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: Rock_nj who wrote (157317)1/3/2009 8:17:23 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362340
 
US Branch of Amnesty Calls on Rice to Drop 'Lopsided' Stance

commondreams.org



To: Rock_nj who wrote (157317)1/3/2009 10:09:34 PM
From: stockman_scott1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362340
 
A President Forgotten but Not Gone
_______________________________________________________________

By FRANK RICH
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
January 4, 2009

We like our failed presidents to be Shakespearean, or at least large enough to inspire Oscar-worthy performances from magnificent tragedians like Frank Langella. So here, too, George W. Bush has let us down. Even the banality of evil is too grandiose a concept for 43. He is not a memorable villain so much as a sometimes affable second banana whom Josh Brolin and Will Ferrell can nail without breaking a sweat. He’s the reckless Yalie Tom Buchanan, not Gatsby. He is smaller than life.

The last NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on Bush’s presidency found that 79 percent of Americans will not miss him after he leaves the White House. He is being forgotten already, even if he’s not yet gone. You start to pity him until you remember how vast the wreckage is. It stretches from the Middle East to Wall Street to Main Street and even into the heavens, which have been a safe haven for toxins under his passive stewardship. The discrepancy between the grandeur of the failure and the stature of the man is a puzzlement. We are still trying to compute it.

The one indisputable talent of his White House was its ability to create and sell propaganda both to the public and the press. Now that bag of tricks is empty as well. Bush’s first and last photo-ops in Iraq could serve as bookends to his entire tenure. On Thanksgiving weekend 2003, even as the Iraqi insurgency was spiraling, his secret trip to the war zone was a P.R. slam-dunk. The photo of the beaming commander in chief bearing a supersized decorative turkey for the troops was designed to make every front page and newscast in the country, and it did. Five years later, in what was intended as a farewell victory lap to show off Iraq’s improved post-surge security, Bush was reduced to ducking shoes.

He tried to spin the ruckus as another victory for his administration’s program of democracy promotion. “That’s what people do in a free society,” he said. He had made the same claim three years ago after the Palestinian elections, championed by his “freedom agenda” (and almost $500 million of American aid), led to a landslide victory for Hamas. “There is something healthy about a system that does that,” Bush observed at the time, as he congratulated Palestinian voters for rejecting “the old guard.”

The ruins of his administration’s top policy priority can be found not only in Gaza but in the new “democratic” Iraq, where the local journalist who tossed the shoes was jailed without formal charges and may have been tortured. Almost simultaneously, opponents of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki accused him of making politically motivated arrests of rival-party government officials in anticipation of this month’s much-postponed provincial elections.

Condi Rice blamed the press for the image that sullied Bush’s Iraq swan song: “That someone chose to throw a shoe at the president is what gets reported over and over.” We are back where we came in. This was the same line Donald Rumsfeld used to deny the significance of the looting in Baghdad during his famous “Stuff happens!” press conference of April 2003. “Images you are seeing on television you are seeing over, and over, and over,” he said then, referring to the much-recycled video of a man stealing a vase from the Baghdad museum. “Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?” he asked, playing for laughs.

The joke was on us. Iraq burned, New Orleans flooded, and Bush remained oblivious to each and every pratfall on his watch. Americans essentially stopped listening to him after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, but he still doesn’t grasp the finality of their defection. Lately he’s promised not to steal the spotlight from Barack Obama once he’s in retirement — as if he could do so by any act short of running naked through downtown Dallas. The latest CNN poll finds that only one-third of his fellow citizens want him to play a post-presidency role in public life.

Bush is equally blind to the collapse of his propaganda machinery. Almost poignantly, he keeps trying to hawk his goods in these final days, like a salesman who hasn’t been told by the home office that his product has been discontinued. Though no one is listening, he has given more exit interviews than either Clinton or Reagan did. Along with old cronies like Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, he has also embarked on a Bush “legacy project,” as Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard described it on CNN.

To this end, Rove has repeated a stunt he first fed to the press two years ago: he is once again claiming that he and Bush have an annual book-reading contest, with Bush chalking up as many as 95 books a year, by authors as hifalutin as Camus. This hagiographic portrait of Bush the Egghead might be easier to buy were the former national security official Richard Clarke not quoted in the new Vanity Fair saying that both Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, had instructed him early on to keep his memos short because the president is “not a big reader.”

Another, far more elaborate example of legacy spin can be downloaded from the White House Web site: a booklet recounting “highlights” of the administration’s “accomplishments and results.” With big type, much white space, children’s-book-like trivia boxes titled “Did You Know?” and lots of color photos of the Bushes posing with blacks and troops, its 52 pages require a reading level closer to “My Pet Goat” than “The Stranger.”

This document is the literary correlative to “Mission Accomplished.” Bush kept America safe (provided his presidency began Sept. 12, 2001). He gave America record economic growth (provided his presidency ended December 2007). He vanquished all the leading Qaeda terrorists (if you don’t count the leaders bin Laden and al-Zawahri). He gave Afghanistan a thriving “market economy” (if you count its skyrocketing opium trade) and a “democratically elected president” (presiding over one of the world’s most corrupt governments). He supported elections in Pakistan (after propping up Pervez Musharraf past the point of no return). He “led the world in providing food aid and natural disaster relief” (if you leave out Brownie and Katrina).

If this is the best case that even Bush and his handlers can make for his achievements, you wonder why they bothered. Desperate for padding, they devote four risible pages to portraying our dear leader as a zealous environmentalist.

But the brazenness of Bush’s alternative-reality history is itself revelatory. The audacity of its hype helps clear up the mystery of how someone so slight could inflict so much damage. So do his many print and television exit interviews.

The man who emerges is a narcissist with no self-awareness whatsoever. It’s that arrogance that allowed him to tune out even the most calamitous of realities, freeing him to compound them without missing a step. The president who famously couldn’t name a single mistake of his presidency at a press conference in 2004 still can’t.

He can, however, blame everyone else. Asked (by Charles Gibson) if he feels any responsibility for the economic meltdown, Bush says, “People will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived.” Asked if the 2008 election was a repudiation of his administration, he says “it was a repudiation of Republicans.”

“The attacks of September the 11th came out of nowhere,” he said in another interview, as if he hadn’t ignored frantic intelligence warnings that summer of a Qaeda attack. But it was an “intelligence failure,” not his relentless invocation of patently fictitious “mushroom clouds,” that sped us into Iraq. Did he take too long to change course in Iraq? “What seems like an eternity today,” he says, “may seem like a moment tomorrow.” Try telling that to the families of the thousands killed and maimed during that multiyear “moment” as Bush stubbornly stayed his disastrous course.

The crowning personality tic revealed by Bush’s final propaganda push is his bottomless capacity for self-pity. “I was a wartime president, and war is very exhausting,” he told C-Span. “The president ends up carrying a lot of people’s grief in his soul,” he told Gibson. And so when he visits military hospitals, “it’s always been a healing experience,” he told The Wall Street Journal. But, incredibly enough, it’s his own healing he is concerned about, not that of the grievously wounded men and women he sent to war on false pretenses. It’s “the comforter in chief” who “gets comforted,” he explained, by “the character of the American people.” The American people are surely relieved to hear it.

With this level of self-regard, it’s no wonder that Bush could remain undeterred as he drove the country off a cliff. The smugness is reinforced not just by his history as the entitled scion of one of America’s aristocratic dynasties but also by his conviction that his every action is blessed from on high. Asked last month by an interviewer what he has learned from his time in office, he replied: “I’ve learned that God is good. All the time.”

Once again he is shifting the blame. This presidency was not about Him. Bush failed because in the end it was all about him.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company



To: Rock_nj who wrote (157317)1/3/2009 10:22:45 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362340
 
No Deal: Learning from FDR's mistakes.
_______________________________________________________________

By Alan Brinkley
The New Republic
Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Does the New Deal provide a useful model for fixing our own troubled economy? In many respects, yes. The frenzy of activity and innovation that marked Franklin Roosevelt's initial months in office--a welcome contrast to the seeming paralysis of the discredited Hoover regime--helped first and foremost to lessen the panic that had gripped the nation. And, during the prewar years of his presidency, Roosevelt's actions produced an unprecedented array of tangible achievements as well. He moved quickly and effectively to address a wave of bank failures that threatened to shut down the financial system. He created the Securities and Exchange Commission, which helped make the beleaguered stock market more transparent and thus more trustworthy. He responded to out-of-control unemployment by launching the Civil Works Administration, the Public Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration, which created jobs for millions of the unemployed. He passed the Social Security Act, which over time provided support to the jobless, the indigent, and the elderly--and the Wagner Act, which eventually raised wages by giving unions the right to bargain collectively with employers. He signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which created the minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek.

Yet, despite these extraordinary achievements, Roosevelt's initiatives did not, in the end, lift the country out of the Great Depression. At no time in the first eight years of the New Deal did unemployment drop below 15 percent. At no time did economic activity reach levels comparable to those of a decade earlier; and, while there were periods when the economy seemed to be recovering, none of them lasted very long. And so this bold, active, and creative moment in our history proved to be a failure at its central task. Understanding what went wrong could help us avoid making the same mistakes today.

Some of the New Deal's most important initiatives were active obstacles to economic renewal. The National Recovery Administration (NRA), created in 1933 to help stabilize the volatile economy, was enormously popular for a time, mostly because it created the illusion of forceful action. The NRA sought to help corporations cooperate with one another in keeping production low and prices up, effectively creating cartels. This effort proved almost impossible to administer: No one in the federal government had any experience or expertise in managing an economic project of this magnitude; control quickly moved to the corporations themselves, with no better results. But the NRA was even worse when it worked as it was supposed to, because its goal was exactly the opposite of what the economy needed: Instead of expanding economic activity, the NRA worked to constrict it. At the same time, the Federal Reserve Board--operating under classical economic assumptions--saw the economic wreckage around it and responded by raising interest rates so as to protect the solvency of the Federal Reserve Bank itself. No one today would even consider high interest rates in a slumping economy, but the Fed of the early 1930s had not absorbed new economic ideas that would later become almost universally accepted. (In fairness, this catastrophic mistake was not a product of New Deal policy, but few New Dealers recognized the magnitude of the error for years.)

The more important failure of the New Deal, however, was what it did not do. The only way to break the deadlock that paralyzed the U.S. economy in the 1930s was to enormously expand economic activity--quickly and decisively. Instead, the New Deal wavered and equivocated--spending large sums of money with one hand while reducing spending with the other. One of the first acts Congress passed for Roosevelt in 1933 was the Economy Act, which slashed government spending in ways that reduced economic activity. It cut the salaries (and, in some cases, the jobs) of government employees and dramatically reduced payments to World War I veterans, taking $500 million from the economy in a single stroke. The Social Security system, so valuable over the long term, was in the short term a drag on the economy. It began collecting taxes in 1936 but paid out few benefits until the 1940s. In 1937, deluded by a weak economic recovery, Roosevelt (urged on by his Treasury secretary) set out to balance the budget through severe spending cuts. The result was a sudden and dramatic economic downturn--a recession within the Depression that produced some of the highest levels of unemployment and lowest levels of production of the decade.

In the aftermath of the 1937-1938 setback, Roosevelt launched a new $5 billion spending plan to try to shock the economy back to life. This infusion of funds helped undo the damage that the 1937 budget cuts helped to create, spurring a modest recovery that at least got the economy back to the weak and fragile condition of a year earlier. The idea of spending as an antidote to recession--an idea that had never found much favor in the past even among the most progressive figures in the New Deal--began slowly to achieve legitimacy. American economists were now eagerly reading Keynes and imagining more robust uses of fiscal and monetary powers to stimulate growth. It is possible, though by no means certain, that even without a war the influence of Keynesian ideas might have led New Dealers to embark on a spending program large enough to push the economy to somewhere close to full employment. But, in the end, the Great Depression--an unprecedented crisis that had stubbornly resisted the efforts of two presidential administrations over twelve years to restore prosperity--came to a close only because of the massive spending required by the greatest and most terrible war in human history.

Economic orthodoxy--which gave high priority to balanced budgets and fiscal restraint--remained a powerful force in the 1930s, even as its limitations became increasingly obvious. Similar arguments can still be heard today: While most liberals--and most financiers and economists--agree on the necessity of government doing something dramatic to jump-start the economy, there remain powerful voices, particularly on the right, that oppose such efforts on ideological grounds. Hence Republicans' initial opposition to the stimulus package in September and their more recent threat to block, through filibuster, federal aid to the auto industry. The New Deal was least successful when it was least aggressive--when it let concerns about fiscal prudence override the urgent need to pump enormous sums of money into a moribund economy. There is much for the Obama administration to learn from the many achievements of the New Deal. But there may be even more to learn from its failures.

*Alan Brinkley is provost and Allan Nevins Professor of History at Columbia.

Copyright © 2007 The New Republic. All rights reserved.



To: Rock_nj who wrote (157317)1/4/2009 2:44:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362340
 
Fed’s Yellen Supports ‘Substantial’ Economic Stimulus (Update1)

By Vivien Lou Chen

Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy faces a “serious risk” of stagnating for an extended period of time and “it’s worth pulling out all the stops” on fiscal stimulus, said Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President Janet Yellen.

“The current downturn is likely to be far longer and deeper than the ‘garden-variety’ recession,” Yellen said in the text of a speech today in San Francisco. “If ever, in my professional career, there was a time for active, discretionary fiscal stimulus, it is now.”

Yellen’s remarks indicate that support for new stimulus to revive the economy is gaining momentum within the central bank. Chicago Fed Bank President Charles Evans endorsed such policy yesterday, following Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s lead in October.

“Although our economy is resilient and has bounced back quickly from downturns in the past, the financial and economic firestorm we face today poses a serious risk of an extended period of stagnation,” which may intensify financial-market conditions, Yellen, 62, said during the annual meetings of the Allied Social Science Associations and the American Economic Association.

“It’s worth pulling out all the stops to ensure those outcomes don’t occur,” she said.

Last month, Fed policy makers reduced the federal funds rate, or the rate banks charge one another for overnight loans, to as low as zero for the first time in an attempt to end the longest economic slump in a quarter-century. The central bank is also shifting its focus to the amount and type of debt it buys, with announcements of new lending programs or asset purchases serving as the principal signals of policy.

‘Essentially Zero’

“With nominal interest rates now essentially zero, we have reached the limits of what conventional monetary policy, working through short-term interest rates, can do to stimulate the economy,” Yellen said. “Restoration of the financial system to full health will be a long, drawn-out process.”

President-elect Barack Obama is working on a stimulus package of tax cuts and spending on roads, bridges and other infrastructure aimed at creating or saving 3 million jobs. Obama advisers and congressional Democrats estimate the stimulus plan may total $850 billion, while some economists are recommending as much as $1 trillion.

Economic data released during the past week show U.S. consumer confidence sinking to the lowest level in at least 41 years and home prices in 20 major cities declining at the fastest rate on record. A third report also showed that the decline in U.S. manufacturing deepened in December.

‘Strong Case’

“There is an exceptionally strong case for substantial fiscal stimulus over the next few years,” Yellen said. She said she backs the International Monetary Fund’s recommendation for a “diversified package of policies.”

“I am sanguine that the Fed’s new programs will be helpful in restoring credit flows,” Yellen said. “But many of the new approaches are experimental, and there is a great deal of uncertainty concerning their likely effects.”

“Even with vigorous Fed action to restore credit flows, an extended period of economic weakness is likely,” she said.

Yellen, who has been the San Francisco Fed’s president since June 2004, is a former Fed governor and ex-chairman of former President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. She is scheduled to vote on interest rates this year.

To contact the reporter on this story: Vivien Lou Chen in San Francisco at vchen1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: January 4, 2009 14:10 EST



To: Rock_nj who wrote (157317)1/6/2009 5:48:06 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362340
 
Fed Policy Makers Saw ‘Substantial’ Risks to Economy (Update3)

By Steve Matthews

Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve policy makers saw “substantial” risks to the slumping economy last month as they cut the benchmark interest rate to a record low and pledged to expand emergency loans if necessary.

Central bank officials believed “the economic outlook would remain weak for a time and the downside risks to economic activity would be substantial,” according to the minutes of the Dec. 15-16 Federal Open Market Committee meeting released today in Washington. The FOMC discussed setting an inflation target to discourage expectations that price increases will slow “below desired levels.”

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has more than doubled the central bank’s balance sheet to $2.3 trillion in the past year while increasing loans to financial institutions reeling from $1 trillion in writedowns and losses. The New York Fed began buying mortgage-backed securities yesterday as part of a $500 billion program to bolster the U.S. housing market.

“Rates are going to be low for a long time,” said Vincent Reinhart, former director of the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs, who is now a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “They see the economy as extremely weak. It is a dark document.”

Economic growth declined in the third quarter at the fastest rate since 2001 as unemployment rose and home values, housing starts, auto production and consumer spending fell. Analysts downgraded forecasts last month, with economists at Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. predicting a contraction in gross domestic product of about 6 percent for the fourth quarter, the biggest decline in 26 years.

Longer, Deeper

“The current downturn is likely to be far longer and deeper than the ‘garden-variety’ recession,” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President Janet Yellen said in a Jan. 4 speech. “It’s worth pulling out all the stops” in a fiscal stimulus.

U.S. employment fell by 500,000 jobs in December, bringing last year’s decline to 2.4 million, the most since 1945, according to the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News ahead of Labor Department figures due Jan. 9.

Some Fed policy makers said last month that “during the period of financial turmoil” the central bank’s “balance sheet would need to be maintained at a high level,” according to the minutes. Some officials saw “the distinct possibility of a prolonged contraction” stemming partly from stresses in financial markets.

The FOMC discussed setting a target for growth in the Fed’s balance sheet as a guide to policy, the minutes said. While a “few” policy makers favored a numerical goal, most favored “close cooperation and consultation” with the Fed board.

‘Calibrating’ Stance

“Going forward, consideration will be given to whether various quantitative measures would be useful in calibrating and communicating the stance of monetary policy,” the minutes said.

The central bank will have difficulty scaling back its auction of loans and other emergency programs without upsetting the bond market, former St. Louis Fed President William Poole said in a Bloomberg Television interview.

“The market will take that as being a signal that monetary policy is tightening and that is going to set off substantial reaction in the bond market, maybe the equity markets too,” Poole said.

President-elect Barack Obama yesterday called for a record stimulus to prevent the recession from deepening. His plan aims to create or save 3 million jobs and may cost about $775 billion.

‘Significant Risks’

Some policy makers last month saw “significant risks that inflation could decline and persist for a time at uncomfortably low levels,” the minutes said. Price increases will probably “continue to abate because of the emergence of substantial slack in resource utilization and diminishing pricing power.”

The officials discussed providing “a more explicit indication of their views on what longer-run rate of inflation would best promote their goals of maximum employment and price stability,” the minutes said. Such a target may “help forestall the development of expectations that inflation would decline below desired levels, and hence keep real interest rates low.”

In a Dec. 16 statement, the central bank said it “will employ all available tools to promote the resumption of sustainable economic growth and to preserve price stability.” A weakening economy is likely to keep rates low “for some time.”

Last Updated: January 6, 2009 16:28 EST