AlterNet.org


NEWS & POLITICS

AlterNet / By Joshua Holland

Obama Deficit Speech: Lots of Flowery Talk About a Major Distraction

It was a classic Obama speech – reasonable, and seductive to a degree that one might forget that we're debating how fast we're going to put the brakes on this recovery.

April 13, 2011 |

Barack Obama's deficit address was a classic piece of Washington Kabuki. Long on rhetoric but sparse in detail, it was replete with impossible-to-fulfill promises while kicking the stickiest issues down the road, perhaps until some period of idealized comity arises in the future.

Obama pledged to cut $4 trillion from the projected deficit over the next 12 years. “To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms,” he said. “We will all need to make sacrifices.” Which means $3 dollars in spending cuts (and “interest savings”) for every dollar raised by cutting coporate tax loopholes and restoring the Clinton-era rates on the wealthiest Americans.

Obama again crowed about the “historic cuts” the White House negotiated with Congressional leaders last week, saying, “The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week.” The speech was designed to take Paul Ryan's ruinous budget out and beat it to death while claiming to be serious about deficit reduction. It did that.

Obama also trumpeted bipartisanship, recalling the sunny days when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan would duke it out and then share a beer. “This sense of responsibility... isn’t a partisan feeling,” he said. “It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea.”

If the budget projections don't look better by the end of 2014 – with debt stabilized and declining by the end of the decade – it would automatically trigger deep, “across-the-board” spending cuts. When a White House official was asked how this would actually work prior to the speech, he responded that the details are yet to be worked out.

In his address, Obama said we have to “put everything on the table.” But when asked whether a carbon tax would be part of the mix in closing the deficit during the White House press call, the official said it was not. When asked why Obama was calling for more modest defense cuts than many analysts say is necessary, he replied that, as Commander-in-Chief, Obama had to be more cautious. Despite the doubling of defense spending since 9/11, Obama promised only to hold future increases to some figure beneath the rate of inflation.

“Winning the future” is definitely on the table, as is some vaguely articulated fiddling with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Promising not to balance the budget on the backs of the neediest, the president pledged to control drug costs without imposing a burden on seniors or the poor, but it's unclear how that might happen.

He vowed to control the growth of Medicare spending by holding down costs to a half of a percent above inflation beginning in 2018. How that will happen is also an open question, but health-care costs are projected to grow much more rapidly than the rate of inflation.

Ultimately, the speech was a catastrophe for progressives who argue that we need to grow our way out of the deficit by addressing the economic crisis pummeling “Main Street.” "The greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt," he said. But there was little in the way of concrete substance.

How will we achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction “without hurting the most vulnerable”? The president called for a “gang of 16” legislators, led by vice president Joe Biden, to enter into negotiations designed to figure it out. How will he contain health-care costs? By strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board that was created by the Affordable Care Act. What about cutting discretionary spending? Obama wants to implement the recommendations made by the co-chairs of the Simpson-Bowles commission. They called for restoring discretionary spending to 2008 levels, but there is nothing that binds future Congresses to those limits – it's called “discretionary” spending because it's determined during the annual budget process.

In tone, the speech was classic Obama – reasonable, informed and seductive to a degree that one might forget that we're debating to what degree we're going to put the brakes on this tenuous, jobless economic recovery. But that is what we're debating. Even the very moderate cuts agreed to last week will cost the economy about 400,000 jobs, according to models developed by Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi. Nobel laureate Joe Stiglitz called the Simpson Bowles recommendations – several of which Obama embraced in his speech – a “suicide pact.” He predicted that it would cost the economy millions of jobs.

“I understand these fears,” Obama said. “I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.”

The reality is that while our private profit-driven health-care system is unsustainably expensive, the U.S. spends less on the public sector than almost every other developed country. We're running large deficits because we're maintaining costly military operations in several countries and the federal government collected less tax revenue in 2010 than in any year since 1961.

Progressives will no doubt celebrate Obama's deft dissection of the GOP's budget gimmicks and his full-throated defense of the welfare state. But it was ultimately some thin political gruel with unemployment remaining at 9 percent and the foreclosure crisis continuing unabated. When Obama's on, as he was today, it's easy to forget that our biggest national debate is little more than a distraction from the real issues plaguing our economy.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America). Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

RANDOM JACK

Random thoughts by Jack Random & Random friends. Contact: jazzmanjack@hotmail.com.

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

A JAZZMAN CHRONICLE By Jack Random. DISSEMINATE FREELY.


“It is time to become what American principles and values insist that we must become. It is time to be what our leaders have always claimed that we were: a beacon of justice, human rights and democracy. It is time to fulfill the promise of our forefathers. Our destiny cannot and must not be to dominate the world but rather to improve the lot of human kind.”

The Jazzman Chronicles, Volume One, Principles of Foreign Policy.


I believe in democracy. I believe in the right of the people to self-determination. I believe in civil liberties and fundamental human rights. I believe that unjustified war is the ultimate violation of human rights and, therefore, the use of arms to settle conflicts must be a last option.

I am not a pacifist. I believe there are circumstances that justify war. For a war to be truly justified, these circumstances cannot be defined ad hoc. They cannot be adopted impromptu to fit the circumstance of a crisis. They must be defined as a matter of policy and principle.

Clearly, a war is justified if a nation or its allies is attacked by another nation. By this essential and fundamental standard, no major military action since World War II has been justified. The Korean War was avoidable. The Vietnam War was a crime against civilization. The Iraq Wars were strategic. The Afghan-Pakistan War was unwise and unnecessary. The people who misled us into that war belittled those who called for a police action but that is exactly what our response should have been. A nation does not respond to a terrorist attack with the blunt instrument of war unless it wants to elevate the terrorist group to the status of sovereignty.

Politicos and politicians of all stripes can say that Afghanistan is now Obama’s war but that rings hollow. Libya is in fact the only military action instigated by the Obama administration. Thus far it remains uncertain and vague as a statement of policy. The administration may have its own reasons for this obscuration of purpose but if we want to determine fairly and objectively whether this war meets the standard of a justified action we must apply principles and policies already established.

Toward that end I have consulted my own prior writings for the principles that apply to the current action in Libya.

Principle: The United States will not engage in interventions that support non-democratic governments or governments that violate the inalienable rights of its citizens.

While it would seem that this principle would argue against Muammar Gaddafi it does not argue for intervention. Gaddafi is a despot and his government is tyrannical but we know very little about the opposition and what kind of government they would in fact bring. Moreover, we have neither the right nor the capacity to depose every despot in the world. Therefore the justification for this war must originate elsewhere.

Principle: Our nation will take appropriate action to prevent, inhibit or halt genocide.

This was the rationale Bill Clinton used for intervention in Kosovo where we were told genocide was under way. While there is evidence that massacres occurred on both sides of that conflict, the definition of genocide likely relies more on massive dislocation than on an attempt to exterminate the Muslim population. There is strong evidence that the US led NATO intervention may have enabled a reverse genocide (see “The Truth About Bosnia and Kosovo” by David Icke). By any objective account, the case for intervention in Kosovo is far more complex and less compelling than we have been led to believe.

Leaving an analysis of Kosovo aside, is there compelling evidence that genocide was about to occur in Libya? After the bombing began Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quick to claim that a massacre was prevented in Benghazi. Maybe so. Maybe not. Any number of scenarios could have played out. A genuine truce might have been negotiated in lieu of a NATO attack or stiff sanctions. The western world could have seized the accounts of all mercenaries engaged in Libya unless they withdrew immediately. The opposition could have laid down their arms.

What we do know is that the Libyan opposition is political. It is not representative of any ethnic divide. Therefore, neither the extent of violence nor the nature of the conflict allows any consideration of genocide in Libya. This is not a cause for war.

Principle: We will not act as the police force of the world.

This principle argues strongly against unilateral intervention. President Obama was right to seek international agreement and the consent of the United Nations Security Council. Unlike his predecessor he did not defy the United Nations and he did not build a coalition by bribery and coercion. As long as we remain within the mandate of the Security Council resolution we have the sanction of international law. The instant we go beyond that mandate we lose moral and legal grounding.

When the president states that his standard for success in Libya is the removal of Gaddafi from power, he signals that he is prepared to go beyond the mandate. He promises that we will not take the lead in this operation and we will not commit troops to yet another ground war in the region. This is the very definition of a mixed message. Reminiscent of the promises made by the Clinton administration in Kosovo (promises that were not kept), we have run headlong into a zone of duplicity where we can neither move forward nor backward. If in fact the bombing campaign is insufficient to remove the dictator from power, we will have placed ourselves in a dilemma: Escalate our involvement or admit that we have failed and placed the civilians we were charged to protect at even greater risk than before.

This is precisely why policies of intervention should not be left to impromptu actions. We cannot afford to be entangled in yet another civil war while our nation is facing a prolonged economic crisis, while our own people are suffering and while the other more pressing needs of the world and the nation are neglected.

We have neither the right nor the resources to act as the police force of the world.

Principle: We will practice a policy of restraint in civil wars and civil conflicts.

A careful consideration of this principle would have prevented our disastrous entanglements in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It would have precluded us from a protracted engagement in Kosovo with at best mixed results.

How does it apply in Libya? Is this a civil war or is it an unpopular dictator imposing his will through mercenary forces and arms supplied by many of the same powers now aligned against him?

I have said so before and I will say so again: There is no place in a civilized world for mercenary armies. The first lesson of this conflict like so many others is that we can no longer permit mercenary armies and weapons traders to act with no more restraint than the free market allows. Mercenaries should be banned outright. Weapons traders should operate under strict international guidelines. No civilized nation should be supplying arms to dictators, tyrants and kings who operate independent of the will of their people.

What do we expect to happen when the people rise up against despotic leaders, as they inevitably will?

It is not yet clear whether the conflict in Libya can best be defined as a civil war or a popular uprising. If it is a civil war or becomes one, our best policy is restraint. If it is a popular uprising, our justification for war remains uncertain.

I can only conclude that either the principles guiding the Obama administration are substantially different than my own or this was an emotion-charged response to a crisis situation. Like the Bush administration in Afghanistan and Iraq, it appears to lack foresight. Like the ill-fated Supreme Court decision in 2000 that installed Bush in the White House, the administration may wish to discount precedent value but it cannot be done.

Are we prepared to act in kind when similar circumstances arise in other countries? How do we justify failure to act in Yemen, Bahrain, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else a popular uprising is suppressed by a non-democratic government?

Discounting the expansion of the Afghan War into Pakistan, the bombing of Libya was the first military intervention instigated by the Obama administration. What does it say about the Obama Doctrine of foreign policy?

It seems clear that the president is far less restrained in committing the force of arms than I can condone. The hope now is that events in Libya do not veer out of control as they have in Afghanistan and as they did in Iraq. The hope now is that the president will be able to keep his promise of a limited intervention.

Murphy’s Law holds that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. That is precisely why we should never engage in actions on the scale of war without a clear objective and an equally clear path to its fulfillment.

We are asking for trouble in Libya. We are asking for trouble with a policy that cannot be sustained elsewhere in the world. We are taking a gamble in an arena where the risks are far too great.

I genuinely hope the opposition seizes control in Libya and under the pressure of an international coalition fulfills the promise of a democratic government. If it does not and events spin out of control, entangling us in yet another quagmire of indefinite length, then this decision may well prove catastrophic.

For now we can only ask the president to remember his promise. The people do not want another war in a faraway land. We cannot afford it and we do not wish to sacrifice any more lives to foreign misadventures.

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON NUMEROUS CITES OF THE WORLDWIDE WEB, INCLUDING THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, BUZZLE, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS AND PACIFIC FREE PRESS. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.

// posted by Jack Random @ 10:42 PM

AlterNet.org

ECONOMY

AlterNet / By Joshua Holland

How Obama's Cave in to GOP Extremists Will Devastate the Economy

Obama's failure to challenge the Right's economic mythology is both inexcusable, and a sign that the White House isn't prepared for the major battles to come.

April 11, 2011 |

The deal Obama struck with GOP leaders last week will cost our moribund economy around 400,000 jobs. It was a tragic compromise with an unyielding ideological opposition, yet Obama hailed it as “historic,” prompting the Wall Street Journal's plutocratic editorial board to crow that the president has now “agreed to a pair of tax cut and spending deals that repudiate his core economic philosophy and his agenda of the last two years.” They painted it as proof that “Republicans in Washington have reversed the nation's fiscal debate.”

Then came the news today that Obama will introduce a long-term deficit reduction plan, which might include “reforming” (read: cutting) Medicare and Medicaid.

The reality is that slashing public spending while private consumer demand remains in a deep trough is tantamount to economic suicide – every business survey conducted in the past two years has found that business's biggest problem is a lack of customers. Cutting programs that put dollars into the pockets of the poor and jobless and adding to the number of unemployed Americans is the worst thing we can do.

One can argue that the pain that would have been inflicted by a complete shutdown of government would have been so great, and the likelihood of the GOP caucus blinking under relentless pressure from its Tea Party base so slight, that Obama was nonetheless justified in cutting the deal. But his failure to challenge the Right's economic mythology is both inexcusable, and a sign that the White House is not prepared for the next two major battles to come.

The White House reads the polls, and according to Pew research (PDF), four in 10 Americans “said that major cuts in spending this year would not have much of an effect on the job situation.” Another especially confused 18 percent said deep cuts would actually help create jobs.

But that's simply the result of a self-fulfilling prophesy: the administration has conceded the idea that focusing on deficit reduction in this economic climate is something other than insane. They've framed the debate as a choice between deep, “irresponsible” cuts the Tea Party wants to make with a hatchet and intelligent trims the administration would make with a scalpel – Democratic center-right technocracy versus the crazy-right Republican “revolution” inspired by Ayn Rand.

That doesn't portend well for the fights ahead. In the next month or so, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling – the maximum amount of public debt the government can hold – or face a possible default on the government's obligations. And then Washington will turn to the 2012 budget battle.

Increasing the debt ceiling is usually a routine matter, and the consequences for failing to do so are potentially catastrophic – it would wreak havoc on the financial markets and send an already shaky recovery into a steep backslide. But Republicans are nevertheless expected to once again attach onerous conditions to the bill – holding the economy hostage in exchange for extremely painful cuts to social safety net programs and other, unrelated items on their ideological wish-list.

It will be the result of a Republican party having been emboldened by the administration’s past concessions. Robert Reichcompared it to handing over one's lunch money to a bully every day rather than confronting him in a bloody schoolyard fight: it may seem like the least painful approach in the short-term, but it's actually the very worst way to manage the situation.

What the administration should be doing appears clear, at least from the outside. Analysts agree that Obama needs a credible strategy for dealing with this form of extortion going forward. Matt Yglesias suggests a two-pronged approach. First, a “credible, repeated commitment not to surrender anything in exchange for getting congress to agree to the debt ceiling being increased.” Every serious person in Congress knows the ceiling must be raised, and therefore “there's nothing to bargain over.”

The second part is educating the public about what's really at stake in these battles, and in the most dramatic way. Yglesias notes that failing to raise the debt ceiling wouldn't force the government to shut down, it would only limit its ability to cut checks, which would mean that the administration “will be able to selectively stiff people.”

So the right strategy is to start stiffing people Republicans care about. When bills to defense contractors come due, don’t pay them. Explain they’ll get 100 percent of what they’re owed when the debt ceiling is raised. Don’t make some farm payments. Stop sending Medicare reimbursements. Make the doctors & hospitals, the farmers and defense contractors, and the currently elderly bear the inconvenient for a few weeks of uncertain payment schedules. And explain to the American people that the circle of people who need to be inconvenienced will necessarily grow week after week until congress gives in. Remind people that the concessions the right is after mean the permanent abolition of Medicare, followed by higher taxes on the middle to finance additional tax cuts for the rich.

It's the right way to play it, but it was also the case that the battle could have been avoided altogether had the Democrats played hardball last fall when, with control of the House and the polling in their favor, they didn't hang tough in the battle over the Bush tax cuts and failed to pass a 2011 budget. There is little reason to believe they will suddenly grow a backbone with the GOP in control of the House.

But the bigger problem is that it may be too late in the game to articulate an alternative vision for how to restart the economy. They've accepted the terms of the debate – that we have a “deficit crisis” and addressing it, now or in the near future, is integral to our economic future (this assumes that Obama is not himself a dedicated deficit hawk, as some believe). They've validated the conservative myth that we can't afford to keep our elderly out of poverty and provide health care to those who can't afford it. It was Obama who convened the bipartisan “catfood commission” headed by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. Pushing back against these narratives now would represent a heavy lift.

They could have gone another way early on – eschewing the false value of “bipartisanship” and educating the public about what's really at stake. They could have staked out a position that all of this deficit madness is ultimately a way of enacting unpopular policies favored by Wall Street. Over two-thirds of the American public think lobbyists, “major corporations” and “banks and financial institutions” have “too much power,” according to Gallup. But Obama's handlers obviously determined to go another way – to take credit for implementing the Right's disastrous economic voodoo.

In heading off a government shutdown, they may have been right in terms of the short-term political calculus. Polls show that the public would have spread the blame for a shutdown on both parties equally, and although the Democratic base wants a harder fight, the administration nonetheless retains its support.

But accepting the Right's economic discourse as being grounded in reality will result in real and lasting economic pain. And in November 2012, with unemployment still high, the foreclosure crisis continuing unabated and a president who appears weak in the face of a determined conservative movement, the Democrats are destined for a well deserved thumping as a reward for their lack of political acumen, even if Obama himself wins another term by default.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America). Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.

Obama's Law Prof Among Those Outraged by Manning 'Torture'

Published on Monday, April 11, 2011 by The Guardian/UK

Bradley Manning: Top US legal Scholars Voice Outrage at 'Torture'

Obama professor among 250 experts who have signed letter condemning humiliation of alleged WikiLeaks source

by Ed Pilkington

More than 250 of America's most eminent legal scholars have signed a letter protesting against the treatment in military prison of the alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, contesting that his "degrading and inhumane conditions" are illegal, unconstitutional and could even amount to torture.

Code Pink for Peace demonstrators the detention of US Army Private Bradley Manning. More than 250 of America's most eminent legal scholars have signed a letter protesting against the treatment in military prison of the alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, contesting that his "degrading and inhumane conditions" are illegal, unconstitutional and could even amount to torture. The list of signatories includes Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be America's foremost liberal authority on constitutional law. He taught constitutional law to Barack Obama and was a key backer of his 2008 presidential campaign.

Tribe joined the Obama administration last year as a legal adviser in the justice department, a post he held until three months ago.

He told the Guardian he signed the letter because Manning appeared to have been treated in a way that "is not only shameful but unconstitutional" as he awaits court martial in Quantico marine base in Virginia.

The US soldier has been held in the military brig since last July, charged with multiple counts relating to the leaking of thousands of embassy cables and other secret documents to the WikiLeaks website.

Under the terms of his detention, he is kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, checked every five minutes under a so-called "prevention of injury order" and stripped naked at night apart from a smock.

Tribe said the treatment was objectionable "in the way it violates his person and his liberty without due process of law and in the way it administers cruel and unusual punishment of a sort that cannot be constitutionally inflicted even upon someone convicted of terrible offences, not to mention someone merely accused of such offences".

The harsh restrictions have been denounced by a raft of human rights groups, including Amnesty International, and are being investigated by the United Nations' rapporteur on torture.

Tribe is the second senior figure with links to the Obama administration to break ranks over Manning. Last month, PJ Crowley resigned as state department spokesman after deriding the Pentagon's handling of Manning as "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid".

The intervention of Tribe and hundreds of other legal scholars is a huge embarrassment to Obama, who was a professor of constitutional law in Chicago. Obama made respect for the rule of law a cornerstone of his administration, promising when he first entered the White House in 2009 to end the excesses of the Bush administration's war on terrorism.

As commander in chief, Obama is ultimately responsible for Manning's treatment at the hands of his military jailers. In his only comments on the matter so far, Obama has insisted that the way the soldier was being detained was "appropriate and meets our basic standards".

The protest letter, published in the New York Review of Books, was written by two distinguished law professors, Bruce Ackerman of Yale and Yochai Benkler of Harvard. They claim Manning's reported treatment is a violation of the US constitution, specifically the eighth amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment and the fifth amendment that prevents punishment without trial.

In a stinging rebuke to Obama, they say "he was once a professor of constitutional law, and entered the national stage as an eloquent moral leader. The question now, however, is whether his conduct as commander in chief meets fundamental standards of decency".

Benkler told the Guardian: "It is incumbent on us as citizens and professors of law to say that enough is enough. We cannot allow ourselves to behave in this way if we want America to remain a society dedicated to human dignity and process of law."

He said Manning's conditions were being used "as a warning to future whistleblowers" and added: "

I find it tragic that it is Obama's administration that is pursuing whistleblowers and imposing this kind of treatment."

Ackerman pointed out that under the Pentagon's own rule book, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Manning's jailers could be liable to prosecution for abusing him. Article 93 of the code says "any person who is guilty of cruelty toward any person subject to his orders shall be punished".

The list of professors who have signed the protest letter includes leading figures from all the top US law schools, as well as prominent names from other academic fields. Among them are Bill Clinton's former labour secretary Robert Reich, President Theodore Roosevelt's great-great-grandson Kermit Roosevelt, the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union Norman Dorsen and the novelist Kwame Anthony Appiah.

© 2011 Guardian News and Media

April 9, 2011 at 01:53:47

Obama hails deal to impose record cuts in social spending

By Patrick Martin (about the author)

A partial shutdown of the US federal government was postponed by a deal struck late Friday night between White House and congressional negotiators to resolve a protracted standoff on legislation to finance government operations.

The Obama administration agreed to $2 billion more in social spending cuts in return for an agreement by the Republican House leadership on a stop-gap continuing resolution that will fund the federal government through next Thursday. President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also said they had reached a broader agreement to fund government operations through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, which is to be voted on by both houses of Congress next week.

The deal reportedly includes between $39 billion and $40 billion in social spending cuts in the current fiscal year budget, virtually the total amount demanded by Boehner. This is the largest-ever single-year reduction in domestic social spending.

Details are not yet available of exactly which programs will feel the brunt of the budget axe, but the cuts dwarf any previous austerity exercise. The cuts are four times those imposed by a Republican Congress in 1995-96, the only previous instance of a budget dispute forcing a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Speaking from the White House shortly after 11 PM, President Obama hailed the agreement as a boon to the American people, even as he acknowledged that it would entail "painful" sacrifices. In the course of his brief remarks, Obama twice boasted that he had signed on to "the largest annual spending cut in our history." Eager to send a signal that this deal was only a down-payment on far more sweeping cuts in social programs to come in the fiscal year 2012 budget, he said the agreement signified "beginning to live within our means."

Nearly one million federal workers had been given notice of layoff at their workplaces Friday, about half the total workforce. The shutdown would have affected the majority of civilian government workers, but US military and police forces, the intelligence agencies and the Department of Homeland Security were exempted and told to continue normal operations.

The driving force of the budget crisis has been the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which demanded even greater cuts in current spending than the record $38 billion offered by the Obama administration. Many in the ultra-right Tea Party caucus regarded a shutdown of all non-military parts of the government as a positive good, while Christian fundamentalists demanded further restrictions on abortion rights as the price of passing a budget.

The final hours of negotiations reportedly focused on the continuation of $333 million in federal funding for women's health services provided by Planned Parenthood, which operates 800 health centers throughout the United States, the majority of them serving women in working class and low-income neighborhoods.

None of this federal funding supports abortion services. It pays for services like breast cancer screening, pap smears, pregnancy counseling and contraception. But the fanatical anti-abortion wing of the Republican Party targeted Planned Parenthood because it is the largest provider of abortion services in the United States and a defender of the right of women to have access to abortion.

The Republican leadership reportedly agreed to drop the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the final deal with the White House, and House Republicans voted Friday night to accept the agreement.

However, the Obama administration and Senator Reid agreed to include a provision demanded by the Republicans that bans the District of Columbia from using its own funds to pay for abortion procedures. Under the notorious Hyde Amendment, enacted in the 1970s and never seriously challenged by the Democrats, federal government funds cannot be used to pay for abortions. But the District of Columbia, like many states, uses funds raised from its own tax revenues to do so. This has become a political football because Congress controls District spending. A Republican-controlled Congress barred the practice, and the Democratic-controlled Congress lifted the ban in 2009.

As is invariably the case in such political confrontations in recent US history, the Democratic Party cowers before the demands of the ultra-right and ultimately offers agreements on their terms. Both President Obama and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid acceded again and again to additional demands from the House Republicans.

Speaker John Boehner reportedly reached agreement with Reid and Obama last week on $33 billion in cuts in fiscal year 2011 domestic social spending. He had reason to be pleased, since the original demand of the House Republican leadership, put forward in January, was for $32 billion in cuts.

Under pressure from the right wing of the Republican caucus, Boehner raised the figure in spending cuts to $61 billion, incorporated in the budget passed by the House in February. Obama and the Senate Democrats countered with an offer of $10 billion, and the horse-trading continued, while Boehner used the demands for policy changes -- on abortion, environmental regulation, and a ban on implementation of the Obama health care program -- to extract more and more spending cuts.

Boehner repudiated the $33 billion figure, proposing instead $40 billion in cuts and reportedly getting a counter-offer of $38 billion in cuts from Reid and Obama on Thursday night. But even this new level of austerity proved insufficient.

Some of the most right-wing figures in the Republican Party joined the debate in the final hours, urging Boehner and the House majority to pocket the many concessions from the Democrats without taking the risk of provoking a public backlash against a shutdown of federal services.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a presidential candidate in 2008 and a potential candidate in 2012, said the Republicans had the "most to lose" in a shutdown, particularly if they alienated rank-and-file military personnel who would be compelled to work but would go without pay until Congress approved a budget.

Huckabee told Fox News, "The amount of money that we're talking about is so minor, we're talking about pennies...The Republicans have an opportunity to declare victory here."

He added, referring to the fiscal year 2012 budget proposed by the House Republicans, "The big battle is over the real long term, that which Paul Ryan has put on the table." This is the plan to abolish Medicare and Medicaid proposed by the House Budget Committee chairman Tuesday. Huckabee enthusiastically supports this plan, and advised the House Republicans, "This is too small a fire to use up all your water over a couple of billion dollars when the real issue is trillions."

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal Friday counseled the same approach, arguing, "We're not opposed to a shutdown showdown, but the policy stakes ought to be worth the political investment. The reforms in Mr. Ryan's just-released 2012 budget are worth such a fight."

Patrick Martin writes for the World Socialist Website (wsws.org), a forum for socialist ideas & analysis & published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Obama's the Nowhere Man

He's a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.

The Nowhere Man

Tuesday 5 April 2011

by: William Rivers Pitt, Truthout

President Barack Obama records his weekly address from a UPS customer center as part of the new public-private Green Fleet Partnership, April 1, 2011. (Photo: Pete Souza / White House Photo)

Do you like this? Click here to signup for free email updates from Truthout.

So, yeah, Obama is in. The President of the United States officially threw his hat into the 2012 election ring on Monday morning, and the nation reacted with a resounding, "Oh."

What a mess.

It wasn't even two and a half years ago. Can you believe it? Two and a half years ago, there was a detonation of optimism that echoed across the country once the returns were in on that November night. People took to the streets here in Boston, literally banging pots and pans together as they danced and shouted in celebration. The scene was repeated in city after city and town after town, and even the "mainstream" media gushed from election night to Inauguration Day about the spectacular moment in American history we were all witnessing together.

Hindsight, however, tells us today that much of that optimism was wildly misplaced. The long shadow of George W. Bush still hung low and dark over the land, as it does even now. That was part of it, of course, part of the sense of expiation and purgation so many felt once the deal went down; on that November night, the national nightmare of Mr. Bush's presidency was writing its final pages, and then came January, and he was gone. Despite all the failures and disappointments that have since come, those were two very good days.

And there have been disappointments. A great, great many of them. The words we heard were beautiful back then, soaring and sure, and many believed. How could they not? Here was this new president who could sing the birds down from the trees, who was introduced to the country in 2004 by way of a convention keynote address that blew the roof off the joint. Some years later, along the jagged, wending path of a brutal primary campaign, candidate Obama was carried to the nomination by the power of his words, and yes, many believed, even in spite of themselves.

But then he won it all, and two and a half years later, many of his most ardent supporters now hear his words and taste ashes in their mouths. You campaign in poetry, someone once said, but you govern in prose. The poetry was magnificent. The prose, in far too many ways, has been dreck, and those who believed now find themselves more demoralized than they can easily describe.

He and his fellow Democrats all but folded on health care, leaving us with less than half a loaf. He backtracked on Guantanamo, and doubled down on Afghanistan. He promised to erase Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and broke his oath shamelessly, to his party's great lament in 2010. Wall Street stands unmolested at the center of his counsel, while Main Street withers on the vine. He is flipping missiles into Libya while flipping off the American people by racing to "compromise" with brigands and thieves on the matter of how many billions to cut. He has, to be sure, had his share of victories, but in so many critical ways, he has been the Nowhere Man, the absence of what was so seemingly present when he was elevated to his current station.

What galls the most, what infuriates and confounds, is the brazen clarity of the situation at hand. Mr. Obama has not been losing policy arguments to reasonable people. He has been losing policy arguments to people who are, in many instances, absolutely and unabashedly barking mad. He is losing policy arguments to people who sought elected office in government in order to denude and destroy that very government. Listen to them talk and the matter is plain: they got the job to destroy the job, and are so blinded by the fervor of their political catechism that they cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances. They are destroyers and usurpers, but Mr. Obama has time and again bared his neck to them, and we have all suffered with their sundry victories, and his sundry defeats.

They cannot be reasoned with, but can only be defeated, and after two and a half years, it is the President of the United States alone who appears to have not received the memo. Now he's running for re-election - not that anyone suspected he would do otherwise - and the machinery of campaign war is grinding to life in Chicago and Washington DC. Last time around, Mr. Obama's vast campaign war chest was filled with donations from millions of regular folks all across the country. The Obama campaign took money from the big boys, too; lots and lots of money. But what ultimately brought him to victory came from average Americans who could not afford to give but did. That, as much as anything else, was part of that sense of optimism felt by so many at the beginning.

Now?

Well, now is a different story. A great many of those who gave willingly the last time are two and a half years older today, two and a half years poorer, and two and a half years wiser. They will not be as quick to reach for their wallets and checkbooks when the piper calls them to campaign charity with his well-worn cadence. The Obama 2012 brain trust seems to know this, and are preparing a financial strategy far more dependent on big money than last time. They aim to raise a billion dollars this time. Thus, the political DNA of campaigner Obama and President Obama will even more closely resemble the CEOs and bankers that tore this nation to shreds and tatters.

The feeble fiction of the Democrats vs. Republicans paradigm has been falling to dust for a long time now, inexorably being replaced by a simple truth. There is but one paradigm in this reality, one core fact to be reckoned with: the struggle in America is between the Have's and the Have Not's, between towering wealth , towering greed and everyone else. It is about a class struggle that has been three centuries in the making, and even those who are today moderately comfortable will not be able to escape calamity. When it comes down, it will come down on all of us...all, of course, except the fortunate few who caused it all in the first place.

But who knows? Mr. Obama could choose to steer back into the wind, challenge his demented opposition with a will, and prevail in a way that inspires those who have waited all this time for the man they gave to and voted for to show up. The odds of re-election favor him in any case; it is hard to defeat an incumbent, and when considering the ludicrous carnival of nonsense that is the presumed Republican field, Mr. Obama's chances only improve. In many battlefield states, demographics favor the president in ways the GOP is not prepared to deal with. The 2012 election campaign promises, above all else and with absolute certainty, to be one of the most deranged political affairs to be seen since time out of mind.

It is tempting to comfort oneself with the notion that there are worse things in the world than a second Obama term, and there is a fat, cynical dollop of truth in that. After all, given the array of challenges this administration has faced since taking office, it is daunting to imagine the sorry condition we would be in under a President McCain. Now imagine watching Vice President Michele Bachmann, tapped by the Republican nominee in two years to shore up the Tea Party vote, taking the oath a heartbeat shy of the biggest chair in the country. Think it can't happen that way? Want to bet on it?

I don't.

Two and a half years ago, it was all about hope and change. Remember that? I am, personally, waiting with bated breath for the next battery of slogans to be deployed by the Obama campaign. No, seriously, I am. Nowhere Man 2012: Because Everyone Else Is Worse. That'll send them racing to the polls.

Yup. Here we go.

Again.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

The Nowhere Man

Tuesday 5 April 2011

by: William Rivers Pitt, Truthout

President Barack Obama records his weekly address from a UPS customer center as part of the new public-private Green Fleet Partnership, April 1, 2011. (Photo: Pete Souza / White House Photo)

So, yeah, Obama is in. The Pre­sident of the Uni­ted States of­ficial­ly threw his hat into the 2012 elec­tion ring on Mon­day morn­ing, and the na­tion rea­cted with a re­sound­ing, "Oh."

What a mess.

It wasn't even two and a half years ago. Can you be­lieve it? Two and a half years ago, there was a de­tona­tion of opt­im­ism that ec­hoed ac­ross the co­unt­ry once the re­turns were in on that Novemb­er night. Peo­ple took to the streets here in Bos­ton, lit­eral­ly bang­ing pots and pans togeth­er as they dan­ced and shouted in celeb­ra­tion. The scene was re­peated in city after city and town after town, and even the "mainstream" media gus­hed from elec­tion night to In­augura­tion Day about the spec­tacular mo­ment in American his­to­ry we were all wit­ness­ing togeth­er.

Hindsight, howev­er, tells us today that much of that opt­im­ism was wild­ly mis­placed. The long shadow of Geor­ge W. Bush still hung low and dark over the land, as it does even now. That was part of it, of co­ur­se, part of the sense of ex­pia­tion and pur­ga­tion so many felt once the deal went down; on that Novemb­er night, the nation­al nightmare of Mr. Bush's pre­siden­cy was writ­ing its final pages, and then came Janua­ry, and he was gone. De­spite all the failures and dis­ap­point­ments that have since come, those were two very good days.

And there have been dis­ap­point­ments. A great, great many of them. The words we heard were be­auti­ful back then, soar­ing and sure, and many be­lieved. How could they not? Here was this new pre­sident who could sing the birds down from the trees, who was in­troduced to the co­unt­ry in 2004 by way of a con­ven­tion keynote address that blew the roof off the joint. Some years later, along the jag­ged, wend­ing path of a brut­al prima­ry cam­paign, can­didate Obama was car­ried to the nomina­tion by the power of his words, and yes, many be­lieved, even in spite of them­selves.

But then he won it all, and two and a half years later, many of his most ar­dent sup­port­ers now hear his words and taste ashes in their mouths. You cam­paign in poet­ry, some­one once said, but you govern in prose. The poet­ry was mag­nifi­cent. The prose, in far too many ways, has been dreck, and those who be­lieved now find them­selves more de­moralized than they can eas­i­ly de­scribe.

He and his fel­low De­moc­rats all but fol­ded on health care, leav­ing us with less than half a loaf. He backtrac­ked on Guan­tanamo, and doub­led down on Afghanis­tan. He pro­mised to erase Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and broke his oath shameless­ly, to his party's great la­ment in 2010. Wall Street stands un­moles­ted at the cent­er of his co­un­sel, while Main Street with­ers on the vine. He is flipp­ing mis­siles into Libya while flipp­ing off the American peo­ple by rac­ing to "com­prom­ise" with brigands and thieves on the matt­er of how many bi­ll­ions to cut. He has, to be sure, had his share of vic­to­ries, but in so many crit­ical ways, he has been the Now­here Man, the ab­s­ence of what was so seeming­ly pre­sent when he was elevated to his cur­rent sta­tion.

What galls the most, what in­furiates and con­founds, is the braz­en clar­ity of the situa­tion at hand. Mr. Obama has not been los­ing poli­cy ar­gu­ments to rea­son­able peo­ple. He has been los­ing poli­cy ar­gu­ments to peo­ple who are, in many in­stan­ces, ab­solute­ly and un­abas­hed­ly bark­ing mad. He is los­ing poli­cy ar­gu­ments to peo­ple who sought elec­ted of­fice in govern­ment in order to de­nude and de­stroy that very govern­ment. Li­st­en to them talk and the matt­er is plain: they got the job to de­stroy the job, and are so blin­ded by the fer­vor of their polit­ical cat­ech­ism that they can­not be rea­soned with under any cir­cumstan­ces. They are de­stroy­ers and usurp­ers, but Mr. Obama has time and again bared his neck to them, and we have all suf­fered with their sund­ry vic­to­ries, and his sund­ry de­feats.

They can­not be rea­soned with, but can only be de­feated, and after two and a half years, it is the Pre­sident of the Uni­ted States alone who ap­pears to have not re­ceived the memo. Now he's runn­ing for re-election - not that an­yone sus­pec­ted he would do ot­herw­ise - and the mac­hine­ry of cam­paign war is grind­ing to life in Chicago and Was­hington DC. Last time around, Mr. Obama's vast cam­paign war chest was fil­led with dona­tions from mill­ions of re­gular folks all ac­ross the co­unt­ry. The Obama cam­paign took money from the big boys, too; lots and lots of money. But what ul­timate­ly brought him to vic­to­ry came from average Americans who could not af­ford to give but did. That, as much as an­yth­ing else, was part of that sense of opt­im­ism felt by so many at the be­ginn­ing.

Now?

Well, now is a dif­ferent story. A great many of those who gave wil­ling­ly the last time are two and a half years older today, two and a half years poor­er, and two and a half years wiser. They will not be as quick to reach for their wal­lets and checkbooks when the piper calls them to cam­paign char­ity with his well-worn cad­ence. The Obama 2012 brain trust seems to know this, and are pre­par­ing a fin­an­ci­al strategy far more de­pen­dent on big money than last time. They aim to raise a bi­ll­ion dol­lars this time. Thus, the polit­ical DNA of cam­paign­er Obama and Pre­sident Obama will even more close­ly re­semble the CEOs and bank­ers that tore this na­tion to shreds and tatt­ers.

The feeb­le fic­tion of the De­moc­rats vs. Re­pub­licans para­digm has been fall­ing to dust for a long time now, in­exorab­ly being re­placed by a sim­ple truth. There is but one para­digm in this rea­l­ity, one core fact to be re­ckoned with: the struggle in America is bet­ween the Have's and the Have Not's, bet­ween tower­ing wealth , tower­ing greed and every­one else. It is about a class struggle that has been three cen­tu­ries in the mak­ing, and even those who are today moderate­ly com­fort­able will not be able to es­cape calam­ity. When it comes down, it will come down on all of us...all, of co­ur­se, ex­cept the for­tunate few who caused it all in the first place.

But who knows? Mr. Obama could choose to steer back into the wind, chal­lenge his de­men­ted op­posi­tion with a will, and pre­vail in a way that in­spires those who have waited all this time for the man they gave to and voted for to show up. The odds of re-election favor him in any case; it is hard to de­feat an in­cum­bent, and when con­sider­ing the ludicr­ous car­niv­al of non­sen­se that is the pre­sumed Re­pub­lican field, Mr. Obama's chan­ces only im­prove. In many battlefield states, de­mog­raphics favor the pre­sident in ways the GOP is not pre­pared to deal with. The 2012 elec­tion cam­paign pro­mises, above all else and with ab­solute cer­tain­ty, to be one of the most de­ran­ged polit­ical af­fairs to be seen since time out of mind.

It is tempt­ing to com­fort oneself with the no­tion that there are worse th­ings in the world than a second Obama term, and there is a fat, cyn­ical dol­lop of truth in that. After all, given the array of chal­lenges this ad­ministra­tion has faced since tak­ing of­fice, it is daunt­ing to im­agine the sorry con­di­tion we would be in under a Pre­sident McCain. Now im­agine watch­ing Vice Pre­sident Mic­hele Bachmann, tap­ped by the Re­pub­lican nominee in two years to shore up the Tea Party vote, tak­ing the oath a heartbeat shy of the bi­ggest chair in the co­unt­ry. Think it can't happ­en that way? Want to bet on it?

I don't.

Two and a half years ago, it was all about hope and chan­ge. Re­memb­er that? I am, per­sonal­ly, wait­ing with bated breath for the next bat­te­ry of slogans to be de­ployed by the Obama cam­paign. No, serious­ly, I am. Now­here Man 2012: Be­cause Every­one Else Is Worse. That'll send them rac­ing to the polls.

Yup. Here we go.

Again.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

President Barack Obama records his weekly address from a UPS customer center as part of the new public-private Green Fleet Partnership, April 1, 2011. (Photo: Pete Souza / White House Photo)

Do you like this? Click here to signup for free email updates from Truthout.

So, yeah, Obama is in. The President of the United States officially threw his hat into the 2012 election ring on Monday morning, and the nation reacted with a resounding, "Oh."

What a mess.

It wasn't even two and a half years ago. Can you believe it? Two and a half years ago, there was a detonation of optimism that echoed across the country once the returns were in on that November night. People took to the streets here in Boston, literally banging pots and pans together as they danced and shouted in celebration. The scene was repeated in city after city and town after town, and even the "mainstream" media gushed from election night to Inauguration Day about the spectacular moment in American history we were all witnessing together.

Hindsight, however, tells us today that much of that optimism was wildly misplaced. The long shadow of George W. Bush still hung low and dark over the land, as it does even now. That was part of it, of course, part of the sense of expiation and purgation so many felt once the deal went down; on that November night, the national nightmare of Mr. Bush's presidency was writing its final pages, and then came January, and he was gone. Despite all the failures and disappointments that have since come, those were two very good days.

And there have been disappointments. A great, great many of them. The words we heard were beautiful back then, soaring and sure, and many believed. How could they not? Here was this new president who could sing the birds down from the trees, who was introduced to the country in 2004 by way of a convention keynote address that blew the roof off the joint. Some years later, along the jagged, wending path of a brutal primary campaign, candidate Obama was carried to the nomination by the power of his words, and yes, many believed, even in spite of themselves.

But then he won it all, and two and a half years later, many of his most ardent supporters now hear his words and taste ashes in their mouths. You campaign in poetry, someone once said, but you govern in prose. The poetry was magnificent. The prose, in far too many ways, has been dreck, and those who believed now find themselves more demoralized than they can easily describe.

He and his fellow Democrats all but folded on health care, leaving us with less than half a loaf. He backtracked on Guantanamo, and doubled down on Afghanistan. He promised to erase Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and broke his oath shamelessly, to his party's great lament in 2010. Wall Street stands unmolested at the center of his counsel, while Main Street withers on the vine. He is flipping missiles into Libya while flipping off the American people by racing to "compromise" with brigands and thieves on the matter of how many billions to cut. He has, to be sure, had his share of victories, but in so many critical ways, he has been the Nowhere Man, the absence of what was so seemingly present when he was elevated to his current station.

What galls the most, what infuriates and confounds, is the brazen clarity of the situation at hand. Mr. Obama has not been losing policy arguments to reasonable people. He has been losing policy arguments to people who are, in many instances, absolutely and unabashedly barking mad. He is losing policy arguments to people who sought elected office in government in order to denude and destroy that very government. Listen to them talk and the matter is plain: they got the job to destroy the job, and are so blinded by the fervor of their political catechism that they cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances. They are destroyers and usurpers, but Mr. Obama has time and again bared his neck to them, and we have all suffered with their sundry victories, and his sundry defeats.

They cannot be reasoned with, but can only be defeated, and after two and a half years, it is the President of the United States alone who appears to have not received the memo. Now he's running for re-election - not that anyone suspected he would do otherwise - and the machinery of campaign war is grinding to life in Chicago and Washington DC. Last time around, Mr. Obama's vast campaign war chest was filled with donations from millions of regular folks all across the country. The Obama campaign took money from the big boys, too; lots and lots of money. But what ultimately brought him to victory came from average Americans who could not afford to give but did. That, as much as anything else, was part of that sense of optimism felt by so many at the beginning.

Now?

Well, now is a different story. A great many of those who gave willingly the last time are two and a half years older today, two and a half years poorer, and two and a half years wiser. They will not be as quick to reach for their wallets and checkbooks when the piper calls them to campaign charity with his well-worn cadence. The Obama 2012 brain trust seems to know this, and are preparing a financial strategy far more dependent on big money than last time. They aim to raise a billion dollars this time. Thus, the political DNA of campaigner Obama and President Obama will even more closely resemble the CEOs and bankers that tore this nation to shreds and tatters.

The feeble fiction of the Democrats vs. Republicans paradigm has been falling to dust for a long time now, inexorably being replaced by a simple truth. There is but one paradigm in this reality, one core fact to be reckoned with: the struggle in America is between the Have's and the Have Not's, between towering wealth , towering greed and everyone else. It is about a class struggle that has been three centuries in the making, and even those who are today moderately comfortable will not be able to escape calamity. When it comes down, it will come down on all of us...all, of course, except the fortunate few who caused it all in the first place.

But who knows? Mr. Obama could choose to steer back into the wind, challenge his demented opposition with a will, and prevail in a way that inspires those who have waited all this time for the man they gave to and voted for to show up. The odds of re-election favor him in any case; it is hard to defeat an incumbent, and when considering the ludicrous carnival of nonsense that is the presumed Republican field, Mr. Obama's chances only improve. In many battlefield states, demographics favor the president in ways the GOP is not prepared to deal with. The 2012 election campaign promises, above all else and with absolute certainty, to be one of the most deranged political affairs to be seen since time out of mind.

It is tempting to comfort oneself with the notion that there are worse things in the world than a second Obama term, and there is a fat, cynical dollop of truth in that. After all, given the array of challenges this administration has faced since taking office, it is daunting to imagine the sorry condition we would be in under a President McCain. Now imagine watching Vice President Michele Bachmann, tapped by the Republican nominee in two years to shore up the Tea Party vote, taking the oath a heartbeat shy of the biggest chair in the country. Think it can't happen that way? Want to bet on it?

I don't.

Two and a half years ago, it was all about hope and change. Remember that? I am, personally, waiting with bated breath for the next battery of slogans to be deployed by the Obama campaign. No, seriously, I am. Nowhere Man 2012: Because Everyone Else Is Worse. That'll send them racing to the polls.

Yup. Here we go.

Again.

William Rivers Pitt

William Rivers Pitt is a Truthout editor and columnist. He is also a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." His newest book, "House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation," is now available from PoliPointPress.

Nowhere Man Lyrics
Artist(Band):The Beatles

He's a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.

Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere Man please listen,
You don't know what you're missing,
Nowhere Man,the world is at your command!

(lead guitar)

He's as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,
Nowhere Man can you see me at all?

Nowhere Man, don't worry,
Take your time, don't hurry,
Leave it all till somebody else
lends you a hand!

Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere Man please listen,
you don't know what you're missing
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command!

He's a real Nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody!

William Rivers Pitt is a Truthout editor and columnist. He is also a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." His newest book, "House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation," is now available from PoliPointPress.

President Obama’s top 5 broken campaign promises

President Obama’s top 5 broken campaign promises

By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011 -- 1:09 pm

President Barack Obama came to office on a tide of voters eager to see a change in more than just the White House's occupant. Two years into his presidency -- and one day after he launched his 2012 reelection campaign -- and even some of his most ardent supporters are having trouble coming to terms with the answer to Sarah Palin's 2010 question: "How's that hopey, changey stuff working out?"

Polls show that less than half the country believes President Obama deserves reelection, with disaffected liberals now a fast growing demographic.

Even though Obama clearly leads all of the likely Republican front-runners at this point, the deep dissatisfaction brewing within his core constituency could make the president, and his whole party, uniquely vulnerable in next year's elections.

Below are five of the biggest campaign pledges Obama failed to keep -- for which he'll likely have to answer before election day 2012.
-----

1. Health care for all
If you're an American making less than $30,000 a year, chances are you still have trouble seeing a doctor, despite the passage of President Obama's health care reform plan. In 2007, then-Senator Obama said he wanted to make sure no American is without access to vital medical attention and proposed using revenues from the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts to fund it. When the campaign laid out their specific plans in 2008, they included a "public option" that would be paid for by the public at large and made available to anyone who could not obtain coverage through their employer or other public program.

Ultimately, the debate in Washington became so heated and rife with disinformation that the administration and its allies in Congress agreed to forgo the public option, using it as a bargaining chip to ensure other proposals, like ending the "pre-existing condition" exclusion in private insurance policies, were passed in the final bill. They also gave in to Republican demands and extended the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, promising to take on the issue again in 2012. In spite of the modest legislative victory of actually getting health reform passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that even after all the elements take effect in 2014, over 22 million Americans will still lack access to basic health services.

2. Close Guantanamo
As a symbol of everything that liberals thought to be wrong with the Bush-era, closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba should have been an easy target for the new and popular president and his Democratic super-majority in Congress -- and, in fact, then-candidate Obama promised to do just that. But as he soon found out, strategic and political calculations have made it almost impossible to shuck.

Today, Obama has turned away from his promise to close the facility and embraced the controversial terror war symbol, ordering the resumption of military tribunals and even moving the accused 9/11 plotters' trial from a civilian court in New York City to the secret military court at Guantanamo.

3. Defend labor rights
"Understand this," Obama said during a campaign rally in 2007. "If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America." (Watch.)

Despite efforts by state-level Republicans in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, Maine, Florida and Indiana to curtail collective bargaining rights, the President has yet to appear at a single protest or picket line.

4. Reform the Patriot Act
Contrary to popular belief, Obama has never actually argued for a repeal of the Bush administration's sweeping, post-9/11 security initiatives, which were passed with a mandatory "sunset" clause to overrule the concerns of civil libertarians at the time. Instead, Obama has consistently said he favors enhanced judicial oversight and a pullback from some warrantless searches -- like the provisions that allow the FBI to access library records without a warrant.

But every time the emergency laws have been due to expire, President Obama has pushed to extend them without any reforms. Most recently, the administration sought an extension of the Patriot Act that was even longer than the one Republicans wanted. They gave it to him and continued the sweeping spy powers through 2013, ensuring that the next extension doesn't become an election year issue.

5. End the wars
Even as a candidate, Obama maintained that Afghanistan should be "the focus" of Bush's terror war, and he pledged to make it so. But the president was also swept into power on a wave of anti-war fervor behind his calls to end the occupation of Iraq. Iraq has calmed down quite a bit as U.S. troops steadily stream out of the country, but Afghanistan is more violent than ever amid Obama's own "surge."

Even though the president promised his Afghan occupation would conclude in July 2011, military officials have admitted that sometime in 2014 is more likely. Elsewhere, American forces are dropping more bombs on more countries today than at any point during the Bush administration, with continued occupation forces in two massive countries even as they stage aerial bombardments of Pakistan, Libya and Yemen.

Open Letter to President Obama on the Nomination of Elizabeth Warren

Posted by nimda in In the Public Interest


Open Letter to President Obama on the Nomination of Elizabeth Warren

Dear President Obama:

An interesting contrast is playing out at the White House these days—between your expressed praise of General Electric’s CEO, Jeffrey R. Immelt and the silence regarding the widely desired nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Regulatory Bureau within the Federal Reserve.

On one hand, you promptly appointed Mr. Immelt to be the chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitive, while letting him keep his full time lucrative position as CEO of General Electric (The Corporate State Expands). At the announcement, you said that Mr. Immelt “understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy.”

Did you mean that he understands how to avoid all federal income taxes for his company’s $14.2 billion in profits last year, while corralling a $3.2 billion benefit? Or did you mean that he understands how to get a federal bailout for GE Capital and its reckless exposure to risky debt? Or could you have meant that GE knows how to block unionization of its far flung workers here and abroad? Perhaps Mr. Immelt can share with you GE’s historical experience with lucrative campaign contributions, price-fixing, pollution and those nuclear reactors that are giving people fits in Japan and worrying millions of Americans here living or working near similar reactors.

Compare, if you will, the record of Elizabeth Warren and her acutely informed knowledge about delivering justice to those innocents harmed by injustice in the financial services industry. A stand-up Law Professor at your alma mater, author of highly regarded articles and books connecting knowledge to action, the probing Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) and now in the Treasury Department working intensively to get the CFRB underway by the statutory deadline this July with competent, people-oriented staff.

There were many good reasons why Senate leader Harry Reid (Dem. Nevada) called Professor Warren and asked her to be his choice for Chair of COP. Hailing from an Oklahoman blue collar family, Professor Warren is just the “working class hero” needed to make the new Bureau a sober, law and order enforcer, deterrer and empowerer of consumers vis-à-vis the companies whose enormous greed, recklessness and crimes tanked our economy into a deep recession. The consequences produced 8 million unemployed workers and shattered trillions of dollars in pensions and other savings along with the dreams which they embodied for American workers.

Much more than you perhaps realize, millions of people, who have heard and seen Elizabeth Warren, rejoice in her brainy, heartfelt knowledge and concern over their plight. They see her as just the kind of regulator (federal cop on the beat) for their legitimate interests in a more competitive marketplace who you should be overjoyed in nominating.

Yet there are corporate forces from Wall Street to Washington determined to derail her nomination—forces with their avaricious hooks into the Republicans on Capitol Hill and the corporatists in the Treasury and White House.

You have obliged these forces again and again over the last two years, most recently with the appointment of William M. Daley, recently of Wall Street, as your chief of staff.

How about one nomination for the People? The accolades on hearing the news of Elizabeth Warren’s nomination may actually exceed the enduring indignation were she not to be nominated. Just feed the Senate Republicans to the mass media that would cover the nomination hearings, all that calm, solid, wisdom and humanity that she communicates without peer. See who prevails.

Selecting Elizabeth Warren and backing her fully though the nomination process will always be remembered by Americans across the land. Not doing so will not be forgotten by those same persons. This is another way of saying she has the enthusiastic constituency of “hope and change”—that is “change you can believe in!”*

I look forward with many others to your response.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader


PO Box 19312
Washington D.C., 20036

*If you doubt this observation and would like to see one million Americans on a petition favoring her selection, ask us and see how long that would take.