bubble that will seriously aggravate our problems. Once markets are allowed to properly price the cost and risk of our recovery without Fed manipulation, global confidence in the US economy has a chance to be recover.
So Pay the Bill, and Keep the CHANGE
Barack Obama attended his last inaugural event, the Staff Ball, at the DC Armory on January 21. But he arrived after a performance by the opening act, Arcade Fire. So here are some insightful lysircs from their “Intervention”:
You say it's money that we need As if we're only mouths to feed I know no matter what you say There are some debts you'll never pay
You say it's money that we need
As if we're only mouths to feed
I know no matter what you say
There are some debts you'll never pay
The message is relevant to the stimulus bill now before Congress.
We can act responsibly and cautiously if we:
Pay the Bill and Keep the CHANGE.
