As if to underscore the daunting financial mess confronting President Obama, on January 20, a new plunge in banking stocks dragged the market to just 400 points above its November 20 close. The index of 24 bank stocks tumbled 20% causing the Dow to fall 332.13 points, or 4%, to 7,949.09, its worst performance ever on the day of an inauguration. So far, November 20 marked the bottom of the bear market that began more than a year ago.
Although the sell-off was triggered by anxiety about the depth of the banking crisis and its effect on the economy, I have read and heard some far-right-wing dunderheads try to blame the most recent stock market decline on President Obama’s Inaugural speech in which he warned that the economic recovery would be difficult and that the nation must choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord" to overcome the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
It’s the banking crisis, stupid: Disillusioned investors fled financial companies as fresh evidence mounted that the industry's problems are larger than previously understood, larger than the response so far mustered by the government and perhaps larger than the resources remaining in its rescue program. This latest phase of bank stock sell-off began after New Year's Day and intensified when Citigroup and Bank of America reported huge fourth-quarter losses and the government invested an additional $20 billion in Bank of America.
Britain has just officially announced that it is in a deep recession. The possibility of bank nationalizations, in which governments take direct control of financial institutions, is happening in Britain and elsewhere, as some of the world's biggest banks report surprisingly dire results. The industry's plight, intertwined with the ongoing recession, is the greatest challenge presently confronting not only our President but many leaders of the world.
The news that's coming out is staggering:
Shares of State Street Corp., a Boston-based financial giant that had been viewed as a relatively safe harbor amid the industry pandemic, plunged 59% after the institutional money manager disclosed sizable fixed-income trading losses. Bank of America tumbled 29% after analyst Paul Miller at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. predicted the bank would have to raise at least $80 billion in new capital. Wells Fargo slid 24% after Miller said the company might slash its dividend. PNC Financial Services, a major regional banking company based in Pittsburgh, nose-dived 41%. Citigroup fell 20%, and JP Morgan Chase lost 21%. Shares in the sector have been crushed by fears that spiraling loan losses could force the industry to seek billions of dollars in additional capital. That could lead in effect to a nationalization of the industry because, with private investors afraid to step in, the government has been the only supplier of funds. The government now controls these banks in a “de facto” nationalization.
Britain on Monday undertook a second round in its bank bailout and said it would boost its stake in Royal Bank of Scotland to more than two-thirds. The company's American shares, which didn't trade Monday because of Martin Luther King Day, plunged 70% on Tuesday. Ireland has moved closer to nationalizing its third-largest bank, which has suffered from scandal as well as losses, but the government said it wouldn't take control of its two largest financial institutions.
Don’t blame the little guy
Those who blame the little guy must realize that although some borrowers knowingly bought more house than they could afford with the idea they would flip it in two years, unscrupulous lenders steered the majority of mortgage holders into these loans. These unsophisticated, fiscally uneducated borrowers did not understand the small print, but instead, listened to and trusted the lenders. Evidence shows that many who would have qualified for fixed-interest loans were steered into sub-prime mortgages such as adjustable rate mortgages where the interest increases every few years with resulting astronomical house payments or ARMs where the entire mortgage is due in full in five years (called a balloon). These dishonest lenders refused to re-negotiate the loans and foreclosed on hundreds of thousands of homes nationwide because they thought they could resell them at a profit. The market became flooded with homes, the housing bubble burst, home prices plummeted, and down the economic house of cards went.
The global banking industry, which has written off more than $1 trillion of mostly mortgage-related holdings, now is being crushed by losses in areas such as credit cards and commercial real estate that are tied to the faltering economy. For the past decade, lenders offered credit cards, at low teaser rates, to everyone, even to those who had little to no income. Fiscally unsophisticated borrowers ran up huge balances because the “monthly payment” was “affordable”. Then using the borrowers lowered credit score, sometimes even their health records, as an excuse, banks pushed the interest rates as high as 35%, locking these people into a cycle of increasing debt.
Not to be outdone, the check cashing, title loan, and quick loan industry preyed on seniors who faced unbudgeted bills they could not pay (extra large utility bill, medical bill, etc) and whose Social Security checks barely cover the basics. These businesses make short term, one month loans to these seniors for a large fee. Once the elderly person cannot pay off the loan at the end of the month, the balance owed starts to climb exponentially. The state of South Carolina has one of the worst records in this area with thousands of seniors losing everything they have due to the state not regulating these predatory loan sharks.
So, although some far-right-wingers are already blaming the latest downturn on President Obama, the root of our economic dilemma is a too long unregulated banking, investment, and mortgage industry. This deregulation was a fundamental part of the trickle-down, laissez-faire economic policies pushed by the Republicans over the last 35 years. Then, fourteen months ago on Bush’s watch, while he was telling us that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, the house of deregulated cards began to fall, taking many other countries with it because these countries invested heavily in American stocks and bonds. Already, Iceland has become insolvent as its banks crashed and the government dissolved.
I hope I am wrong on this prediction: Obama can gather together as many highly intelligent, experienced experts as he wants and put their suggestions into policy, but the train left the station long ago. Already having gathered much speed as it feeds on itself in a downward spiral, I do not think it can be stopped. This is going to get much, much worse. I think we are looking at several years of deep world-wide recession, and if not actually sinking into a depression, it will at least border on one.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I couldn’t walk in his shoes
America, after eight years under the weight of a horribly inept and corrupt Bush presidency, celebrated for three days in a flood of optimism and hope. It is as if the nation is undergoing a rebirth, believing the American Dream of the Founding Fathers, ignored by the Bush-Cheney administration, is once again reality.
“We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals ... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.”
~President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address
Whatever President Obama achieves or does not achieve in the next four years, he has already changed the tone in America. People of all races are smiling more toward each other, are being more pleasant toward one another. There is joyfulness floating through the air, not just in this country, but all over the world.
America, and the world, living without an imaginative political leadership for too long, desperately wants Obama to succeed. We want him to lead the world out of the worst financial crisis and recession since the 1930s, to bring the troops home from Iraq, and to commit more troops to Afghanistan in order to defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban insurgency. Above all, we want President Obama to restore the United States in the eyes of the world as a beacon of democracy and liberty and justice for all.
So, I will say what many of you may be thinking: I wouldn’t want his job – couldn’t walk in his shoes – and I am fervently praying for God to guide him in his endeavor to make a world turned upside down and inside out, upright again. I pray for his success.
Here are the enormous problems he is facing:
Recession
The Bush administration finally admitted in December that the U.S. recession began a year earlier (in December 2007) and will probably extend well beyond 2009. Obama takes over a country in the midst of an ever deepening recession, with the Treasury Department and Fed still trying to repair an historic financial meltdown. For some people, 2008 was a year of financial ruin due to banks that failed, stock markets that crashed worldwide, property prices that fell, and jobs that disappeared with the resulting increase of the uninsured.
These economic woes have forced consumers to cut back. Consumers aren't spending, banks aren't lending, and factories are closing. The huge job losses are sure to continue. Many forecasters expect unemployment to hit 8.5% by midyear and over 10% by the end of the year. These numbers do not include the unemployed who once they no longer receive unemployment compensation are purged from the rolls. They also do not include the millions of underemployed workers. Long after the recession and credit crunch fade, consumers may remain more conservative in saving more and spending less – which will actually make it harder for the government to get the economy out of the hole since our economy is driven by consumerism.
The recession is too deep and has run too long for there to be a quick fix. The Obama team is planning sweeping steps to curb foreclosures and save the financial sector. If carried out quickly, such moves could give the economy a boost by late 2009. Then again, it might not, due to banks and investment firms being in much worse shape than originally stated. The recession is feeding on itself, spiraling downward, possibly too entrenched now for anyone to stop it. And this stimulus package of up to $850 billion will cause the 2009 budget deficit to balloon to $1.2 trillion. So, once the economy is stabilized, we will all have to tighten our belts and be willing to pay higher taxes to pay off the deficit now instead of passing it on to our children and grandchildren.
Health Care
In 2007, 45.7 million people in the U.S. (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year. In 2000, our health care system was ranked by the World Health Organization as the first in responsiveness, but highest in cost, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health of its citizens among 191 nations. The U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have universal health care for all citizens. Seniors must spend a much higher percentage of their income for healthcare than in any other industrialized nation.
President Obama believes that people have a fundamental right to have health care. Hopefully he can get the insurance companies and the Republicans onboard and put together a national healthcare plan that will satisfy the majority while covering everyone and bring cost down – a tall order indeed.
Global Issues
Terrorists: Obama becomes commander in chief of U.S. forces as America wages war in Iraq and Afghanistan, continues its pursuit of Al-Quaida and other terror groups, and tries to convince Iran to end its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”
~President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address
Russia: Under Vladimir Putin, Russia remains eager to use its energy supplies as a weapon — as its New Year's Eve natural gas cutoff to Ukraine shows. Putin has also talked of creating an OPEC-like natural gas cartel. Meanwhile, he's using Russia's energy wealth to sharply boost defense spending, including building 70 new-generation nuclear missiles. Putin's attempt to restore Russia as a major player in world affairs will test Obama's skills.
China: Not only will Obama have to deal with a China that holds title to some $1.6 trillion in U.S. bonds, but a China that is set on becoming a great global power. As China builds a navy that someday may challenge U.S. supremacy on the high seas, Obama might find his diplomatic talents sorely tried.
Losing demand for its products as the global growth engine sputters, China’s industrial production has dropped, with thousands of toy factories shut down last year. Officially, China expects 8% GDP growth in 2009, but some economists say China may only grow 5% this year, with rising unemployment that could lead to social unrest.
China is now the largest holder of U.S. Treasuries, helping to finance America's soaring federal deficit. If China cut its Treasury holdings to pay for its own domestic programs, U.S. borrowing rates could surge and the dollar could tumble, sending the global financial system spiraling downward once again.
Other parts of the world: We also have had recent reminders that the world has many long-term festering problems that desperately need visionary changes to American foreign policy. The new administration will have to juggle its ties to two nuclear-armed rivals — Pakistan and India — and seek to end the ongoing genocide in the horn of Africa and Zimbabwe. The centuries old Israeli-Palestinian conflict can explode at any time, as recent events have shown, exacerbating tensions throughout the Middle East. The rogue nation of Iran is building up its nuclear capabilities – endangering the entire world.
“We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger, and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you... To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the west – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
~President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address
Energy
President Obama has pledged to develop alternative energy and fuel-efficient vehicles, creating millions of "green jobs." He also favors a cap-and-trade policy for greenhouse gases, which could have a major impact on industrial activity. Oil and natural gas production are falling and, by all accounts, will fall more sharply in the coming year. With energy futures well off their highs, and the economy in a deep recession, Obama’s plans may not be possible, at least for the near future.
Trade
During the Democratic primary, Obama promised to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Even if he doesn't actively push for trade barriers, many in Congress will. There has been strong support for tariffs on Chinese goods because of the undervalued yuan.
Even if Congress largely refrains from protectionist moves, the same may not be true of other nations. Already, Russia is hiking tariffs on imported cars and poultry. Argentina and Brazil are pushing to raise tariffs on textiles, wine and leather goods, while Indonesia is increasing import restrictions on over 500 products. The global downturn will likely cause other governments to adopt similar measures which will actually slow economies even more.
A patient public
According to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, though, Americans are confident he can turn the economy around but are prepared to give him years to deal with the aggregation of problems he faces. While hopes for the new president are extraordinarily high, the poll found expectations for what Obama will actually be able to accomplish have been tempered by the enormity of the nation’s problems. Even though the campaign generated wonderful enthusiasm and high hopes for change, most Americans now say they expect progress to be slow in improving the economy, reforming the health care system, and ending the war in Iraq. Most citizens realize that it will take years to undo the mess that the previous administration created.
President Obama is facing an extraordinarily difficult four years. Although his stature with the American public appears to be high, this optimism brings great expectations. The danger is that the burden of great expectations could be the very undoing of the Obama presidency. The public has placed him on a very high pedestal from which he could take a nasty tumble.
I would not want to, could not ever, walk in his shoes.
“We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals ... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.”
~President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address
Whatever President Obama achieves or does not achieve in the next four years, he has already changed the tone in America. People of all races are smiling more toward each other, are being more pleasant toward one another. There is joyfulness floating through the air, not just in this country, but all over the world.
America, and the world, living without an imaginative political leadership for too long, desperately wants Obama to succeed. We want him to lead the world out of the worst financial crisis and recession since the 1930s, to bring the troops home from Iraq, and to commit more troops to Afghanistan in order to defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban insurgency. Above all, we want President Obama to restore the United States in the eyes of the world as a beacon of democracy and liberty and justice for all.
So, I will say what many of you may be thinking: I wouldn’t want his job – couldn’t walk in his shoes – and I am fervently praying for God to guide him in his endeavor to make a world turned upside down and inside out, upright again. I pray for his success.
Here are the enormous problems he is facing:
Recession
The Bush administration finally admitted in December that the U.S. recession began a year earlier (in December 2007) and will probably extend well beyond 2009. Obama takes over a country in the midst of an ever deepening recession, with the Treasury Department and Fed still trying to repair an historic financial meltdown. For some people, 2008 was a year of financial ruin due to banks that failed, stock markets that crashed worldwide, property prices that fell, and jobs that disappeared with the resulting increase of the uninsured.
These economic woes have forced consumers to cut back. Consumers aren't spending, banks aren't lending, and factories are closing. The huge job losses are sure to continue. Many forecasters expect unemployment to hit 8.5% by midyear and over 10% by the end of the year. These numbers do not include the unemployed who once they no longer receive unemployment compensation are purged from the rolls. They also do not include the millions of underemployed workers. Long after the recession and credit crunch fade, consumers may remain more conservative in saving more and spending less – which will actually make it harder for the government to get the economy out of the hole since our economy is driven by consumerism.
The recession is too deep and has run too long for there to be a quick fix. The Obama team is planning sweeping steps to curb foreclosures and save the financial sector. If carried out quickly, such moves could give the economy a boost by late 2009. Then again, it might not, due to banks and investment firms being in much worse shape than originally stated. The recession is feeding on itself, spiraling downward, possibly too entrenched now for anyone to stop it. And this stimulus package of up to $850 billion will cause the 2009 budget deficit to balloon to $1.2 trillion. So, once the economy is stabilized, we will all have to tighten our belts and be willing to pay higher taxes to pay off the deficit now instead of passing it on to our children and grandchildren.
Health Care
In 2007, 45.7 million people in the U.S. (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year. In 2000, our health care system was ranked by the World Health Organization as the first in responsiveness, but highest in cost, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health of its citizens among 191 nations. The U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have universal health care for all citizens. Seniors must spend a much higher percentage of their income for healthcare than in any other industrialized nation.
President Obama believes that people have a fundamental right to have health care. Hopefully he can get the insurance companies and the Republicans onboard and put together a national healthcare plan that will satisfy the majority while covering everyone and bring cost down – a tall order indeed.
Global Issues
Terrorists: Obama becomes commander in chief of U.S. forces as America wages war in Iraq and Afghanistan, continues its pursuit of Al-Quaida and other terror groups, and tries to convince Iran to end its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”
~President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address
Russia: Under Vladimir Putin, Russia remains eager to use its energy supplies as a weapon — as its New Year's Eve natural gas cutoff to Ukraine shows. Putin has also talked of creating an OPEC-like natural gas cartel. Meanwhile, he's using Russia's energy wealth to sharply boost defense spending, including building 70 new-generation nuclear missiles. Putin's attempt to restore Russia as a major player in world affairs will test Obama's skills.
China: Not only will Obama have to deal with a China that holds title to some $1.6 trillion in U.S. bonds, but a China that is set on becoming a great global power. As China builds a navy that someday may challenge U.S. supremacy on the high seas, Obama might find his diplomatic talents sorely tried.
Losing demand for its products as the global growth engine sputters, China’s industrial production has dropped, with thousands of toy factories shut down last year. Officially, China expects 8% GDP growth in 2009, but some economists say China may only grow 5% this year, with rising unemployment that could lead to social unrest.
China is now the largest holder of U.S. Treasuries, helping to finance America's soaring federal deficit. If China cut its Treasury holdings to pay for its own domestic programs, U.S. borrowing rates could surge and the dollar could tumble, sending the global financial system spiraling downward once again.
Other parts of the world: We also have had recent reminders that the world has many long-term festering problems that desperately need visionary changes to American foreign policy. The new administration will have to juggle its ties to two nuclear-armed rivals — Pakistan and India — and seek to end the ongoing genocide in the horn of Africa and Zimbabwe. The centuries old Israeli-Palestinian conflict can explode at any time, as recent events have shown, exacerbating tensions throughout the Middle East. The rogue nation of Iran is building up its nuclear capabilities – endangering the entire world.
“We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger, and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you... To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the west – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
~President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address
Energy
President Obama has pledged to develop alternative energy and fuel-efficient vehicles, creating millions of "green jobs." He also favors a cap-and-trade policy for greenhouse gases, which could have a major impact on industrial activity. Oil and natural gas production are falling and, by all accounts, will fall more sharply in the coming year. With energy futures well off their highs, and the economy in a deep recession, Obama’s plans may not be possible, at least for the near future.
Trade
During the Democratic primary, Obama promised to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Even if he doesn't actively push for trade barriers, many in Congress will. There has been strong support for tariffs on Chinese goods because of the undervalued yuan.
Even if Congress largely refrains from protectionist moves, the same may not be true of other nations. Already, Russia is hiking tariffs on imported cars and poultry. Argentina and Brazil are pushing to raise tariffs on textiles, wine and leather goods, while Indonesia is increasing import restrictions on over 500 products. The global downturn will likely cause other governments to adopt similar measures which will actually slow economies even more.
A patient public
According to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, though, Americans are confident he can turn the economy around but are prepared to give him years to deal with the aggregation of problems he faces. While hopes for the new president are extraordinarily high, the poll found expectations for what Obama will actually be able to accomplish have been tempered by the enormity of the nation’s problems. Even though the campaign generated wonderful enthusiasm and high hopes for change, most Americans now say they expect progress to be slow in improving the economy, reforming the health care system, and ending the war in Iraq. Most citizens realize that it will take years to undo the mess that the previous administration created.
President Obama is facing an extraordinarily difficult four years. Although his stature with the American public appears to be high, this optimism brings great expectations. The danger is that the burden of great expectations could be the very undoing of the Obama presidency. The public has placed him on a very high pedestal from which he could take a nasty tumble.
I would not want to, could not ever, walk in his shoes.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The mandate and the legacy
During his last news conference, President Bush uses the word "disappointment" to describe his eight-year tenure.
The mandate
Many of us will forever carry a bitter taste from the Years of Bush. We had long ago grown weary of the Republicans telling us that George W. Bush was capable of being president in the first place, but now some of them are absurdly lauding him as one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known.
Back in January 2001, with Rove at his back, Bush strutted into Washington claiming to have a mandate for his entire political agenda, from a huge tax cut to a reduction of regulations on American business and financial institutions. He asked Congress to ratify his plans for education reform, partial privatization of Social Security, faith-based social services, and military pay hikes.
The media went into fits of delight over Bush’s aggressive and manly dominance, while the Democrats seemed to be in shock, paralyzed by his audacious nerve, allowing him to bulldoze over them. Meanwhile, those of us out here in the heartland who were aghast at the way Bush and the Republican party seized complete power, were snidely admonished by the right-leaning pundits to just "get over it."
The media repeated ad nauseum that the American people wanted a "regular guy" of average intelligence with whom they would feel comfortable having a beer, rather than some boring intelligent egghead for president. They said that Bush’s election meant the regular folks, the grown-ups, were once again in charge, even though he clearly showed the emotional maturity and judgment of a surly teenager.
Bush behaved as if he had won a landslide. This is from February 2001 Business Week Magazine, right after Bush took office:
“When President Bush was asked recently by a reporter about his judicial selection process, he responded that his election was a mandate for putting conservative judges on the bench. Stumping for his $1.6 trillion tax cut (funny how that is about the amount of the national debt), Bush declares that voters endorsed it when they chose him to be President. And why stop there? Bush has claimed a mandate for everything from changing the tone in Washington to building an antimissile shield in outer space.
Mandate? This from the first President in more than 100 years to win the office without garnering the most votes? Bush wasn't about to let the election results get in the way of a good mandate. True, he lost the popular vote to Al Gore -- and in the eyes of many Democrats lost the electoral vote, too.
... the new President is out to prove that a mandate is what you make it. "Essentially, [the] mandate is what you [Bush] can get away with," says Princeton University political scientist Fred Greenstein. "Bush is very good at claiming victory. He has a 'Marlboro Man' approach to communication. His idea of having a mandate is to say 'I have a mandate.’ ”
When 9/11 happened, the public went into shock, unable to discern fact from fiction. They listened to the pundits, believing what they said – that Bush was some kind of savant whose "gut" was so brilliant that brains were irrelevant.
Larry Wilkerson, a top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were a national security "dream team" to guide the foreign-policy amateur Bush. But now, former administration underlings, such as Wilkerson, are depicting President Bush as a "Sarah Palin-like" leader with a short attention span who deferred on big decisions. Wilkerson said that everybody believed that the foreign-policy inexperienced President was going to be protected by his national security elite team who had been “tested in the cauldrons of fire.”
It was obvious from the first time I heard George W. Bush speak that the man had no business being president. He sat slumped in his chair like a sullen teenager with a smirk on his face. When he spoke, many voters were aghast at his lack of intellect and ability. It was an insult to the country that the Republicans recruited him for the job. It was an even worse insult that the press destroyed Al Gore over his so-called egghead personality. The pundits loved Bush’s “regular guy” persona and fell all over themselves to help the Republicans pass Bush off as a leader.
Bush never had a mandate from the people of this country – losing the popular vote to Al Gore – and the electoral vote count forever questionable due to Florida. The “mandate” was only given by Bush himself to himself and by media disciples. The Presidency was handed to him by five Republicans on the Supreme Court the first time, and by Ohio “losing” the ballots of thousands of Democratic voters the second time.
Mandate? What mandate? It was a Republican coup.
The legacy
In his final news conference before leaving office, which was obviously held for legacy-polishing, President George W. Bush made many claims that are at odds with his record. He rattled off his prepared talking points and then got ... angry. Not angry at his administration's failures, but at the critics.
He claimed to have inherited a recession that in actuality began on his watch. There have been two recessions during Bush's time in office. The first was a relatively mild downturn that began in March 2001 and lasted eight months, ending in November 2001. Since the first one did not begin until after he took office in January 2001, it is not strictly accurate to say he "inherited" it. The second downturn began December 2007, which his administration refused to acknowledge for months. The economy is in its deepest crisis in 80 years which he himself admitted when he said, “And I readily concede I chunked aside some of my free market principles when I was told by chief economic advisers that the situation we were facing could be worse than the Great Depression.”
Ah-h-h, the “D” word. The economy may be so deep in the hole that Obama’s Economic Team, as experienced as they are, might not be able to stop the slide.
As to Bush’s claim of 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, that is true but misleading. Job growth after the 2001 recession did not resume on a sustained basis until September 2003, continuing until January 2007, a period of 52 months. However, jobs have declined in every month since then with a staggering 2.6 million jobs disappearing in 2008, the most since World War II, and unemployment has hit a 16-year high of 7.2 percent. Overall, during Bush's eight years in office, a net total of 3 million jobs were created – most of which were low paying service jobs. During President Clinton’s two terms 21 million jobs were generated.
On the Bush administration's response to Katrina, Bush arrogantly scolded, “Don't tell me the federal response was slow when there was 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed... That's a pretty quick response." But he is ignoring the facts: There were 9,000 Louisiana families still living in trailers as of last Sept. 1, and only 30,000 residents of all the Gulf states received disaster housing assistance. Five of 23 acute-care hospitals in the New Orleans area remain closed. The city's bus system carries less than a third of its pre-storm passengers. Many neighborhoods remain largely vacant. Out of the $121 billion in approved federal aid only $15 billion has been spent on rebuilding in the state. Of 125 public schools in New Orleans before Katrina, only about 85 remain. Many neighborhoods still lie in ruin.
On the situation with Israel, Bush said his administration "worked hard" to advance peace by defining a goal of two peaceful countries and working to strengthen Palestinian security forces. He didn't mention that he put peacemaking on the back burner for most of his tenure and only started negotiations in the last few months. Bush wrote off Arafat early on, saying the PLO chief was corrupt and probably incapable of delivering an agreeable deal to Israel. But one of his biggest mistakes was when Bush pushed Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, to hold elections in early 2006. He never considered what could and did happen. These elections ended up legitimizing Hamas, which is now in control of the Gaza Strip and at war with Israel. Israel may succeed in wounding Hamas leadership and its ability to fire rockets into Israel, but it probably cannot defeat the well-organized group outright. In the meantime, civilian deaths in Gaza erode Palestinian support for peace negotiations. With Hamas in control, peace could be a hundred years away, if ever.
That is what happens when our government refuses to hold talks with our enemies.
Bush’s biggest legacy might be the “war on terror,” which took us into two wars (with the Iraq war launched on the basis of faulty intelligence), helped him to make bold assertions of executive-branch power and destroyed America's image abroad. Sure, two years after a surge of US troops into Iraq (which should have been done years earlier) the country has become more stable, but Osama bin Laden still remains at large. What happened to the idea of getting Osama bin Laden, dead or alive?
The remainder of Bush's news conference was typical. He portrayed his critics as not being anti-Bush but rather as attacking hard-working everyday heroes. Then he wonders why the tone of Washington became so poisonous during his tenure.
Bush’s mandate never was – and his record stands, as is, through videos and well-written articles stacked from one end of the U.S. to the other. It is a ruinous history, a legacy, that cannot be rewritten regardless of how hard he and his friends try to do so.
Monday, January 12, 2009
No – we are not all Hamas now
Marchers in the streets of Europe and the US chant, “We are all Hamas now.” They feel pity for the Palestinian civilians who are being maimed and killed due to the new Israeli-Hamas war. I feel sorry for the innocents, too, but where have these marchers been for the past many years while Hamas, working from within Gaza, sent thousands of missiles into Israel, aiming at schools, homes, and hospitals? Where have these marchers been while Hamas sent suicide bombers into Israeli shopping malls and restaurants, and onto buses full of Israeli children?
Virtually every aspect of Hamas’ operations is illegal under international humanitarian law. They have committed horrendous war crimes, yet the U.N. reserves its accusations of war crimes for the Israelis.
The Israelis have been attacked from every piece of land that they have returned, after acquiring the land through wars that were instigated by its Arab neighbors. They have forcibly removed their own settlers from Gaza and West Bank and have done everything they can to live in peace. In return, they have asked the Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist and be allowed to live in peace.
D. Lawson, a correspondent with the UK Times, reports that he was recently in the town of Sderot, Israel, which is just across the border from Gaza, talking to an Israeli nurse whose home had been hit by one of the thousands of Qassam missiles that have been fired by Hamas into Israel over the past few years – ever since Israel withdrew from Gaza. She has shrapnel lodged, irremovably, just below her brain. These missiles have been fired into Israel in defiance of the peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel.
Lawson writes: “The nurse said she constantly tells her four-year-old son, who was also injured, that “there are so many good people in Gaza who are not trying to kill us”. Her anger was principally against her own government: “The day Israel withdrew from Gaza, I knew it was a terrible idea, I knew we would be a target. And I know my Arab friends will suffer when the IDF [Israel Defense Force] goes back into Gaza.”
...All the same, even the majority of those Israelis who passionately believe that the Palestinians should have their own state, and that the West Bank should be handed over to them, are convinced there was no choice for their government but to act as it has over the past fortnight. These Israelis were bitterly opposed to the military campaigns against Lebanon, but see this [Gaza] campaign as much closer to the spirit of the six-day war and the Yom Kippur war. “Ein brera”, they tell me, which is Hebrew for “no choice.”
It was no longer just Sderot which was taking hits from the Qassams, and where parents would not let their children play outdoors. The Iranian-supplied Hamas ordnance was becoming ever wider in its range. Ashkelon (which incidentally supplies all of Gaza’s electricity) and even the city of Be’er-sheva are now reachable targets, and more than 800,000 Israelis are potential victims.”
The Israeli response has been described by some as disproportionate because the consequences for the people of Gaza is far worse, in numbers of innocent dead, and more intense than anything the people of Israel have recently suffered. But Hamas targets civilians on purpose and with open expressions of bloodthirsty delight when successful. Hamas deploys suicide bombers, including women and children, and rigs up schools and houses with booby-trap explosives.
If Israel had no regard for civilian lives, it would not shower leaflets from planes and make telephone calls to residents in Gaza to warn them ahead of time that an attack is about to commence in their area because this also gives Hamas notice. This is not the act of an army devoted to military victory at all costs. The Israeli Army’s commitment to a daily three-hour one-sided ceasefire to permit the evacuation of casualties, and for the passage of humanitarian aid, during which time Hamas continues to fire their missiles into Israel. It also gives Hamas time to regroup and redeploy for future attacks.
There are people who cite the Lebanon war of 2006 as a terrible precedent because it left Hezbollah unconquered and elevated in prestige among many Arabs. It seems that few have noticed that since that campaign no Hezbollah missiles have been fired on northern Israel. In fact, when three rockets were recently fired from Lebanon, Hezbollah rushed to reassure the Israeli government that it was not involved and that the rockets were not the sort it even possessed.
Like the war with the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Israeli attack on Gaza is sad but necessary. If the process towards an independent Palestinian state is to have any kind of future, the terrorist groups among the Palestinians, such as Hamas, must stop their terrorist acts and declare Israel’s right to exist. Until the people of Israel believe that a Palestinian state – including the heights of the West Bank, which overlook Tel Aviv – is not a threat to their own existence, the battles will continue to take the lives of innocents caught in the middle.
Hamas knew that a continuous firing of missiles into Israel would eventually lead to retaliation which would, in turn, lead to Palestinian civilian casualties. It’s what they want – so that they can say Israel is evil. If I had been the leader of Israel, and Hamas had fired the first Qassam missile into my country, into my home or the home of my neighbor, I would not have waited two or three years to see if the “talks” were successful while thousands of missiles were fired upon my people; I would have suspended “talks,” sent troops in to destroy Hamas, and reoccupied Gaza immediately.
The nations of the world should have never cut off aid to the Palestinians because it made them vulnerable to Hamas. But the people of Gaza are not totally innocent in this situation since they elected Hamas as their government instead of the Palestinian Authority. They elected Hamas, a terrorist group, because Hamas gave them food, medicine, and clothing when the rest of the world did not. It is time for Gazans to reject Hamas, and re-elect the Palestinian Authority, the legitimate authority, who has recognized Israel and wants peace.
None of these arguments seem to penetrate the dense brains of the idiots in Europe and the US who hold marches in the street while chanting, “We are all Hamas now.” These people are evidently not informed that Hamas has legalized crucifixion as a punishment for those who “weaken the spirit of the people” (passing this law on Christmas Eve), and have been shooting political enemies in the head when they find them lying in hospitals conveniently injured by Israeli bombing raids.
No, we are not all Hamas now. If there is to be no peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors, then I take the side of Israel – as does the majority in my country.
Virtually every aspect of Hamas’ operations is illegal under international humanitarian law. They have committed horrendous war crimes, yet the U.N. reserves its accusations of war crimes for the Israelis.
The Israelis have been attacked from every piece of land that they have returned, after acquiring the land through wars that were instigated by its Arab neighbors. They have forcibly removed their own settlers from Gaza and West Bank and have done everything they can to live in peace. In return, they have asked the Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist and be allowed to live in peace.
D. Lawson, a correspondent with the UK Times, reports that he was recently in the town of Sderot, Israel, which is just across the border from Gaza, talking to an Israeli nurse whose home had been hit by one of the thousands of Qassam missiles that have been fired by Hamas into Israel over the past few years – ever since Israel withdrew from Gaza. She has shrapnel lodged, irremovably, just below her brain. These missiles have been fired into Israel in defiance of the peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel.
Lawson writes: “The nurse said she constantly tells her four-year-old son, who was also injured, that “there are so many good people in Gaza who are not trying to kill us”. Her anger was principally against her own government: “The day Israel withdrew from Gaza, I knew it was a terrible idea, I knew we would be a target. And I know my Arab friends will suffer when the IDF [Israel Defense Force] goes back into Gaza.”
...All the same, even the majority of those Israelis who passionately believe that the Palestinians should have their own state, and that the West Bank should be handed over to them, are convinced there was no choice for their government but to act as it has over the past fortnight. These Israelis were bitterly opposed to the military campaigns against Lebanon, but see this [Gaza] campaign as much closer to the spirit of the six-day war and the Yom Kippur war. “Ein brera”, they tell me, which is Hebrew for “no choice.”
It was no longer just Sderot which was taking hits from the Qassams, and where parents would not let their children play outdoors. The Iranian-supplied Hamas ordnance was becoming ever wider in its range. Ashkelon (which incidentally supplies all of Gaza’s electricity) and even the city of Be’er-sheva are now reachable targets, and more than 800,000 Israelis are potential victims.”
The Israeli response has been described by some as disproportionate because the consequences for the people of Gaza is far worse, in numbers of innocent dead, and more intense than anything the people of Israel have recently suffered. But Hamas targets civilians on purpose and with open expressions of bloodthirsty delight when successful. Hamas deploys suicide bombers, including women and children, and rigs up schools and houses with booby-trap explosives.
If Israel had no regard for civilian lives, it would not shower leaflets from planes and make telephone calls to residents in Gaza to warn them ahead of time that an attack is about to commence in their area because this also gives Hamas notice. This is not the act of an army devoted to military victory at all costs. The Israeli Army’s commitment to a daily three-hour one-sided ceasefire to permit the evacuation of casualties, and for the passage of humanitarian aid, during which time Hamas continues to fire their missiles into Israel. It also gives Hamas time to regroup and redeploy for future attacks.
There are people who cite the Lebanon war of 2006 as a terrible precedent because it left Hezbollah unconquered and elevated in prestige among many Arabs. It seems that few have noticed that since that campaign no Hezbollah missiles have been fired on northern Israel. In fact, when three rockets were recently fired from Lebanon, Hezbollah rushed to reassure the Israeli government that it was not involved and that the rockets were not the sort it even possessed.
Like the war with the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Israeli attack on Gaza is sad but necessary. If the process towards an independent Palestinian state is to have any kind of future, the terrorist groups among the Palestinians, such as Hamas, must stop their terrorist acts and declare Israel’s right to exist. Until the people of Israel believe that a Palestinian state – including the heights of the West Bank, which overlook Tel Aviv – is not a threat to their own existence, the battles will continue to take the lives of innocents caught in the middle.
Hamas knew that a continuous firing of missiles into Israel would eventually lead to retaliation which would, in turn, lead to Palestinian civilian casualties. It’s what they want – so that they can say Israel is evil. If I had been the leader of Israel, and Hamas had fired the first Qassam missile into my country, into my home or the home of my neighbor, I would not have waited two or three years to see if the “talks” were successful while thousands of missiles were fired upon my people; I would have suspended “talks,” sent troops in to destroy Hamas, and reoccupied Gaza immediately.
The nations of the world should have never cut off aid to the Palestinians because it made them vulnerable to Hamas. But the people of Gaza are not totally innocent in this situation since they elected Hamas as their government instead of the Palestinian Authority. They elected Hamas, a terrorist group, because Hamas gave them food, medicine, and clothing when the rest of the world did not. It is time for Gazans to reject Hamas, and re-elect the Palestinian Authority, the legitimate authority, who has recognized Israel and wants peace.
None of these arguments seem to penetrate the dense brains of the idiots in Europe and the US who hold marches in the street while chanting, “We are all Hamas now.” These people are evidently not informed that Hamas has legalized crucifixion as a punishment for those who “weaken the spirit of the people” (passing this law on Christmas Eve), and have been shooting political enemies in the head when they find them lying in hospitals conveniently injured by Israeli bombing raids.
No, we are not all Hamas now. If there is to be no peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors, then I take the side of Israel – as does the majority in my country.
Friday, January 9, 2009
The End of Retirement
My husband and I have been discussing his retirement. We had planned for him to retire in 2010. Now we are unsure of the future. We followed the “three-legged stool” plan that so many retirement counselors have touted over the last 30 years: part pension, part Social Security, and part savings (for the extra things we may want). But will our state pensions be there for us in 10, 20, 30 years? Will Social Security be there? What about Medicare? Now our retirement savings account is starting to look like it may not be nearly enough. We are thinking that maybe my husband should continue teaching for several more years. At least he has a job – unlike the 7.2% who do not. (This unemployment figure does not include the 1.6 million long-term unemployed or the nearly 8 million who have been underemployed in part-time jobs or low paying jobs for years.)
Unless things change in the next few years, unless the Obama administration is able to turn things around, history will show that “retirement” was limited to one generation. European and Japanese economies stood in tatters after WWII. With little foreign competition, American capitalism could fulfill the American dream. For the first time ever, workers were promised that they would be able to securely retire. This was true ... for one generation.
The baby boomers are having to face a new reality. Last year, 2008, was supposed to be the year that the first baby boomers turned 62, beginning a retirement frenzy because people could begin to draw on their social security benefits. However, the economy has nosedived, and studies show that many are delaying their retirement by many years. The unfortunate reality is that those who had an investment plan for retirement will now join the millions of other baby boomers who were never able to save and have to work until the grave.
This is a perfect storm. Everything that could go wrong is going wrong. This storm was created by the coordinated effort of big-business and their ‘bought and paid for’ politicians. This was done by the deliberate destruction of defined benefit pension systems and its replacement with the 401(k). Now that the economic crisis has emerged, we're beginning to see just how ruinous the effects are. At the end of September 2008, it was discovered that in the previous year the value of stocks in 401(k) accounts had fallen by nearly $2 trillion with stocks having lost nearly half their value for the year. This is especially devastating since almost one-third of 401(k) participants who are now in their 60s had 80 percent of their money in stocks. People over 60 years of age should have 60 percent of their money in bonds, but investment brokers lured them from safe investments with stories of getting rich with stocks.
The 401(k) was the scam of the century. Corporations offloaded their "burdensome" pensions and used the combined forces of the media and politicians to sell the ruse to the public, to the great benefit of Wall Street. Workers were told that stocks were a sure thing. There were additional factors that pushed people to invest in stocks: interest rates were so low on bonds and other low risk instruments offered only tiny returns; and since employers stopped contributing to retirement funds, a bigger return was required.
Every "safe bet" for investing has been proven unsafe. The recession has left nothing untouched. After the dotcom bubble burst -- taking with it millions of people's 401(k) savings -- the housing market became the place to invest. Now the safest possible investment, too, has turned sour. Millions of people bought very large homes as an investment. They had planned to sell and move into a smaller place once the kids were gone, but now, due to the crash in the housing market, this will not happen for many of them. They are stuck in homes that are too large and expensive to maintain if they retire. So, they must keep working.
U.S. citizens are between a rock and a hard place because corporations have been allowed to move a large part of their companies overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor. And foreign auto companies have moved into the southeast U.S. where labor is cheap and benefits are non-existent. These foreign companies were given huge tax breaks by the state governments basically allowing them to function in this country with little to no tax “burden.” This enabled the corporations to drive down real wages for U.S. workers. At the same time the cost of living rose exponentially, causing most workers to have to spend more of their paychecks to just live. There was little to no money left to save for retirement.
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), who chairs the House subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions, said that in retirement, “some will have very little, some will have almost nothing, and some will have nothing.” People who have little to nothing do not retire.
This process is being accelerated by the newest scam of big business: declaring bankruptcy just to destroy pension and healthcare obligations. This destruction of benefits also applies to workers who are already retired because their pensions are slashed in half, forcing them out of retirement at a very old age. The threat of bankruptcy is now used in union contract negotiations to scare workers into concessions, since after achieving bankruptcy labor agreements are torn up and benefits are lost.
Worker benefits were at the center of the debate about whether or not to help the Detroit car companies. The Republicans in Congress, who are mostly corporate politicians, wanted the companies to declare bankruptcy – a proven method to destroy pensions and healthcare benefits. Of course the media, owned by large corporations, also attack the pension and health care benefits of the "spoiled" auto workers. Yet, at the same time, we the people, can only dream of the kind of retirement and health benefits these hypocrites have.
These Congressional Republicans would also like to see the end of Social Security. Just think what would have happened if they had been able to achieve their goal of privatizing Social Security. Everyone under 55 years of age would have been required to put part or all of their Social Security into the stock market. Where would that money be today? Non-existent.
A business going under and closing it’s doors forever is one thing. The corporate strategy of “re-organizing” through the use of bankruptcy is another thing altogether. This tactic will increase in number as the crisis deepens and companies strive to restore profitability by drastically lowering the wages and gutting the benefits of U.S. workers.
Equally important is the emerging struggle for maintaining pensions of public employees, the last stronghold of workers who receive them. Public employees will find their pensions under immense attack as the economic crisis intensifies and government budgets are depleted. Those state workers who have a strong union or professional organizations that work with state legislatures in their name are the ones who still have decent wages, pension, and health benefits – so far.
The ultimate goal of big business and their puppet politicians is to destroy the unions, destroy benefits, and push the wages of U.S. workers down even further so that business can achieve ever higher profits and line the pockets of the wealthy with more and more and more.
A battle must be waged against the destruction of pension and health benefits. It must be done by uniting both seriously determined retired and active workers with new levels of organizing and solidarity. Workers can no longer rely on the promises of Democratic politicians (although if they fail, it won’t be from lack of trying). Workers must rely on their own collective strength. Otherwise, we will see the end of retirement for everyone except the very wealthy – and the politicians.
That’s the way it used to be – one hundred years ago.
Unless things change in the next few years, unless the Obama administration is able to turn things around, history will show that “retirement” was limited to one generation. European and Japanese economies stood in tatters after WWII. With little foreign competition, American capitalism could fulfill the American dream. For the first time ever, workers were promised that they would be able to securely retire. This was true ... for one generation.
The baby boomers are having to face a new reality. Last year, 2008, was supposed to be the year that the first baby boomers turned 62, beginning a retirement frenzy because people could begin to draw on their social security benefits. However, the economy has nosedived, and studies show that many are delaying their retirement by many years. The unfortunate reality is that those who had an investment plan for retirement will now join the millions of other baby boomers who were never able to save and have to work until the grave.
This is a perfect storm. Everything that could go wrong is going wrong. This storm was created by the coordinated effort of big-business and their ‘bought and paid for’ politicians. This was done by the deliberate destruction of defined benefit pension systems and its replacement with the 401(k). Now that the economic crisis has emerged, we're beginning to see just how ruinous the effects are. At the end of September 2008, it was discovered that in the previous year the value of stocks in 401(k) accounts had fallen by nearly $2 trillion with stocks having lost nearly half their value for the year. This is especially devastating since almost one-third of 401(k) participants who are now in their 60s had 80 percent of their money in stocks. People over 60 years of age should have 60 percent of their money in bonds, but investment brokers lured them from safe investments with stories of getting rich with stocks.
The 401(k) was the scam of the century. Corporations offloaded their "burdensome" pensions and used the combined forces of the media and politicians to sell the ruse to the public, to the great benefit of Wall Street. Workers were told that stocks were a sure thing. There were additional factors that pushed people to invest in stocks: interest rates were so low on bonds and other low risk instruments offered only tiny returns; and since employers stopped contributing to retirement funds, a bigger return was required.
Every "safe bet" for investing has been proven unsafe. The recession has left nothing untouched. After the dotcom bubble burst -- taking with it millions of people's 401(k) savings -- the housing market became the place to invest. Now the safest possible investment, too, has turned sour. Millions of people bought very large homes as an investment. They had planned to sell and move into a smaller place once the kids were gone, but now, due to the crash in the housing market, this will not happen for many of them. They are stuck in homes that are too large and expensive to maintain if they retire. So, they must keep working.
U.S. citizens are between a rock and a hard place because corporations have been allowed to move a large part of their companies overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor. And foreign auto companies have moved into the southeast U.S. where labor is cheap and benefits are non-existent. These foreign companies were given huge tax breaks by the state governments basically allowing them to function in this country with little to no tax “burden.” This enabled the corporations to drive down real wages for U.S. workers. At the same time the cost of living rose exponentially, causing most workers to have to spend more of their paychecks to just live. There was little to no money left to save for retirement.
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), who chairs the House subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions, said that in retirement, “some will have very little, some will have almost nothing, and some will have nothing.” People who have little to nothing do not retire.
This process is being accelerated by the newest scam of big business: declaring bankruptcy just to destroy pension and healthcare obligations. This destruction of benefits also applies to workers who are already retired because their pensions are slashed in half, forcing them out of retirement at a very old age. The threat of bankruptcy is now used in union contract negotiations to scare workers into concessions, since after achieving bankruptcy labor agreements are torn up and benefits are lost.
Worker benefits were at the center of the debate about whether or not to help the Detroit car companies. The Republicans in Congress, who are mostly corporate politicians, wanted the companies to declare bankruptcy – a proven method to destroy pensions and healthcare benefits. Of course the media, owned by large corporations, also attack the pension and health care benefits of the "spoiled" auto workers. Yet, at the same time, we the people, can only dream of the kind of retirement and health benefits these hypocrites have.
These Congressional Republicans would also like to see the end of Social Security. Just think what would have happened if they had been able to achieve their goal of privatizing Social Security. Everyone under 55 years of age would have been required to put part or all of their Social Security into the stock market. Where would that money be today? Non-existent.
A business going under and closing it’s doors forever is one thing. The corporate strategy of “re-organizing” through the use of bankruptcy is another thing altogether. This tactic will increase in number as the crisis deepens and companies strive to restore profitability by drastically lowering the wages and gutting the benefits of U.S. workers.
Equally important is the emerging struggle for maintaining pensions of public employees, the last stronghold of workers who receive them. Public employees will find their pensions under immense attack as the economic crisis intensifies and government budgets are depleted. Those state workers who have a strong union or professional organizations that work with state legislatures in their name are the ones who still have decent wages, pension, and health benefits – so far.
The ultimate goal of big business and their puppet politicians is to destroy the unions, destroy benefits, and push the wages of U.S. workers down even further so that business can achieve ever higher profits and line the pockets of the wealthy with more and more and more.
A battle must be waged against the destruction of pension and health benefits. It must be done by uniting both seriously determined retired and active workers with new levels of organizing and solidarity. Workers can no longer rely on the promises of Democratic politicians (although if they fail, it won’t be from lack of trying). Workers must rely on their own collective strength. Otherwise, we will see the end of retirement for everyone except the very wealthy – and the politicians.
That’s the way it used to be – one hundred years ago.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
A new dawn
I have never been more eager to see massive change at the top of our government. America has been given the chance to rise high above the chasm dug by the Bush administration. Words cannot express how much I am looking forward to January 20, 2009, when President-Elect Obama will take over and set an agenda for positive change. I have high expectations that he will use this opportunity to drive truly visionary and beneficial policies across the board.
In the last 8 years, America was trashed by George Bush and Dick Cheney in many ways. Extreme ideology combined with just plain meanness - both at the White House, and for many years, within the GOP-controlled Congress - brought America to its knees. The casual use of war in the guise of national security and it’s ensuing war crimes, the trashing of America's economic security, and the stepping stones for massive long-term environmental damage were all the handiwork of the Bush-Cheney administration. Yes, there were some Democrats who enabled parts of this terrible agenda - and they deserve blame where it is due - but the bulk of the responsibility for where America finds itself today clearly rests with the current President and Co-President. In November 2008, the American public finally saw the problem and said enough is enough. As a result, conservatism as an ideology is generally in decline.
Americans hold the expectation that an Obama administration will deliver the transformative changes required to rescue us from our broad economic troubles. Many people the world over hope that, with an Obama administration, America will once again be able to lead the them away from the frequent conflicts that are rooted in economic hardship and religious fanaticism. Obama certainly has the vision and leadership to make the kind of changes required to turn America around long-term and make it a respected leader across the world once again.
Obama’s Cabinet picks have shown great consideration on his part and have been generally praised, although there has been some grumbling on the left because so few have reputations as serious liberals. One of the very hopeful signs is that he is choosing experienced professionals for posts in government – people with areas of expertise assigned to appropriate posts, rather than making choices based on the purity of one's ideology. This is an excellent first step. Instead of acting as a liberal, Obama has moved to the center. That is where good government should be.
Polls show that a large percentage of Americans are now eagerly looking forward to the Obama Presidency and the positive change they hope it will bring. Anything Obama does will be a refreshing change from the Bush years. He left himself a fair amount of room for maneuvering in a few specific areas (including Iraq) - and if his actions fall within the gamut of views he expressed during the election, that in itself would be a good starting point. It is reasonable to argue that incremental changes from the Bush-Cheney years will be adequate in the beginning. The majority of the country seems to be more than willing to be patient and give him the benefit of time. I certainly am.
It remains to be seen how successful our new president will be, but here at the end of the old year, I feel a breath of fresh air. If Obama is successful in pulling our country out of the hole dug by the Bush-Cheney policies, there could be wonderful changes in the year to come that will bring me, all of us, contentment and gladness in being alive.
It is not just a new year, it is a new dawn.
In the last 8 years, America was trashed by George Bush and Dick Cheney in many ways. Extreme ideology combined with just plain meanness - both at the White House, and for many years, within the GOP-controlled Congress - brought America to its knees. The casual use of war in the guise of national security and it’s ensuing war crimes, the trashing of America's economic security, and the stepping stones for massive long-term environmental damage were all the handiwork of the Bush-Cheney administration. Yes, there were some Democrats who enabled parts of this terrible agenda - and they deserve blame where it is due - but the bulk of the responsibility for where America finds itself today clearly rests with the current President and Co-President. In November 2008, the American public finally saw the problem and said enough is enough. As a result, conservatism as an ideology is generally in decline.
Americans hold the expectation that an Obama administration will deliver the transformative changes required to rescue us from our broad economic troubles. Many people the world over hope that, with an Obama administration, America will once again be able to lead the them away from the frequent conflicts that are rooted in economic hardship and religious fanaticism. Obama certainly has the vision and leadership to make the kind of changes required to turn America around long-term and make it a respected leader across the world once again.
Obama’s Cabinet picks have shown great consideration on his part and have been generally praised, although there has been some grumbling on the left because so few have reputations as serious liberals. One of the very hopeful signs is that he is choosing experienced professionals for posts in government – people with areas of expertise assigned to appropriate posts, rather than making choices based on the purity of one's ideology. This is an excellent first step. Instead of acting as a liberal, Obama has moved to the center. That is where good government should be.
Polls show that a large percentage of Americans are now eagerly looking forward to the Obama Presidency and the positive change they hope it will bring. Anything Obama does will be a refreshing change from the Bush years. He left himself a fair amount of room for maneuvering in a few specific areas (including Iraq) - and if his actions fall within the gamut of views he expressed during the election, that in itself would be a good starting point. It is reasonable to argue that incremental changes from the Bush-Cheney years will be adequate in the beginning. The majority of the country seems to be more than willing to be patient and give him the benefit of time. I certainly am.
It remains to be seen how successful our new president will be, but here at the end of the old year, I feel a breath of fresh air. If Obama is successful in pulling our country out of the hole dug by the Bush-Cheney policies, there could be wonderful changes in the year to come that will bring me, all of us, contentment and gladness in being alive.
It is not just a new year, it is a new dawn.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Recapturing the meaning
What would you say if you had to explain Christmas to someone who knew nothing about it? You might begin with the shepherds in the fields by night, or Santa at the North Pole, or even tell how it all was blended with a pagan winter festival. You might tell of the rituals of Christmas, rejoicing, feasting, singing, the smell of baking and balsam trees, the stillness of the world on Christmas Eve except for carols and midnight church services. You would probably have something to say about the importance of family, how everything centers on the children, and on your memories of being a child during Christmastime.
Would you mention all the shopping?
In 1822, an American named Clement Clarke Moore wrote a poem about a visit from St. Nick. It was Moore (and a few other New Yorkers) who invented St. Nick's physical appearance and personality, came up with the idea that Santa travels on Christmas Eve in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, comes down the chimney, stuffs toys in the kids' stockings, and then goes back to the North Pole.
The giving of gifts became a major feature of Christmas during the 19th century. Christians denounced gift-giving as a Roman practice and denounced Santa as the Anti-Christ because he pushed Jesus to the background. They thought that Santa did not reflect Christian ethics. Instead of being a champion of Christian mercy and unconditional love, Santa symbolized justice – giving only to good children, showing no mercy toward bad ones. Instead of admonishing the wealthy and demanding that they give to the poor; the children of the rich received more extravagant and numerous gifts. Even though the myth was that he gave gifts to all, the poor got little to nothing.
By the end of the 19th century, thanks to our country’s success with capitalism, there was enough wealth in America to make gifts possible for almost everyone with a great productive apparatus to advertise them and make them available cheaply. The whole country gleefully took to giving gifts on an unprecedented scale. Christians relented and joined in the Christmas commercialism with everyone else.
By the last half of the 20th century, Christmas had become so commercial and extravagant, gift-giving so common, that there became a disconnect between the message of love and good will toward all in the Christmas hymns and the immodesty of the shopping season. Nowadays, most of us spend the holiday season racing around and battling each other at sales tables to make sure loved ones are loaded up with gifts. In doing so, the meaning of the season has been lost – although some will attend a Christmas service and then put Christ on the back burner as they party and shop.
How does this frenzied, stressful commercial machinery of weeks of Christmas shopping connect with peace on earth? What does all that retailing and wrapping paper have to do with Christ’s birth? We seem to have turned the promise of salvation into the hope of beating everyone else to the sales tables as retailers and government uses the Christmas season to prop up the American economy. That is why they call the Friday after Thanksgiving, which is the beginning of the Christmas shopping season, Black Friday. It is when stores and some local governments get out of the red.
But not this year.
With the rise in unemployment at an all time high in decades, the recession has taken its toll. The shoppers have spent far less this year, leaving governments in the red and some stores closing their doors forever.
It is at times like this that people begin to realize that the pursuit of material gain is often at the expense of far better traits like charity, spirituality, compassion, family values and concern for your neighbors and those worse off than yourself. Do the children really need a “big” Christmas? Do you really need to buy all those expensive gifts for everyone on an ever expanding list? Do all those fancy, expensive gifts really hold the feelings we are looking for and say what we want to say? If we genuinely love one another – truly hold one another in our hearts – wouldn’t saying it and showing it often be far better? Gifts are much more wonderful when they are modest, from the heart, and spontaneous.
Christmas is about Christ and his message of peaceful cohabitation among all men. That was the essence of the message spread during that first Christmas Eve: “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.” [Luke 2:10] This message of good will was meant to be year round and not just exist only during this season.
If the recession helps us to get beyond the commercialism, then it holds a silver lining. Hopefully, we might once again find the real meaning of Christmas allowing it to once again become a church-centered holiday of modest spirit, humble aspirations, loving, and being loved.
Then, perhaps as a society, we can recapture some of the true meaning of this special time and carry it throughout the year.
Would you mention all the shopping?
In 1822, an American named Clement Clarke Moore wrote a poem about a visit from St. Nick. It was Moore (and a few other New Yorkers) who invented St. Nick's physical appearance and personality, came up with the idea that Santa travels on Christmas Eve in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, comes down the chimney, stuffs toys in the kids' stockings, and then goes back to the North Pole.
The giving of gifts became a major feature of Christmas during the 19th century. Christians denounced gift-giving as a Roman practice and denounced Santa as the Anti-Christ because he pushed Jesus to the background. They thought that Santa did not reflect Christian ethics. Instead of being a champion of Christian mercy and unconditional love, Santa symbolized justice – giving only to good children, showing no mercy toward bad ones. Instead of admonishing the wealthy and demanding that they give to the poor; the children of the rich received more extravagant and numerous gifts. Even though the myth was that he gave gifts to all, the poor got little to nothing.
By the end of the 19th century, thanks to our country’s success with capitalism, there was enough wealth in America to make gifts possible for almost everyone with a great productive apparatus to advertise them and make them available cheaply. The whole country gleefully took to giving gifts on an unprecedented scale. Christians relented and joined in the Christmas commercialism with everyone else.
By the last half of the 20th century, Christmas had become so commercial and extravagant, gift-giving so common, that there became a disconnect between the message of love and good will toward all in the Christmas hymns and the immodesty of the shopping season. Nowadays, most of us spend the holiday season racing around and battling each other at sales tables to make sure loved ones are loaded up with gifts. In doing so, the meaning of the season has been lost – although some will attend a Christmas service and then put Christ on the back burner as they party and shop.
How does this frenzied, stressful commercial machinery of weeks of Christmas shopping connect with peace on earth? What does all that retailing and wrapping paper have to do with Christ’s birth? We seem to have turned the promise of salvation into the hope of beating everyone else to the sales tables as retailers and government uses the Christmas season to prop up the American economy. That is why they call the Friday after Thanksgiving, which is the beginning of the Christmas shopping season, Black Friday. It is when stores and some local governments get out of the red.
But not this year.
With the rise in unemployment at an all time high in decades, the recession has taken its toll. The shoppers have spent far less this year, leaving governments in the red and some stores closing their doors forever.
It is at times like this that people begin to realize that the pursuit of material gain is often at the expense of far better traits like charity, spirituality, compassion, family values and concern for your neighbors and those worse off than yourself. Do the children really need a “big” Christmas? Do you really need to buy all those expensive gifts for everyone on an ever expanding list? Do all those fancy, expensive gifts really hold the feelings we are looking for and say what we want to say? If we genuinely love one another – truly hold one another in our hearts – wouldn’t saying it and showing it often be far better? Gifts are much more wonderful when they are modest, from the heart, and spontaneous.
Christmas is about Christ and his message of peaceful cohabitation among all men. That was the essence of the message spread during that first Christmas Eve: “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.” [Luke 2:10] This message of good will was meant to be year round and not just exist only during this season.
If the recession helps us to get beyond the commercialism, then it holds a silver lining. Hopefully, we might once again find the real meaning of Christmas allowing it to once again become a church-centered holiday of modest spirit, humble aspirations, loving, and being loved.
Then, perhaps as a society, we can recapture some of the true meaning of this special time and carry it throughout the year.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Warren is not an issue
The “Warren controversy” doesn't have anything to do with pro-choice or gay rights. This is about a president-elect exercising his prerogative to choose whomever he wants to deliver the blessing at his inauguration. It's about pulling America together which means no one will get their way all the time. It’s about compromise. It's about -- as President-elect Obama noted this week -- Americans learning to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable. It’s about most Americans being in the middle, neither far left nor far right
The gay-rights people speak about respect, demand respect, insist that they are not given respect. Someone should remind them that it works both ways. If they want respect, they have to give it. They can start by respecting the wishes of the president-elect to plan his inauguration as he sees fit.
These anti-Warren protestors are insisting that the selection of the pastor must mean that Obama isn't interested in advancing gay rights or preserving abortion rights. They say that he just used those groups to get elected and has now thrown them under the bus. That shows a lack of reasoning ability on their part. They are gleaning more than what’s there from the simple act of asking a famous evangelical preacher to deliver the invocation. Obama has said that he wants to pull everyone together – to work together on common ground. This includes the evangelicals. Why not let Obama get sworn in and have a chance to govern before issuing judgment on being abandoned?
Even as Obama takes fire from liberals on the left, Warren is being bombarded with criticism from conservative supporters on the right who can't believe he is even associating with Obama, let alone appearing at his inauguration. Have they not heard Obama say that he wants to pull America together? This means compromising on some issues, or setting them on the back burner so that issues held in common can be solved.
What do these two sides expect anyway? Those familiar with the evangelical movement in America should already know that Warren is a moderate on some issues. And, if gay rights activists are surprised that Obama would share the spotlight with an opponent of gay marriage, they need to do more research. Obama has stated many times that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, as do most Americans, a view that also happens to be shared by Vice President-elect Joe Biden. Obama never promised to allow “gay marriage.” Obama did promise that he would try to the best of his ability to bring all Americans together – to be inclusive.
Having Warren speak at the inauguration makes sense for Obama. The idea is to signal that Obama will be a president for all Americans, whether or not they voted for him on November 4. This is not new. Obama and Warren have often used each other to demonstrate that they are willing to listen - even when it makes their friends angry.
We have had enough of divisive politics. It has torn America apart into groups hating other groups. Us against them. This needs to stop. Just because Obama and Warren disagree on certain issues should not disqualify the pastor from blessing the inauguration.
Get over it. Obama choosing Warren is not an issue.
The gay-rights people speak about respect, demand respect, insist that they are not given respect. Someone should remind them that it works both ways. If they want respect, they have to give it. They can start by respecting the wishes of the president-elect to plan his inauguration as he sees fit.
These anti-Warren protestors are insisting that the selection of the pastor must mean that Obama isn't interested in advancing gay rights or preserving abortion rights. They say that he just used those groups to get elected and has now thrown them under the bus. That shows a lack of reasoning ability on their part. They are gleaning more than what’s there from the simple act of asking a famous evangelical preacher to deliver the invocation. Obama has said that he wants to pull everyone together – to work together on common ground. This includes the evangelicals. Why not let Obama get sworn in and have a chance to govern before issuing judgment on being abandoned?
Even as Obama takes fire from liberals on the left, Warren is being bombarded with criticism from conservative supporters on the right who can't believe he is even associating with Obama, let alone appearing at his inauguration. Have they not heard Obama say that he wants to pull America together? This means compromising on some issues, or setting them on the back burner so that issues held in common can be solved.
What do these two sides expect anyway? Those familiar with the evangelical movement in America should already know that Warren is a moderate on some issues. And, if gay rights activists are surprised that Obama would share the spotlight with an opponent of gay marriage, they need to do more research. Obama has stated many times that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, as do most Americans, a view that also happens to be shared by Vice President-elect Joe Biden. Obama never promised to allow “gay marriage.” Obama did promise that he would try to the best of his ability to bring all Americans together – to be inclusive.
Having Warren speak at the inauguration makes sense for Obama. The idea is to signal that Obama will be a president for all Americans, whether or not they voted for him on November 4. This is not new. Obama and Warren have often used each other to demonstrate that they are willing to listen - even when it makes their friends angry.
We have had enough of divisive politics. It has torn America apart into groups hating other groups. Us against them. This needs to stop. Just because Obama and Warren disagree on certain issues should not disqualify the pastor from blessing the inauguration.
Get over it. Obama choosing Warren is not an issue.
Monday, December 15, 2008
A devious lame duck
We have "only one President at a time," President-elect Barack Obama continues to say in press conferences. Normally, that would be a safe assumption – but with the financial crisis growing worse by the day, it has become obvious that one President is no longer enough (at least not the President we currently have). So, Obama has become a more public presence. He has quickly named his economic and national security cabinet members to try to help the psyche of the markets. He has promised an enormous stimulus package that would somehow create 2 million new jobs, and has begun to push the new Congress into having the bill ready soon after being sworn in this January.
That we have slightly more than one President for the moment is mostly a consequence of the collapsing economy. This final humiliation for George W. Bush seems particularly appropriate. At the end of a presidency of stupefying ineptitude, he has become the lamest of all possible ducks with an approval rating that hit a very low 19% just a few weeks ago (although it has risen a little since then). This is a presidency that has wobbled between two poles – arrogance and paralytic incompetence.
Paralytic incompetence has held sway these past few months as the economy has crumbled. In rating the performance of Bush's economic team, we have more than enough evidence to say, definitively, that at a moment when there was a vast need for national reassurance, the President has not been a leader. He's a lame duck with one of the lowest approval ratings of any president ever. He doesn't have the clout to influence Congress, even in the conduct of foreign policy, because people know he is only going to be there another few weeks. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one.
In the end, though, it will not be paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make the economy work. He never understood the necessity to maintain a strong middle class – required for both prosperity and democracy - because he has never been a part of it. He never considered the complexities of Iraq’s cultures when he invaded. He never understood that religious faith when unaccompanied by rigorous questioning is a recipe for nearsighted foolishness.
But he is not just lazing around the Whitehouse waiting for January 20. There are proclamations and regulations in the works that harmful to the public good and are bypassing Congress’ and the public’s approval:
Recently, the Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration is preparing to formalize a deal which would allow Plum Creek Timber Company to convert hundreds of thousands of acres of forestland in Montana into residential subdivisions. The deal was made behind closed doors between the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment and Plum Creek Timber. Neither local officials in the region nor the public were granted an opportunity to have a say in the matter. Forty years of Forest Service history has been reversed in the last three months without even standard environmental assessments.
Similarly, the New York Times recently reported that Bush Administration appointees are preparing to propose a number of regulatory changes to securities rules, changes which critics say would dilute measures put in place after the Enron scandal in order to forestall accounting gimmicks and corrupt practices.
The harm to our country perpetuated by these two deals, and many others like them, pale in comparison to the damage to national security caused by the nuclear deals the Bush administration is promoting. The fact that some of these deals have been in the making for a long time does not make them more benign. For decades, those committed to preventing a nuclear conflagration have called on nations that have nuclear arms to gradually scale them back until they are all removed and urged all other nations not to acquire these weapons. The treaty against these horrible arms had been quite effective with several nations that started down the nuclear road reversing course and folding their nuclear plans. Others decided not to even set out in this way. But now, as a favor to various American corporations, the Bush Administration is promoting the sale of nuclear technology to Russian corporations, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. This is despite the fact that Russia is helping Iran to build its nuclear facilities. These acts by an administration on its way out the door could pave the way for more countries to acquire nuclear military power.
In another midnight regulation, on November 4, while the nation’s attention was turned toward the presidential election, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that it will sell oil and gas leases on areas in eastern Utah‘s Nine Mile Canyon region. The December 19 sale threatens large swaths of several magnificent public landscapes, including Upper Desolation Canyon, where the Green River meanders through hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness in the northern Book Cliffs. Desolation Canyon was named and apparently first described by John Wesley Powell during his historic expedition in 1869 down the Green and Colorado rivers to the Grand Canyon. The BLM had, under previous administrations, declared these pristine lands to be wilderness caliber landscapes and off limits to new oil and gas leasing.
Utah already has a surplus of lands that have been leased for oil and gas development, as well as a surplus of applications for permission to drill. At the end of the fiscal year, there were approximately 4.6 million acres of BLM- managed lands in Utah under lease.
This giveaway to the oil companies borders on criminal malfeasance. At a time when oil companies already hold millions of acres of public lands under lease -- but not being developed -- there is simply no reason for the Bureau of Land Management to rush ahead with this sale. Handing over the magnificent Desolation Canyon and the surrounding wild lands is the icing on the gift cake given to the oil and gas industry over the last eight years.
The administration has taken another disturbing step in recent weeks. The IRS restored tax breaks for banks that take big losses on bad loans inherited through acquisitions. Now we learn that JP Morgan Chase and other banks are planning to use their bailout funds for mergers and acquisitions, transactions that will be greatly enhanced by the restored tax write off.
In coming weeks, it is expected that the Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final rule that would weaken a program created by the Clean Air Act, so that utilities no longer have to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade their plants to produce more power. The EPA is also expected to issue a final rule that would make it easier for coal-fired power plants to locate near national parks in defiance of longstanding Congressional mandates to protect air quality in areas of special natural or recreational value. Along this same vein, the Department of Interior is awaiting EPA’s approval on a proposal that would make it easier for mining companies to dump toxic mine wastes in valleys and streams.
For industry they're rushing through some rules
To ease restraints on using toxic goop
And dumping tops of mountains into streams.
In every hole, they seek a larger loop.
The ornithologists can tell us that
Such actions have a simple explanation:
A lame duck, though incapable of flight,
Is fully capable of defecation.
Poem By Calvin Trillin From The Nation magazine, December 2, 2008
But all is not lost. As usual, Bush hasn’t read the fine print. In fact, he doesn’t read much at all. There is a clause in the Congressional Review Act that states that “any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.” That means that executive orders signed within the last six months can be eliminated with a quick party-line vote if Congress will do it. This even applies to regulations that have already been enacted.
So do not worry about any future sneaky lame duck moves. The only thing left for Bush to do that cannot be undone is figure out who will get quick pardons the night he leaves office. I have read that he plans to do a blanket pardon for everyone who has served the administration so that there is no possibility for anyone being prosecuted for the crimes they have committed.
Soon we can say sayonara to a devious lame duck who has led the most destructive, secretive, and immoral presidential administration in the history of our nation.
That we have slightly more than one President for the moment is mostly a consequence of the collapsing economy. This final humiliation for George W. Bush seems particularly appropriate. At the end of a presidency of stupefying ineptitude, he has become the lamest of all possible ducks with an approval rating that hit a very low 19% just a few weeks ago (although it has risen a little since then). This is a presidency that has wobbled between two poles – arrogance and paralytic incompetence.
Paralytic incompetence has held sway these past few months as the economy has crumbled. In rating the performance of Bush's economic team, we have more than enough evidence to say, definitively, that at a moment when there was a vast need for national reassurance, the President has not been a leader. He's a lame duck with one of the lowest approval ratings of any president ever. He doesn't have the clout to influence Congress, even in the conduct of foreign policy, because people know he is only going to be there another few weeks. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one.
In the end, though, it will not be paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make the economy work. He never understood the necessity to maintain a strong middle class – required for both prosperity and democracy - because he has never been a part of it. He never considered the complexities of Iraq’s cultures when he invaded. He never understood that religious faith when unaccompanied by rigorous questioning is a recipe for nearsighted foolishness.
But he is not just lazing around the Whitehouse waiting for January 20. There are proclamations and regulations in the works that harmful to the public good and are bypassing Congress’ and the public’s approval:
Recently, the Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration is preparing to formalize a deal which would allow Plum Creek Timber Company to convert hundreds of thousands of acres of forestland in Montana into residential subdivisions. The deal was made behind closed doors between the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment and Plum Creek Timber. Neither local officials in the region nor the public were granted an opportunity to have a say in the matter. Forty years of Forest Service history has been reversed in the last three months without even standard environmental assessments.
Similarly, the New York Times recently reported that Bush Administration appointees are preparing to propose a number of regulatory changes to securities rules, changes which critics say would dilute measures put in place after the Enron scandal in order to forestall accounting gimmicks and corrupt practices.
The harm to our country perpetuated by these two deals, and many others like them, pale in comparison to the damage to national security caused by the nuclear deals the Bush administration is promoting. The fact that some of these deals have been in the making for a long time does not make them more benign. For decades, those committed to preventing a nuclear conflagration have called on nations that have nuclear arms to gradually scale them back until they are all removed and urged all other nations not to acquire these weapons. The treaty against these horrible arms had been quite effective with several nations that started down the nuclear road reversing course and folding their nuclear plans. Others decided not to even set out in this way. But now, as a favor to various American corporations, the Bush Administration is promoting the sale of nuclear technology to Russian corporations, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. This is despite the fact that Russia is helping Iran to build its nuclear facilities. These acts by an administration on its way out the door could pave the way for more countries to acquire nuclear military power.
In another midnight regulation, on November 4, while the nation’s attention was turned toward the presidential election, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that it will sell oil and gas leases on areas in eastern Utah‘s Nine Mile Canyon region. The December 19 sale threatens large swaths of several magnificent public landscapes, including Upper Desolation Canyon, where the Green River meanders through hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness in the northern Book Cliffs. Desolation Canyon was named and apparently first described by John Wesley Powell during his historic expedition in 1869 down the Green and Colorado rivers to the Grand Canyon. The BLM had, under previous administrations, declared these pristine lands to be wilderness caliber landscapes and off limits to new oil and gas leasing.
Utah already has a surplus of lands that have been leased for oil and gas development, as well as a surplus of applications for permission to drill. At the end of the fiscal year, there were approximately 4.6 million acres of BLM- managed lands in Utah under lease.
This giveaway to the oil companies borders on criminal malfeasance. At a time when oil companies already hold millions of acres of public lands under lease -- but not being developed -- there is simply no reason for the Bureau of Land Management to rush ahead with this sale. Handing over the magnificent Desolation Canyon and the surrounding wild lands is the icing on the gift cake given to the oil and gas industry over the last eight years.
The administration has taken another disturbing step in recent weeks. The IRS restored tax breaks for banks that take big losses on bad loans inherited through acquisitions. Now we learn that JP Morgan Chase and other banks are planning to use their bailout funds for mergers and acquisitions, transactions that will be greatly enhanced by the restored tax write off.
In coming weeks, it is expected that the Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final rule that would weaken a program created by the Clean Air Act, so that utilities no longer have to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade their plants to produce more power. The EPA is also expected to issue a final rule that would make it easier for coal-fired power plants to locate near national parks in defiance of longstanding Congressional mandates to protect air quality in areas of special natural or recreational value. Along this same vein, the Department of Interior is awaiting EPA’s approval on a proposal that would make it easier for mining companies to dump toxic mine wastes in valleys and streams.
For industry they're rushing through some rules
To ease restraints on using toxic goop
And dumping tops of mountains into streams.
In every hole, they seek a larger loop.
The ornithologists can tell us that
Such actions have a simple explanation:
A lame duck, though incapable of flight,
Is fully capable of defecation.
Poem By Calvin Trillin From The Nation magazine, December 2, 2008
But all is not lost. As usual, Bush hasn’t read the fine print. In fact, he doesn’t read much at all. There is a clause in the Congressional Review Act that states that “any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.” That means that executive orders signed within the last six months can be eliminated with a quick party-line vote if Congress will do it. This even applies to regulations that have already been enacted.
So do not worry about any future sneaky lame duck moves. The only thing left for Bush to do that cannot be undone is figure out who will get quick pardons the night he leaves office. I have read that he plans to do a blanket pardon for everyone who has served the administration so that there is no possibility for anyone being prosecuted for the crimes they have committed.
Soon we can say sayonara to a devious lame duck who has led the most destructive, secretive, and immoral presidential administration in the history of our nation.
Friday, December 12, 2008
The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day
There is a children’s book called Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day by Maurice Sendak. In the story, as Alexander's day progresses, he faces a barrage of difficulties worthy of a country song: waking with gum in his hair, sitting in the middle seat of the car and getting smushed, a lunch sack with no dessert, a cavity at the dentist's office, sneakers with no stripe, witnessing kissing on television, and being forced to sleep in the much hated train pajamas. He resolves several times to move to Australia.
Lately, I have been calling the days that are full of pain from fibromyalgia “Alexander Days.” I am having an Alexander Day when the pain is so bad that I cannot do much more than curl up on the sofa and watch old movies. If I say to my husband that I am having an Alexander Day or that I want to move to Australia, nothing else need be said – he understands that I have had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day.
What is fibromyalgia?
Chances are you have heard of fibromyalgia, if only through advertising on television for a drug (with significant dangerous side effects) recently approved to treat it. This painful and debilitating form of arthritis has been receiving more attention in the press lately. Although it is a common condition, with over 10 million sufferers, the disease continues to remain shrouded in mystery and confusion. Part of the reason is that due to the symptoms overlapping with other health problems, it can take years before the average fibromyalgia patient receives an accurate diagnosis. Another part of the reason is that, until recently, many doctors didn’t believe fibromyalgia existed anywhere but in the patient’s imagination. Often, patients were all too often misdiagnosed as having sub-clinical hypothyroidism, lupus, multiple sclerosis, or, worse, being a hypochondriac. About a decade ago, the American College of Rheumatology recognized the disease and issued a set formula of tests for diagnosis.
It's always difficult to explain fibromyalgia without getting overly complicated, but I will try. To help you understand how fibromyalgia feels, think back to the worst case of the flu you ever had. Remember that tired and ‘down to the bone’ achiness? Now multiply it times ten. Besides the awful widespread body pain, there are other symptoms that can very from person to person like extreme fatigue, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, cystitis, insomnia, numbness in the extremities, skin rashes, migraine headaches, hypoglycemia, and pronounced weight gain. Although fibromyalgia is not life-threatening, the disorder can be extremely debilitating. The associated chronic fatigue and cognitive problems often referred to as a “brain fog” or “fibro fog” keeps the sufferer homebound more often than not.
Most fibromyalgia sufferers have had one or more experiences that were life threatening such has a horrific vehicular accident, inner city violence, war, or, as in nearly half of cases, are survivors of emotional or physical child abuse and neglect. Traumatic experiences change the chemical structure of the brain, sometimes permanently. Brain scans of fibromyalgia patients have, in fact, shown abnormalities within the hippocampus, the part of the brain which controls emotion and pain. Early childhood abuse permanently changes the hippocampus. While the child’s biological system may expect inputs such as comfort and security, the reality of extreme stress and rejection causes an internal conflict that requires the nervous system to adapt its operating structure. This in turn causes the brain to release chemicals, such as substance P, that induce pain and, hence, the later onset of fibromyalgia and its ensuing depression. Research has detected up to three times the normal level of substance P, a neurotransmitter, in the cerebrospinal fluid of fibromyalgia patients. Substance P is associated with increased pain perception. So, a small pinch to a normal person is very painful to someone with fibromyalgia. The experience of abuse during early childhood literally changes the organizing framework for the growing child’s brain, and therefore causes a never ending negative influence on emotional and physical well-being throughout life.
Fibromyalgia sufferers have low levels of serotonin, another neurotransmitter, produced by the brain, causing difficulty in getting enough sleep – the time when muscles rest and recharge. Changes in serotonin levels can alter mood: increases have a calming effect, relieving depression, insomnia, and irritability; while decreases are associated with wakefulness and greater sensitivity to pain. There is also a link between low serotonin and depression; therefore many fibromyalgia sufferers struggle with depression. Serotonin also does double duty in the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal systems. It helps regulate the expansion and contraction of blood vessels, affecting blood pressure, and the function of platelets, the blood cells that cause blood to coagulate and close a wound. It also causes smooth muscles to contract, such as the abdominal muscles that aid digestion by pushing food through the GI tract. Bone growth is controlled in the gut through serotonin, according to a new discovery from researchers at Columbia University Medical Center, with the resulting low serotonin levels playing into osteoporosis.
SSRI antidepressants (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors), such as Cymbalta or Zoloft, do increase serotonin levels, but they also greatly increase the risk of suicide. For this reason, they are not generally used for fibromyalgia because several studies have found the rate of suicide was already nine times greater for those suffering from fibromyalgia than in the general population.
One of the most frustrating things about fibromyalgia pain is that the medications used to treat other types of pain often have little effect on it. In a study comparing people with fibromyalgia to people without it, researchers at the University of Michigan Health System found that those with the condition had reduced binding ability of a type of receptor in the brain that is the target of opioid-type pain medications. The reduced availability of the receptor was associated with greater pain among people with fibromyalgia, according to the study published in the Journal of Neuroscience. This study, and others like it, brings hope that one day a cure, or at least a way to control the pain, will be found.
Understanding a person with fibromyalgia:
The other day, during a casual conversation, a friend told me how she explains my fibromyalgia to someone else:
“You know, when you work yourself really hard, so that you feel totally exhausted, and you ache from top to bottom so badly that you cannot even get up? Well that's how Melinda feels. Only it doesn’t go away.”
In reading articles written by others with "invisible" conditions about their desire to be understood, I found the answer as to why it means so much to be understood. (Invisible conditions are those that are unnoticeable when looking at the person.) If we were understood, they explained, we would not have such a difficult time being excused from certain activities. Friends and family would understand why we were saying "no," and not push us. They would accommodate us, or give us a break when we need it. In addition, being understood is important because it can restore self esteem when we are not able to finish (or even start) the projects we take on. Being understood means we are not thought of as "lazy," a "hypochondriac," or a "whiner." It means we do not have to explain in detail to produce an accurate picture or evoke an appropriate response. Constantly having to explain gets very tiresome. But most of all, to be understood is to be validated.
On the other hand, there are those with “invisible” illnesses who prefer secrecy. They would rather appear to be like everyone else. They have weighed the cost of added physical discomfort against the biases they imagine people may have against them, their abilities, their attractiveness, and even their value as a person, and decided to "bite the bullet." For them, understanding appears threatening, unless reserved for their most intimate circle.
Receiving understanding can be a two-edged sword. Some people, once they hear our explanation as to why we cannot participate in an activity, stop sending invitations. Therefore, we fibromyalgia sufferers prefer to offer limited explanations to a few trusted persons rather than tell everyone. After all, we don’t want pity, but instead prefer to be invited to take part in the activities of life (even if we mostly have to say no, or leave early). The spirit is often willing, it is just that the body isn’t. On the few days when we do feel better or have the gumption to push, we want to join in!
In the meantime, I cope by using warm showers, muscle rub cream, vitamin D and magnesium (seems to help some), and being grateful that I no longer have to work out in the world. Sometimes, after receiving an email about my having an Alexander Day, my husband will come home with supper in one hand, a bouquet of flowers in the other, and the offer of a very gentle hug. Right now, that is the best medicine for my terrible, horrible, no good, very bad days.
Lately, I have been calling the days that are full of pain from fibromyalgia “Alexander Days.” I am having an Alexander Day when the pain is so bad that I cannot do much more than curl up on the sofa and watch old movies. If I say to my husband that I am having an Alexander Day or that I want to move to Australia, nothing else need be said – he understands that I have had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day.
What is fibromyalgia?
Chances are you have heard of fibromyalgia, if only through advertising on television for a drug (with significant dangerous side effects) recently approved to treat it. This painful and debilitating form of arthritis has been receiving more attention in the press lately. Although it is a common condition, with over 10 million sufferers, the disease continues to remain shrouded in mystery and confusion. Part of the reason is that due to the symptoms overlapping with other health problems, it can take years before the average fibromyalgia patient receives an accurate diagnosis. Another part of the reason is that, until recently, many doctors didn’t believe fibromyalgia existed anywhere but in the patient’s imagination. Often, patients were all too often misdiagnosed as having sub-clinical hypothyroidism, lupus, multiple sclerosis, or, worse, being a hypochondriac. About a decade ago, the American College of Rheumatology recognized the disease and issued a set formula of tests for diagnosis.
It's always difficult to explain fibromyalgia without getting overly complicated, but I will try. To help you understand how fibromyalgia feels, think back to the worst case of the flu you ever had. Remember that tired and ‘down to the bone’ achiness? Now multiply it times ten. Besides the awful widespread body pain, there are other symptoms that can very from person to person like extreme fatigue, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, cystitis, insomnia, numbness in the extremities, skin rashes, migraine headaches, hypoglycemia, and pronounced weight gain. Although fibromyalgia is not life-threatening, the disorder can be extremely debilitating. The associated chronic fatigue and cognitive problems often referred to as a “brain fog” or “fibro fog” keeps the sufferer homebound more often than not.
Most fibromyalgia sufferers have had one or more experiences that were life threatening such has a horrific vehicular accident, inner city violence, war, or, as in nearly half of cases, are survivors of emotional or physical child abuse and neglect. Traumatic experiences change the chemical structure of the brain, sometimes permanently. Brain scans of fibromyalgia patients have, in fact, shown abnormalities within the hippocampus, the part of the brain which controls emotion and pain. Early childhood abuse permanently changes the hippocampus. While the child’s biological system may expect inputs such as comfort and security, the reality of extreme stress and rejection causes an internal conflict that requires the nervous system to adapt its operating structure. This in turn causes the brain to release chemicals, such as substance P, that induce pain and, hence, the later onset of fibromyalgia and its ensuing depression. Research has detected up to three times the normal level of substance P, a neurotransmitter, in the cerebrospinal fluid of fibromyalgia patients. Substance P is associated with increased pain perception. So, a small pinch to a normal person is very painful to someone with fibromyalgia. The experience of abuse during early childhood literally changes the organizing framework for the growing child’s brain, and therefore causes a never ending negative influence on emotional and physical well-being throughout life.
Fibromyalgia sufferers have low levels of serotonin, another neurotransmitter, produced by the brain, causing difficulty in getting enough sleep – the time when muscles rest and recharge. Changes in serotonin levels can alter mood: increases have a calming effect, relieving depression, insomnia, and irritability; while decreases are associated with wakefulness and greater sensitivity to pain. There is also a link between low serotonin and depression; therefore many fibromyalgia sufferers struggle with depression. Serotonin also does double duty in the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal systems. It helps regulate the expansion and contraction of blood vessels, affecting blood pressure, and the function of platelets, the blood cells that cause blood to coagulate and close a wound. It also causes smooth muscles to contract, such as the abdominal muscles that aid digestion by pushing food through the GI tract. Bone growth is controlled in the gut through serotonin, according to a new discovery from researchers at Columbia University Medical Center, with the resulting low serotonin levels playing into osteoporosis.
SSRI antidepressants (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors), such as Cymbalta or Zoloft, do increase serotonin levels, but they also greatly increase the risk of suicide. For this reason, they are not generally used for fibromyalgia because several studies have found the rate of suicide was already nine times greater for those suffering from fibromyalgia than in the general population.
One of the most frustrating things about fibromyalgia pain is that the medications used to treat other types of pain often have little effect on it. In a study comparing people with fibromyalgia to people without it, researchers at the University of Michigan Health System found that those with the condition had reduced binding ability of a type of receptor in the brain that is the target of opioid-type pain medications. The reduced availability of the receptor was associated with greater pain among people with fibromyalgia, according to the study published in the Journal of Neuroscience. This study, and others like it, brings hope that one day a cure, or at least a way to control the pain, will be found.
Understanding a person with fibromyalgia:
The other day, during a casual conversation, a friend told me how she explains my fibromyalgia to someone else:
“You know, when you work yourself really hard, so that you feel totally exhausted, and you ache from top to bottom so badly that you cannot even get up? Well that's how Melinda feels. Only it doesn’t go away.”
In reading articles written by others with "invisible" conditions about their desire to be understood, I found the answer as to why it means so much to be understood. (Invisible conditions are those that are unnoticeable when looking at the person.) If we were understood, they explained, we would not have such a difficult time being excused from certain activities. Friends and family would understand why we were saying "no," and not push us. They would accommodate us, or give us a break when we need it. In addition, being understood is important because it can restore self esteem when we are not able to finish (or even start) the projects we take on. Being understood means we are not thought of as "lazy," a "hypochondriac," or a "whiner." It means we do not have to explain in detail to produce an accurate picture or evoke an appropriate response. Constantly having to explain gets very tiresome. But most of all, to be understood is to be validated.
On the other hand, there are those with “invisible” illnesses who prefer secrecy. They would rather appear to be like everyone else. They have weighed the cost of added physical discomfort against the biases they imagine people may have against them, their abilities, their attractiveness, and even their value as a person, and decided to "bite the bullet." For them, understanding appears threatening, unless reserved for their most intimate circle.
Receiving understanding can be a two-edged sword. Some people, once they hear our explanation as to why we cannot participate in an activity, stop sending invitations. Therefore, we fibromyalgia sufferers prefer to offer limited explanations to a few trusted persons rather than tell everyone. After all, we don’t want pity, but instead prefer to be invited to take part in the activities of life (even if we mostly have to say no, or leave early). The spirit is often willing, it is just that the body isn’t. On the few days when we do feel better or have the gumption to push, we want to join in!
In the meantime, I cope by using warm showers, muscle rub cream, vitamin D and magnesium (seems to help some), and being grateful that I no longer have to work out in the world. Sometimes, after receiving an email about my having an Alexander Day, my husband will come home with supper in one hand, a bouquet of flowers in the other, and the offer of a very gentle hug. Right now, that is the best medicine for my terrible, horrible, no good, very bad days.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
The gift of God’s Grace
Many people have been told about “the path” to God, usually by their pastor, and do not recognize any other interpretation. They have been told to do things in a certain way, to think things in a certain way, and not question why. If they do question, the answer is because the Bible says to do it that way. They are never told that everyone “interprets” the Bible in some form – that there is no such thing as a “literal” interpretation. These people often do not know how to follow the Spirit, but only follow what they interpret to be or have been told is the letter of the law as written in the Bible.
Even within the same path or denomination, people interpret the Bible’s religious teachings differently. Every faith system is reflective of the culture and the level of knowledge available to those who shaped it. Many Christians follow different paths to the same God because their life experiences have been different. God made us all uniquely different. But all people of faith have the same goal of reunion with God.
Who is right? How can one Christian denomination be more correct than another? How can one Christian hear God’s message differently from another? Does God condemn you because you have chosen the “wrong” path to Him? Or is it religion, and not God, that is so exclusive? God and religion are not the same. Religion is the human attempt to place the mystery of God into meaningful words and rational concepts. Therefore, by definition, religion is a human creation, all creedal statements are human creations, and at any time when a person articulates a system of beliefs that person will always be bound by the prejudices and limitations of the world that produced him or her. The creeds do not capture the truth of God. At their very best they can only point beyond themselves to an experience of God.
Jesus was Spiritual. The religious leaders of His day put forth the letter of their own faith, but often condemned other teachings, spiritual teachings, including the teachings of Jesus. The Spiritual person understands this fact. The religious person is often so blinded by what they have been taught by their religious leaders that they cannot see God’s Truth. They are truly unable to acknowledge the many paths to God. The religious person may have read or heard that all things are in God but does not truly understand it; whereas, the Spiritual person has actually experienced God, felt enveloped by His presence, felt His touch, and has a deeper understanding. The truly Spiritual person can see that only God is Truth, and that religion is Man’s attempt at finding God’s Truth. Spiritual persons can see God’s Light in all believers and realize that it is not their place to condemn different interpretations. The religious only see their own narrow interpretations and therefore condemn others.
"People often take the truths of a tradition on faith, accepting the testimony of others, but find that the inner kernel of the religion, its luminous essence, remains elusive." - Karen Armstrong, author of The History of God.
Many devoutly religious people seek to discredit other paths to God, thinking that their way is the only way. This kind of thinking has caused many wars and countless deaths throughout history. People have been persecuted because of religion. The Christians persecuted the Pagans and the Muslims. Christians persecuted Jews. The Jews and Muslims persecuted the Christians. The Chinese government persecuted the Buddhists in Tibet and Christians living in China. Christians persecuted other Christian denominations.
God’s Grace is greater than man can fathom and is universally available to all. All humans have the ability to receive God’s gift of Grace. All humans have God’s voice in their hearts. Some hear Him clearly. Many, although they may try, do not hear Him at all. This does not mean that I have a complete understanding of God; no one can. The more one learns, the more there is to learn. No one has all the answers – no one. Therefore, even if I think you are wrong, I do not condemn you for what you believe – just as God does not condemn you for the path you choose to Him. That is not how God works. God is not exclusive.
I was raised in the Methodist denomination which follows Arminian principles. We Arminians are the ones who argue against the notion that God so strongly imposes His will on people that people cannot decide whether or not to follow Him. Methodists think God so values all people that He vested us with the power to choose Him. Or not. It’s called Free Will. Contrary to Calvinists, who believe in predestination, we believe that God wants all people to be saved:
(2 Pet. 3:9*) The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
(1 Tim. 2:4) (God) desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Currently, I am a member of a moderate-leaning Southern Baptist church which has a few fundamentalists, many moderates, and a few progressive Christians. I am one of the progressive members, a Spiritual person, who understands God’s truth through Jesus, whom I believe to be the Word of God, metaphorically.* Jesus so fully understood the meaning of God that he broke the barrier between God and mankind, teaching us to recognize that we are all a part of God.
Although I find God through my Christian faith, through Jesus, my deepest understanding of God resides in the depths of my heart. I have always heard and listened to the small, quiet voice deep within me – God’s voice. I not only see God working in my life, most of the time I can feel His presence. He is always with me.
God’s Grace is a gift that no human can take from another human. No one has the right to point a finger and say “you are not saved” if that person does not interpret Christ’s teachings in the same way. Just because someone does not believe the same, does not interpret the Bible in the same way, does not interpret Jesus’ teachings the same, does not see the world the same, does not mean that person is not following a path directly to God. Every person’s life experiences are very different; so they do not hear exactly what you hear, do not see exactly what you see, do not feel things exactly the way you feel things, and do not think exactly the way you think. God made each person’s brain and soul unique which, in turn, creates as many paths to God as there are souls.
Many Christians whose understanding of God is incomplete, narrow, and limiting, may think that someone is condemned (to Hell) for their beliefs or for not being a member of a particular denomination. But I believe that even if someone’s understanding of God is “wrong” they are not condemned. I believe all people who follow the Great Commandment, the universal law of love, as taught by Jesus, will join with God in the hereafter, if they choose to do so. God does not condemn us for misunderstanding – for getting it “wrong.”
This is the gift of God’s Grace.
* metaphorically means conceived as representing another; a symbol
Even within the same path or denomination, people interpret the Bible’s religious teachings differently. Every faith system is reflective of the culture and the level of knowledge available to those who shaped it. Many Christians follow different paths to the same God because their life experiences have been different. God made us all uniquely different. But all people of faith have the same goal of reunion with God.
Who is right? How can one Christian denomination be more correct than another? How can one Christian hear God’s message differently from another? Does God condemn you because you have chosen the “wrong” path to Him? Or is it religion, and not God, that is so exclusive? God and religion are not the same. Religion is the human attempt to place the mystery of God into meaningful words and rational concepts. Therefore, by definition, religion is a human creation, all creedal statements are human creations, and at any time when a person articulates a system of beliefs that person will always be bound by the prejudices and limitations of the world that produced him or her. The creeds do not capture the truth of God. At their very best they can only point beyond themselves to an experience of God.
Jesus was Spiritual. The religious leaders of His day put forth the letter of their own faith, but often condemned other teachings, spiritual teachings, including the teachings of Jesus. The Spiritual person understands this fact. The religious person is often so blinded by what they have been taught by their religious leaders that they cannot see God’s Truth. They are truly unable to acknowledge the many paths to God. The religious person may have read or heard that all things are in God but does not truly understand it; whereas, the Spiritual person has actually experienced God, felt enveloped by His presence, felt His touch, and has a deeper understanding. The truly Spiritual person can see that only God is Truth, and that religion is Man’s attempt at finding God’s Truth. Spiritual persons can see God’s Light in all believers and realize that it is not their place to condemn different interpretations. The religious only see their own narrow interpretations and therefore condemn others.
"People often take the truths of a tradition on faith, accepting the testimony of others, but find that the inner kernel of the religion, its luminous essence, remains elusive." - Karen Armstrong, author of The History of God.
Many devoutly religious people seek to discredit other paths to God, thinking that their way is the only way. This kind of thinking has caused many wars and countless deaths throughout history. People have been persecuted because of religion. The Christians persecuted the Pagans and the Muslims. Christians persecuted Jews. The Jews and Muslims persecuted the Christians. The Chinese government persecuted the Buddhists in Tibet and Christians living in China. Christians persecuted other Christian denominations.
God’s Grace is greater than man can fathom and is universally available to all. All humans have the ability to receive God’s gift of Grace. All humans have God’s voice in their hearts. Some hear Him clearly. Many, although they may try, do not hear Him at all. This does not mean that I have a complete understanding of God; no one can. The more one learns, the more there is to learn. No one has all the answers – no one. Therefore, even if I think you are wrong, I do not condemn you for what you believe – just as God does not condemn you for the path you choose to Him. That is not how God works. God is not exclusive.
I was raised in the Methodist denomination which follows Arminian principles. We Arminians are the ones who argue against the notion that God so strongly imposes His will on people that people cannot decide whether or not to follow Him. Methodists think God so values all people that He vested us with the power to choose Him. Or not. It’s called Free Will. Contrary to Calvinists, who believe in predestination, we believe that God wants all people to be saved:
(2 Pet. 3:9*) The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
(1 Tim. 2:4) (God) desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Currently, I am a member of a moderate-leaning Southern Baptist church which has a few fundamentalists, many moderates, and a few progressive Christians. I am one of the progressive members, a Spiritual person, who understands God’s truth through Jesus, whom I believe to be the Word of God, metaphorically.* Jesus so fully understood the meaning of God that he broke the barrier between God and mankind, teaching us to recognize that we are all a part of God.
Although I find God through my Christian faith, through Jesus, my deepest understanding of God resides in the depths of my heart. I have always heard and listened to the small, quiet voice deep within me – God’s voice. I not only see God working in my life, most of the time I can feel His presence. He is always with me.
God’s Grace is a gift that no human can take from another human. No one has the right to point a finger and say “you are not saved” if that person does not interpret Christ’s teachings in the same way. Just because someone does not believe the same, does not interpret the Bible in the same way, does not interpret Jesus’ teachings the same, does not see the world the same, does not mean that person is not following a path directly to God. Every person’s life experiences are very different; so they do not hear exactly what you hear, do not see exactly what you see, do not feel things exactly the way you feel things, and do not think exactly the way you think. God made each person’s brain and soul unique which, in turn, creates as many paths to God as there are souls.
Many Christians whose understanding of God is incomplete, narrow, and limiting, may think that someone is condemned (to Hell) for their beliefs or for not being a member of a particular denomination. But I believe that even if someone’s understanding of God is “wrong” they are not condemned. I believe all people who follow the Great Commandment, the universal law of love, as taught by Jesus, will join with God in the hereafter, if they choose to do so. God does not condemn us for misunderstanding – for getting it “wrong.”
This is the gift of God’s Grace.
* metaphorically means conceived as representing another; a symbol
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Feeling Grateful
While giving thanks can be practiced whether it is truly felt or not, gratefulness cannot. Being thankful is not the same as feeling grateful. The experience of gratefulness is rarely a choice, but is, instead, more often a serendipitous result. We can desire gratefulness with all our hearts and minds and souls, and desire it for others as for ourselves, and it still eludes us. We can try to choose gratefulness, but moving from despair to gratitude during hard times goes against our humanness. Look at the prevalence of mourning, depression, and suicide in a world that yearns for contentedness and gratefulness. We can be surrounded by love, realize a long-held goal, or be financially secure, and not experience gratefulness.
The feeling of gratitude cannot be pretended or forced, often showing up in the middle of tragic suffering. Most people express thanks for a kindness extended, but some people have known terrible cruelty and feel deep gratefulness just for having lived through it. Some people experience thankfulness for good health, but there are those who experience gratitude even though their bodies and minds are wracked with illness. We are thankful for our homes and the food we eat, but some people have a grateful spirit although they are hungry and unsheltered. How can this be? Because gratitude is the human response to the kindnesses, relationships, and greater spirituality experienced during a time of suffering.
Perhaps gratitude is more about finding hope in the face of hopelessness. Many who face death will tell you stories of gratitude for the sheer miracle of a new day. Those who have lost someone say that even though they wish they had appreciated their beloved more deeply, they are grateful for the time they had with their loved one. Those who have been hungry know that bread and milk and rice are sacred manna. The eyes of those we love, a bite of food and a safe home take on new meaning when it is elusive.
It is in response to the elusiveness of gratitude that some people say that gratitude is a gift. But there are those who, despite their best efforts, do not receive this “gift” and live their entire lives in despair. Such a characterization might suggest that God refuses not only their efforts but answers their despair with indifference. At one time I believed God to be indifferent to my own circumstance – visualizing my prayers hitting the ceiling, falling to the floor, and not being heard. In spite of the good intentions of doctors, the downward spiral of my own health eventually required me to stop teaching. This began an inner struggle with guilt because I had to walk away from my career, leaving much undone. Angry with God, family, and friends whom I perceived to have abandoned me, I struggled through a deep depression. But I eventually surrendered to and became grateful for the quiet solitude of my days. As I started to relax, my creative skills returned to me – talents long ago abandoned for the whirl of a busy career. In the new stillness of my days, in my acceptance of my circumstance, I have been able to reconnect to God and to myself. One door closed, many others opened, a sense of gratefulness filled my heart, and I have found a sense of peace even in the midst of adversity.
When so much of our lives is affected by strife, hatred, violence, pain, and suffering, gratefulness sets us free to love wholeheartedly and to discover a fullness of life not found in the material world. The feeling of deep gratefulness allows one to recognize the small gifts that most people take for granted... the profusion of color in a flower garden, with perhaps an emerald green hummingbird dining on nectar... the wonder and splendor of a blue sky speckled with billowy white clouds... the sound of birds greeting the dawn... the sun and shadows dancing on the lawn... the spirit of God, who dwells in the depth of every human heart, whispering in "a still, small voice."
The inner contentment that survives the roller coaster ride of life has its roots deep within ourselves. The source comes from finding and embracing who we are as a person, and accepting circumstances that cannot be changed. Acceptance and peace leads to a sense of gratefulness, which, in turn leads to fullness in life.
Fullness in life follows gratefulness. And there's no reversing the order.
The feeling of gratitude cannot be pretended or forced, often showing up in the middle of tragic suffering. Most people express thanks for a kindness extended, but some people have known terrible cruelty and feel deep gratefulness just for having lived through it. Some people experience thankfulness for good health, but there are those who experience gratitude even though their bodies and minds are wracked with illness. We are thankful for our homes and the food we eat, but some people have a grateful spirit although they are hungry and unsheltered. How can this be? Because gratitude is the human response to the kindnesses, relationships, and greater spirituality experienced during a time of suffering.
Perhaps gratitude is more about finding hope in the face of hopelessness. Many who face death will tell you stories of gratitude for the sheer miracle of a new day. Those who have lost someone say that even though they wish they had appreciated their beloved more deeply, they are grateful for the time they had with their loved one. Those who have been hungry know that bread and milk and rice are sacred manna. The eyes of those we love, a bite of food and a safe home take on new meaning when it is elusive.
It is in response to the elusiveness of gratitude that some people say that gratitude is a gift. But there are those who, despite their best efforts, do not receive this “gift” and live their entire lives in despair. Such a characterization might suggest that God refuses not only their efforts but answers their despair with indifference. At one time I believed God to be indifferent to my own circumstance – visualizing my prayers hitting the ceiling, falling to the floor, and not being heard. In spite of the good intentions of doctors, the downward spiral of my own health eventually required me to stop teaching. This began an inner struggle with guilt because I had to walk away from my career, leaving much undone. Angry with God, family, and friends whom I perceived to have abandoned me, I struggled through a deep depression. But I eventually surrendered to and became grateful for the quiet solitude of my days. As I started to relax, my creative skills returned to me – talents long ago abandoned for the whirl of a busy career. In the new stillness of my days, in my acceptance of my circumstance, I have been able to reconnect to God and to myself. One door closed, many others opened, a sense of gratefulness filled my heart, and I have found a sense of peace even in the midst of adversity.
When so much of our lives is affected by strife, hatred, violence, pain, and suffering, gratefulness sets us free to love wholeheartedly and to discover a fullness of life not found in the material world. The feeling of deep gratefulness allows one to recognize the small gifts that most people take for granted... the profusion of color in a flower garden, with perhaps an emerald green hummingbird dining on nectar... the wonder and splendor of a blue sky speckled with billowy white clouds... the sound of birds greeting the dawn... the sun and shadows dancing on the lawn... the spirit of God, who dwells in the depth of every human heart, whispering in "a still, small voice."
The inner contentment that survives the roller coaster ride of life has its roots deep within ourselves. The source comes from finding and embracing who we are as a person, and accepting circumstances that cannot be changed. Acceptance and peace leads to a sense of gratefulness, which, in turn leads to fullness in life.
Fullness in life follows gratefulness. And there's no reversing the order.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Drop the sour grapes and do a reality check
In trying to explain why Republicans lost the election, John Ziegler, a regular on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes and an outspoken critic of Barack Obama, created a web site, How Obama Got Elected, that says the Democratic senator’s victory was made possible by the news media because it failed to inform voters of Obama’s shortcomings. A survey done by Zogby International and paid for by Zeigler was meant to bolster his argument and be used in his upcoming documentary called “Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected.”
Zogby, on a book tour when the contract was reached and the survey conducted, has said he would not have approved the poll in the form it took because the questions were skewed to reflect Zeigler’s prejudices and only Democrats were polled (no Republicans). Nor would Zogby have approved the press release posted on his Web site. “This was not Zogby International’s finest hour,” he said. “Something, somehow, fell through the cracks.”
The theory of conservative Republicans as to why they lost the election is blinded by their prejudices. Anyone can skew questions and twist data to prove their own theories. Republicans like John Ziegler are desperately looking for anyone or anything to blame except for their own failed policies or their sleazy campaign tactics.
The Ayers issue, Palin’s personal issues, McCain’s personal issues, and Obama’s steely political record in Illinois Democratic politics played a small part but were not the main reason why conservatives lost. This election centered on the fundamental direction the U.S. should be taking, both in domestic politics, and in the international arena. The voters voted for the Democratic Party concepts and against the tried, but failed, Republican policies, which McCain/Palin defended.
During the two previous elections the media signed on with Karl Rove and the mightily financed Swift Boater groups causing the Democrats to lose. This time around, the public was once again bombarded with right-wing Swiftboating against Obama. The Republican campaign spent its entirety trying to justify calling Obama a Socialist, Elitist, Celebrity, Terrorist, Muslim, Britney Spears and at one point tried to imply that the Illinois Senator was a danger to children. When McCain was called on some of these ads he cited Obama’s refusal to have more than three debates as justification for slander. The fact of the matter is that Republicans are accustomed to the tactics of Karl Rove being rewarded by success. The American people didn’t fall for the Swiftboating this time, so now they want to blame their loss on the media.
Republicans seem to not be able to honestly own up to the fact that the cultural issues took a back burner because issues of substance such health care, jobs, regulating the financial industry, and ending the Iraq war were more important to the voters. They are so accustomed to their character-assassination obscenities, such as “baby-killer” and “Marxist,” working that they are stunned it did not work this time.
If Ziegler really wants to help the GOP, he needs to abandon this nonsense and start dealing with the issues, the demographics of this lost election, and how the party must change and reform to meet the electability test for a majority of voters in the future. See, for example, the article on this theme by Republican columnist Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post:
“It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party — and conservatism with it — eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs. Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs. Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely composed of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth, and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting. With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.”
Republicans should drop the sour grapes and do a reality check.
Zogby, on a book tour when the contract was reached and the survey conducted, has said he would not have approved the poll in the form it took because the questions were skewed to reflect Zeigler’s prejudices and only Democrats were polled (no Republicans). Nor would Zogby have approved the press release posted on his Web site. “This was not Zogby International’s finest hour,” he said. “Something, somehow, fell through the cracks.”
The theory of conservative Republicans as to why they lost the election is blinded by their prejudices. Anyone can skew questions and twist data to prove their own theories. Republicans like John Ziegler are desperately looking for anyone or anything to blame except for their own failed policies or their sleazy campaign tactics.
The Ayers issue, Palin’s personal issues, McCain’s personal issues, and Obama’s steely political record in Illinois Democratic politics played a small part but were not the main reason why conservatives lost. This election centered on the fundamental direction the U.S. should be taking, both in domestic politics, and in the international arena. The voters voted for the Democratic Party concepts and against the tried, but failed, Republican policies, which McCain/Palin defended.
During the two previous elections the media signed on with Karl Rove and the mightily financed Swift Boater groups causing the Democrats to lose. This time around, the public was once again bombarded with right-wing Swiftboating against Obama. The Republican campaign spent its entirety trying to justify calling Obama a Socialist, Elitist, Celebrity, Terrorist, Muslim, Britney Spears and at one point tried to imply that the Illinois Senator was a danger to children. When McCain was called on some of these ads he cited Obama’s refusal to have more than three debates as justification for slander. The fact of the matter is that Republicans are accustomed to the tactics of Karl Rove being rewarded by success. The American people didn’t fall for the Swiftboating this time, so now they want to blame their loss on the media.
Republicans seem to not be able to honestly own up to the fact that the cultural issues took a back burner because issues of substance such health care, jobs, regulating the financial industry, and ending the Iraq war were more important to the voters. They are so accustomed to their character-assassination obscenities, such as “baby-killer” and “Marxist,” working that they are stunned it did not work this time.
If Ziegler really wants to help the GOP, he needs to abandon this nonsense and start dealing with the issues, the demographics of this lost election, and how the party must change and reform to meet the electability test for a majority of voters in the future. See, for example, the article on this theme by Republican columnist Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post:
“It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party — and conservatism with it — eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs. Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs. Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely composed of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth, and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting. With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.”
Republicans should drop the sour grapes and do a reality check.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Hanging up the stethoscope
Why does a doctor hang up her stethoscope and quit? I am not speaking of a doctor who reaches her 60s or 70s and wants to retire. My doctor is in her late 40s, in her prime, who not long ago spent countless hours and large sums of money learning her craft. One who is exceptionally intelligent, has a wonderful manner, and who had a potentially bright career ahead.
This question is on my mind because my family doctor has decided to close her practice. Dr. McKelvy is one of the best doctors I have ever known. She subscribes to the idea that the patient knows her own body better than anyone else, listens carefully as the problem is described, and is not intimidated by a patient who has research in hand. You can see the wheels turning as she carefully thinks over a patient’s problem. Using a holistic approach, she will often prescribe alternative medicines along with traditional.
It took me eight years to find her after my previous doctor of 30 years retired. Having gone through about eight doctors who were only average and did not listen well, I thought I had finally found an excellent doctor who would be available for at least the next 20 years. But she is closing her practice – just at the time when, due to worsening chronic health problems, I really need a very good doctor who can think outside the box because I do not fit neatly in anything learned from a textbook. It will not be easy to find another doctor who listens as well as she does and is so good at getting the diagnosis right the first time. I will greatly miss her.
Why is Dr. McKelvy quitting? She has been practicing medicine for 25 years. When insurance companies turned to the PPO and HMO models, she found herself having to spend more time on paperwork than on patients, trying to run a small business instead of a practice. There was less and less time for individual patients as federal reimbursement cuts force most doctors to pack in more patients during each day. Dr. McKelvy refused to do this, never booking more than one patient per time slot, continuing to spend as much time as necessary for each patient, and refusing to pad her bills with unnecessary charges. (One can see why she would not easily fit into a group practice.)
As she continued her struggle to practice medicine on her own, Dr. McKelvy found she was not making enough money to keep her office open. She is frustrated by how difficult insurance companies have become – overriding her decisions for treatment and substituting a cheaper medicine for the one that, in her professional opinion, was best for a patient. Her training did not include how to run a small business, how to deal with insurance companies or how to cope with the red tape and paperwork generated by government agencies. Since she can no longer make a decent living being the kind of old-fashioned, caring doctor that patients love, she has chosen to walk away.
According to news sources, these days many family doctors are leaving medical practice causing a shortage of primary care doctors. More and more family doctors are abandoning their role as the glue of health care, with fewer young doctors replacing them, and choosing to go into higher paying specialties.
As the costs of running a practice continue to rise, insurance payments for many routine procedures continue to decrease, thanks in a large part to the decreasing payouts from Medicare and Medicaid whose payment structure private insurance companies often emulate. In fact, Medicare and Medicaid are becoming such money losers for physicians that over a third have closed their practices to Medicaid patients and 12 percent have closed their practices to Medicare patients. If we are already short on primary care doctors and a many of those still practicing are declining Medicare and Medicaid, how will we get enough primary care physicians to provide for families without raising payouts to entice and retain these doctors? And if we raise payouts so that doctors can stay in business, the overall costs associated with the healthcare system will increase.
Any new healthcare system that the Obama administration puts in place has to make primary care a reasonable and profitable option for physicians, or our shortfall of family care providers will become massive. In any new plan, even if everyone has some type of insurance, it will do little good if they cannot find a doctor.
Just take a look at the disheartening results from a survey from the Physicians’ Foundation. The study confirmed that there are not enough primary care physicians in the U.S., even though there are plenty of specialty doctors. Here are some of the disturbing findings from 11,950 doctors who responded to the survey:
*94% said the time they’ve devote to non-clinical paperwork in the past three years has increased – with 63% saying the paperwork has meant they spend less time per patient.
*82% said their practices would be “unsustainable” if the new proposed Medicare pay cuts were made law.
*78% believe there is a shortage of primary care docs in the U.S.
*60% would not recommend medicine as a career to young people.
*49% said that over the next three years they plan to reduce the number of patients they see or stop practicing entirely.
*42% said professional morale is either “poor” or “very low.”
Walker Ray, MD, Vice President of The Physicians' Foundation put the results of the survey into context: "At a time when the new Administration and new Congress are talking about ways to expand access to healthcare, the harsh reality is that there might not be enough doctors to handle the increased number of people who might want to see them if they get health insurance. It's as if we're talking about expanding access to higher education without having enough professors to handle the influx of students."
I wish Dr. McKelvy luck. I hope she has not permanently hung up her stethoscope and will find a way to practice medicine again. If she does not, it’s our loss.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The ebbing tide
Economic inequality is growing in the United States, jeopardizing the American Dream of social mobility just as the world enters a recession, said a 30-nation report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released on October 21, 2008. The United States has the third highest inequality and poverty rates in the OECD, after Mexico and Turkey, and the gap has increased rapidly since 2000, the report said. Coincidentally, that is the year that the Bush administration began to govern.
George Bush and the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party have a unyielding belief in trickle-down economics and therefore did all they could to remove taxes and regulations for the wealthy corporations, including the financial sector. At the same time, they did very little for all other citizens, except for a couple of "stimulus" packages which gave the average family around $600 to $1200 – a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the billions raked in by the CEOs of oil, financial, and pharmaceutical companies. Indeed, the “rising tide” did not lift all boats as promised by Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush. Remember: although the wealthy love trickle-down economics, President George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics.”
And just how well did “voodoo economics” work? Rich households in America have become much richer, leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind. This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States. The average income of the richest 10% is $93,000 in purchasing power, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of U.S. citizens have a purchasing power of $5,800 per year – about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries.
The main reason for widening inequality in America is that the distribution of earnings between rich and poor in the United States has widened by 20% since the mid-1980s, more than in most other OECD countries. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefits, such as unemployment benefits, and family benefits, like Medicare, is very low – equivalent to just 9% of household incomes, while the OECD average is 22% of household incomes.
This widening inequality causes a low level of social mobility in the United States. Children of poor parents to be less likely to become rich, much less middle class, than children of rich parents. Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% control some about 33% of total money in the U.S. The top 10% hold 71% of the wealth. This is just the opposite in countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Australia where social mobility is high due to a low inequality level.
In nearly all countries studied, the gap between rich and everyone else has widened over the last 20 years, even as trade and technological advances have spurred rapid growth in their economies. In a 20-year study of its member countries, the OECD found inequality had increased in 27 of its 30 members as top earners' incomes soared while others' stagnated. Rising inequality threatens social mobility: Children will have great difficulty doing better than their parents; the poor will no longer improve their lot through hard work – in fact, hard work will barely keep their heads above water, if at all.
Why is the gap between rich and poor growing? Wages have been improving for those people who were already well paid, while employment rates have been dropping among less educated people. Also, there are more single-adult and single-family households than ever before.
Who is most affected? Statisticians and economists assess poverty in relation to average incomes. Poverty among young adults and families with children has increased. On average, one child out of every eight living in an OECD country in 2005 was living in poverty. In the U.S., the trend is exactly the opposite: Child poverty – that is, children in a household with less than half the median income – has fallen since 1985, from 25% to 20% but poverty rates among the elderly increased from 20 to 23%.
What can be done? In some cases, government policies of taxation and redistribution of income through programs such as Medicare and Social Security have helped to counteract widening inequalities, but this cannot be their only response. Governments must also improve their policies in other areas. Active employment policies are needed to help unemployed people find work. Access to paid employment is key to reducing the risk of poverty, but getting a job does not necessarily mean you are in the clear. The OECD found that over half of all households in poverty have income from work. Therefore, education policies should aim to equip people with the skills they need to find better paying jobs in today’s labor market.
What will happen if the next decade is not one of world growth but of world recession? The widening gap between wealthy households and all other income earners in countries such as the U.S., Canada, and Germany, has potentially ominous consequences if the global financial crisis sparks a long recession. With job losses and home foreclosures skyrocketing, many of these countries now face a deep recession that could last as long as five to ten years.
Oxford University economist Anthony Atkinson said it well:
"If a rising tide didn't lift all boats, how will they be affected by an ebbing tide?"
George Bush and the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party have a unyielding belief in trickle-down economics and therefore did all they could to remove taxes and regulations for the wealthy corporations, including the financial sector. At the same time, they did very little for all other citizens, except for a couple of "stimulus" packages which gave the average family around $600 to $1200 – a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the billions raked in by the CEOs of oil, financial, and pharmaceutical companies. Indeed, the “rising tide” did not lift all boats as promised by Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush. Remember: although the wealthy love trickle-down economics, President George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics.”
And just how well did “voodoo economics” work? Rich households in America have become much richer, leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind. This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States. The average income of the richest 10% is $93,000 in purchasing power, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of U.S. citizens have a purchasing power of $5,800 per year – about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries.
The main reason for widening inequality in America is that the distribution of earnings between rich and poor in the United States has widened by 20% since the mid-1980s, more than in most other OECD countries. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefits, such as unemployment benefits, and family benefits, like Medicare, is very low – equivalent to just 9% of household incomes, while the OECD average is 22% of household incomes.
This widening inequality causes a low level of social mobility in the United States. Children of poor parents to be less likely to become rich, much less middle class, than children of rich parents. Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% control some about 33% of total money in the U.S. The top 10% hold 71% of the wealth. This is just the opposite in countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Australia where social mobility is high due to a low inequality level.
In nearly all countries studied, the gap between rich and everyone else has widened over the last 20 years, even as trade and technological advances have spurred rapid growth in their economies. In a 20-year study of its member countries, the OECD found inequality had increased in 27 of its 30 members as top earners' incomes soared while others' stagnated. Rising inequality threatens social mobility: Children will have great difficulty doing better than their parents; the poor will no longer improve their lot through hard work – in fact, hard work will barely keep their heads above water, if at all.
Why is the gap between rich and poor growing? Wages have been improving for those people who were already well paid, while employment rates have been dropping among less educated people. Also, there are more single-adult and single-family households than ever before.
Who is most affected? Statisticians and economists assess poverty in relation to average incomes. Poverty among young adults and families with children has increased. On average, one child out of every eight living in an OECD country in 2005 was living in poverty. In the U.S., the trend is exactly the opposite: Child poverty – that is, children in a household with less than half the median income – has fallen since 1985, from 25% to 20% but poverty rates among the elderly increased from 20 to 23%.
What can be done? In some cases, government policies of taxation and redistribution of income through programs such as Medicare and Social Security have helped to counteract widening inequalities, but this cannot be their only response. Governments must also improve their policies in other areas. Active employment policies are needed to help unemployed people find work. Access to paid employment is key to reducing the risk of poverty, but getting a job does not necessarily mean you are in the clear. The OECD found that over half of all households in poverty have income from work. Therefore, education policies should aim to equip people with the skills they need to find better paying jobs in today’s labor market.
What will happen if the next decade is not one of world growth but of world recession? The widening gap between wealthy households and all other income earners in countries such as the U.S., Canada, and Germany, has potentially ominous consequences if the global financial crisis sparks a long recession. With job losses and home foreclosures skyrocketing, many of these countries now face a deep recession that could last as long as five to ten years.
Oxford University economist Anthony Atkinson said it well:
"If a rising tide didn't lift all boats, how will they be affected by an ebbing tide?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)