SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ThirdEye who wrote (8400)2/26/2005 4:05:49 PM
From: SiouxPal  Respond to of 361248
 
How long can Bush get away with lies?

February 25, 2005

BY ANDREW GREELEY

As the criminal, sinful war in Iraq enters its third year, the president goes to Europe to heal the wounds between the United States and its former allies, on his own terms of course. The White House propaganda mill will hail it as another victory for the president and ignore the fact that most Europeans still consider the war dangerous folly and the president a dangerous fool.

One hears new rationalizations for the war on this side of the Atlantic. After the hearings on Secretary of State Rice, a Republican senator, with all the self-righteous anger that characterizes many such, proclaimed, "The Democrats just have to understand that the president really believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." This justification is not unlike the one heard frequently at the White House, "The president believed the intelligence agencies of the world."

Would it not be much better to have a president who deliberately lied to the people because he thought a war was essential than to have one who was so dumb as to be taken in by intelligence agencies, especially those who told him what he wanted to hear?

It is also asserted that the election settled the matters of the war and the torture of prisoners. These are dead issues that no longer need be addressed. Yet the president received only 51 percent of the vote and carried only one more state than the last time (picking up New Mexico and Iowa and losing New Hampshire). This is a validation of the war and of prisoner abuse? This is a mandate to do whatever he wants to do and whatever the leadership of the evangelical denominations want? A percentage point and a single state are a mandate for more war? Never before in American political history!

Finally, we are told that the Iraqi election confirms the Bush administration policy in Iraq. The president's supporters must be in deep trouble to reach so far for that one. All the election proves is that the Iraqis want to run their own country. It also raises the possibility that Shia clerics will deliver Iraq into the hands of the Iranians. Some kind of victory!

How do these kinds of arguments play in the precincts? The survey data suggest that war has become more unpopular. The majority of the American people now think it was a mistake, in a shift away from the 51 percent that endorsed it on Election Day. Admittedly this is only a small change in the population, from a majority to a minority. Nor do the changers earn grace for their new opinions. They still endorsed the war on Election Day and are still responsible for it.

How long can the administration get along with its policies of spinning big lies into truth -- as it has more recently done on Social Security?

Note the three most important Cabinet positions. Rice said that it was better to find the weapons of mass destruction than to see a mushroom cloud. "Judge" Gonzales said the Geneva Convention was "quaint" and in effect legitimated the de facto policy of torture. Rumsfeld repealed the "Powell Doctrine" -- only go to war when you have the massive force necessary to win decisively and quickly. Brilliant businessman that he is (like Robert McNamara of the Vietnam era), he thought he could win with 130,000 (unlike at least 200,000 as the army chief of staff insisted) and hence made the current "insurgency" inevitable.

The presence of these three towering giants in the administration certainly confirms that the president is confident that he is "right" on Iraq and that he has a mandate from the American people and from God which confirms that he is "right."

Nothing, in other words, has changed in the last two years. The war is still the "right thing to do," it is still part of the "war against terrorism," it is still essential to keep Arabs from blowing up our skyscrapers.

You can still get away with the "big lie" as long as Karl Rove and his team of spinners keep providing persuasive rationalizations. The American public is still supine, uneasy about the war, but not willing yet to turn decisively against it. Will that still be the case next year when we "celebrate" the third anniversary of the war? Is the patience of the American people that long suffering? Is there no outrage left in the country?



To: ThirdEye who wrote (8400)2/26/2005 4:23:24 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361248
 
good post. Bush's paid propagandists: David John, who received his master's degree in economics from the University of Georgia in Athens, is a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation's Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

The Heritage Foundation has called for the creation of private accounts, according to the policy recommendations outlined in the 2004 Issues in Brief.

The Heritage Foundation has received funding from right-wing foundations, including the Sarah Scaife, John M. Olin, and Lynde and Harry Bradley foundations.

John appeared on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports on November 4, 2004, and CNN's In the Money on January 15, as well as NBC's Nightly News on December 9, 2004 and January 11.

* On Wolf Blitzer Reports, John claimed that private accounts "would improve" retirement benefits. But as Media Matters has previously noted, privatization results in increased financial risk to individuals by shifting money out of Social Security and into the stock market. And, if the money in an individual's private account earned less than 3 percent above the rate of inflation, the worker would actually receive less than he or she would have had all their payroll taxes remained within the system.

* On the January 15 edition of In the Money, John stated that one of the biggest misconceptions about Bush's plans to privatize Social Security is that we are not facing a crisis and, according to John, "the fact is that yes, we are facing a crisis." However, the Social Security board of trustees projected in its 2004 report that the trust fund will be able to pay all promised benefits for another 37 years, or until 2042. According to a projection by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the trust fund will be able to pay all promised benefits until 2052.

William W. Beach, who holds a master's degree in history and economics from the University of Missouri-Columbia, is director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis and John M. Olin Senior Fellow in Economics.

Beach appeared on NBC's Nightly News on December 18, 2004, and on FOX News' The O'Reilly Factor on January 27.

* On the December 18 edition of NBC's Nightly News, Beach stated that if younger workers "start saving today, they can actually have quite a bit of money built up in these savings accounts by the time they get to retirement." Beach failed to note the increased risk that individuals would shoulder in diverting a portion of their payroll taxes out of Social Security and into private accounts.

Stephen Moore, who holds an master's degree in economics from George Mason University, is the former president of Club for Growth and current president of the Free Enterprise Fund, which according to a January 5 New York Times report is a new "Republican lobby group" that "hopes to raise about $15 million for television advertising and other lobbying to bolster President Bush's domestic agenda in Congress." Moore is also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a financial columnist at National Review Online.

Club for Growth, Free Enterprise Fund, and the Cato Institute all advocate Social Security privatization. Cato operates the pro-privatization Project on Social Security Choice, and its plan for privatization states: "Individuals would be able to privately invest their half (6.2 percentage points) of their payroll tax through individual accounts." Club for Growth recently launched a blog called Social Security Choice to promote private accounts. The Free Enterprise Fund lists "personal investment accounts for Social Security" as "as an issue of great concern" that it "will establish local and state chapters around the nation to advance."

Club for Growth has received funding from conservative donors, including National Review president Thomas Rhodes and Hudson Institute trustee emeritus Daniel C. Searle, as well as small donations from members of the Club. Cato funders include the Sarah Scaife, John M. Olin, and Lynde and Harry Bradley foundations.

Moore appeared on CNN's Crossfire on December 16, 2004; on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews on December 15, 2004; and on NBC's Nightly News on January 2.

* In his December 15 Hardball and December 16 Crossfire appearances, Moore stated that Social Security "is the Titanic headed to iceberg," echoing the misleading crisis rhetoric used by Johns and others, as noted above. On Hardball, Moore also claimed that, according to Cato studies, "the average young worker is only going to get a 1 or 2 percent return on their Social Security money," but private accounts would provide a "4 or 5 percent rate of return." Many other economists have argued that Bush's proposal will increase retirees' exposure to risk without producing a better rate of return than the current system. Princeton University economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argued on February 1 that White House projections being used to promote privatization are contradictory, as they rely on a low long-term economic growth rate occurring in conjunction with a high rate of return on equities -- a combination that Krugman calls "mathematically impossible."

Following are the five anti-privatization economists, their economic credentials, and the independent organizations that support them:

Paul Krugman, who received a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), is a professor of economics at Princeton University and a columnist for The New York Times. Krugman served on the Council of Economic Advisers in the Reagan White House from 1982 to 1983.

Krugman appeared on CBS's Evening News on January 16; CNN programs Lou Dobbs Tonight on February 3, In the Money on February 5 and Newsnight with Aaron Brown on February 8; and MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews on December 27, 2004, and February 7.

* In his appearances, Krugman asserted that Social Security is not in crisis, but will experience a "mild long-run shortfall" which is smaller, at 0.4 percent of GDP over 75 years, than that created by the Bush tax cuts, which will result in a 2 percent shortfall. Krugman also stated that private accounts would not reduce the Social Security shortfall, as the Bush administration has conceded. According to Krugman, Social Security is not in need of immediate reform.

Robert S. Chirinko, who holds a Ph.D. in economics from Northwestern University, is a professor of economics at Emory University.

* Chirinko appeared on CBS's Evening News on February 3, referring to the partial privatization of Social Security as "a shell game," in which changes are made, but "at the end of the day, you actually have less than what you started with."

Robert B. Reich, who holds a master's degree in economics from Oxford University, is currently University Professor and Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University and at Brandeis' Heller School of Social Policy and Management. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Reich appeared on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on January 23; MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews on December 15, 2004, MSNBC Reports on January 17, Scarborough Country on January 19, and MSNBC's post-State of the Union address coverage on February 3; and FOX News' The Big Story with John Gibson on November 5, 2004.

* In his appearances, Reich rejected Social Security crisis rhetoric, stating "there's absolutely no crisis here." According to Reich, "over the long term, Social Security does need to be reformed." Reich advocated raising the retirement age and opposed private accounts.

Alicia H. Munnell, who holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University, is currently Peter F. Drucker Professor of Management Sciences at Boston College and director of the college's Center for Retirement Research. Munnell served under Clinton as assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy from 1993 to 1995 and as a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 to 1997.

* On ABC's World News Tonight on January 14, Munnel noted: "Even if we do nothing after 2042, we will have enough money coming in to pay about three quarters of promised benefits." As the Social Security trustees noted in their 2004 report, the date for Social Security's projected insolvency is 2042, at which point the system would continue to be able to pay out a projected 73 percent of currently promised benefits.

Robert M. Ball, who earned a master's degree in economics from Wesleyan University, is currently a self-employed writer, lecturer and consultant. Ball served as Social Security commissioner from 1962 to 1973 under former presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. From 1973 to 1980, Ball held the post of Senior Scholar at the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine.

* On the CBS Evening News on February 14 and the CBS Morning News on February 15, Ball stated that there "isn't anything serious wrong" with Social Security and "there is no crisis." Ball also stated that Bush's plan to privatize Social Security would do nothing to close the Social Security shortfall. According to Ball: "In the very long run, there is a shortfall. It can be fixed. It can be met with very little pain."