The Agonist - USA: Presidency

Senate OK’s David Hamilton to be US appeals court judge

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:45:45 -0800

Warren Richey | Washington | November 19

CSM - Judge David Hamilton is elevated to the US appeals court, after GOP effort to stall a vote failed. Republican resistance signals more political fights are likely over Obama's nominees to the federal bench.

The US Senate voted 59 to 39 on Thursday to elevate Judge David Hamilton from his current job as chief judge at the federal courthouse in Indianapolis to a seat on the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The vote comes eight months after Judge Hamilton was nominated to the Chicago-based appeals court.

Hamilton drew the first significant Republican opposition to a judicial nominee by President Obama. An attempted filibuster on Tuesday failed, with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama able to muster only 29 votes. Seventy senators agreed to allow the nomination to move forward to Thursday’s vote.

The Hamilton nomination was being closely watched for indications of whether the kind of fiery confirmation battles waged by Democrats against Bush nominees would now be waged by Republicans against Obama nominees. The answer is yes.

GOP Filibuster Fails Badly, but Jeff Sessions & George Bush May Get Last Laugh

Crooks And Liars, By Josh Glasstetter, November 19

On Tuesday, Senate Democrats beat back Jeff Sessions’ filibuster of Obama’s first judicial nominee – Judge David Hamilton – by a reassuring margin of 70-29. Sessions lost ten of his fellow Republicans, including conservatives like Hatch, Cornyn, and Thune, and Hamilton will be confirmed Thursday afternoon to the Seventh Circuit.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the GOP is winning the battle for the federal courts.

Just a few short years ago, right-wing Senators denounced filibusters of President Bush’s nominees in the strongest possible language and threatened to employ the “nuclear option.” Sessions went even further – he claimed Democrats were violating the Constitution by blocking any Bush nominee (no matter how extreme). But some time after November 4, 2008, his interpretation of the Constitution must have changed dramatically.

Now a Democrat is in the White House, and – hypocrisy be damned! – Sessions is vehemently pro-filibuster and pro-obstruction. And the worst part is that he’s been successful. Judge Hamilton was nominated in March to general acclaim. He received the highest possible rating from the ABA, both his home-state Senators strongly endorsed him (including senior Senate Republican Dick Lugar), and even the head of the Indianapolis Federalist Society backed him. It doesn’t get much better than that.

The real reason Obama is not making much progress

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:55:56 -0800

Johann Hari | Nov 20

The Independent - Before you can appeal to America's voters you have to appeal to the corporations

Almost a year after Barack Obama ascended to the White House, many of his supporters are bemused. His healthcare bill is a hefty improvement but it still won't provide coverage for all Americans, and may not provide a public alternative to the over-charging insurance companies - if it passes at all. His environmental team is vandalising the vital Copenhagen conference by saying the US – the single biggest emitter of warming gases – will not sign up to any legally binding restrictions there. He has placed the deregulation-fanatics who caused the New Depression, like Lawrence Summers, in charge of the recovery. Despite the real improvements on Bush – such as the end of torture, the resumption of stem-cell research, and opposition to the coup in Honduras – many people are asking: why he is delivering so little, so slowly?

A pair of seemingly small stories about the forces warping American politics can help us to answer this question. At first glance, they will seem like preposterous caricatures, but the facts are plain. The institutions that are blocking progress on all these issues – Republicans in the Senate, and the mighty corporate lobbying machine that bankrolls both parties – have rallied over the past few months to defend two causes with very little popular support in the United States: rape and slavery. No, really. If we begin to explain how this came to pass, then we might see why the American political system is malfunctioning so badly, even after a landslide victory for change.

Christian Charity in Our Times

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:34:59 -0800

And people wonder why I am not a Christian anymore:

Posters to various message boards tell stories of seeing bumper stickers with the message “Pray for Obama – Psalm 109:8” on the highway, only to look up the verse and find, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.” …

Anyway, now it’s a real thing: CafePress is selling T-shirts and bumper stickers . . .

However, as a number of commentators have noted, the wording that follows this bumper-sticker appeal is somewhat more disturbing:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

Love thy neighbor, indeed.

Politicians Have Filled the Pipeline with Pain for Middle America

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:59:44 -0800

The announcement of financial overhaul legislation in the U.S. Senate this week smacked of irony as its author, Senator Chris Dodd—the recipient of a sweetheart rate on his own home mortgage—announced a sweeping 1,136 page piece of legislation to “protect consumers.” It appears at this point that the protection consumers and Middle America really need is from this nation’s politicians, who have too long lined their pockets with campaign contributions from big business and who have allowed financial institutions to fleece Middle America.

It wasn’t but a couple of years ago that big business and congress all but eliminated the ability of consumers to effectively discharge their debts in bankruptcy proceedings. At the same time, banks and financial institutions were making loans to borrowers who clearly could not qualify. Banks, financial institutions and credit card companies continued extending generous limits on credit cards and lines of credit to consumers. Now be fair, much of the mortgage activity came from Democrats in congress who believed that everyone had an inalienable right to own a home, evidently whether they could afford it or not. And naturally, Republicans, who long ago sold their soul to big business, positioned their bank and financial institution contributors for all of the mortgage business.

Middle America knew and assumed the risk that what goes up would someday come down, perhaps crashing down, which it did. But when it did and as many Americans lost and continue today to lose their jobs, bankruptcy was and is simply not an available option. Our politicians and big business have virtually eliminated it as an effective option for many consumers.

Now, consumers that are interested in honestly reworking their mortgages cannot even get a return phone call from their lender, and if they do they are told they do not qualify for any sort of loan modification.

So here we are—after encumbering themselves with mortgages they cannot afford, credit cards and credit lines they cannot pay down, financial institutions have the shameless and arrogant audacity to raise consumers’ credit card interest rates to 30%. Clearly, consumers have to take a certain degree of responsibility for their own condition, but how did our elected members of congress and the senate allow big business to systematically repeal consumer protections at virtually every turn?

Middle America really needs to understand how and why our politicians have allowed financial institutions to raise credit card interest rates to a level that is clearly usury. No consumer knowingly consents to a 30% interest rate, regardless of whether there’s a meaningless disclosure on the back of his or her monthly credit card statement on page 3 in tiny type font. Nor do consumers knowingly consent to what has become an ordinary practice by banks and financial institutions of charging consumers $35 for overdraft protection or checks returned due to insufficient funds. Sure, consumers can choose to bank elsewhere, but the practice of fleecing consumers with fees has become so universal by financial institutions that consumers really have no choice.

Without bankruptcy as a viable option for many in Middle America, there is plenty of pain left in the pipeline for years to come as consumers will remain enslaved with unmanageable consumer debt. With no end in sight, consumers will continue to labor under the heavy load of mortgages on devalued homes they cannot afford, credit card bills they cannot pay, and no available remedy in a bankruptcy court that can set them free to start over. It appears that consumer protection is dead and caveat emptor is alive and well.

A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/

Middle America is Disillusioned with the Left and Right

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:54:28 -0800

“Disillusioned” is the word that best describes how many Americans feel after eight years of George Bush and the election of Barack Obama a year ago. Republicans had a majority in congress and the presidency, yet achieved little for Middle America. They betrayed voters by inflating the deficit and growing government, sending men and women into nation-building wars whose purposes are still unknown, and created a culture of moral and ethical corruption in Washington D.C. It was under lax and pathetic regulatory oversight that a Republican president and Republican congress allowed corporations to betray shareholders with questionable and highly leveraged credit default swaps, only to be followed by a $700 billion taxpayer bailout created by the Bush administration—so much for limited government. Republicans are a party without a message and without a messenger.

Last week’s election results in Virginia and New Jersey, where Republican candidates for governor triumphed over their Democrat opponents, say more about the public’s rejection of Obama’s big government solutions and less about Republicans articulating a message to help Middle America. If Republicans think the public is embracing the party again, they are simply whistling past the graveyard, drunk on their own greed, and completely out of touch with the needs of Middle America.

Not that Democrats are offering any worthwhile solutions to address the most pressing needs of Middle America—job creation—but at least Democrats are intellectually honest about their desire for big government, universal healthcare, taxpayer-funded abortions, labor union power, and a litigious society for plaintiff lawyers to fleece the public. There is something, dare I say “refreshing and frank” about knowing where Democrats are on issues that impact Middle America, whereas Republicans pretend to be something they are not.

It is time for the Republican party to stop blindly whoring for the business community and begin addressing the issues that impact Middle America—job creation, affordable healthcare for all, and quality public education for our children. Republicans are a one-trick-pony, where “tax cuts” are their solution for all of Middle America’s problems. It’s because the party cannot articulate rational policy solutions to the real problems we face.

Take healthcare for instance; the Republican solution has been health savings accounts (HSAs). Are you kidding me? We can’t get people to save money in IRAs, never mind HSAs. That’s the best Republicans have got? Why don’t Republicans push to allow consumers to shop for healthcare across state lines, require everyone to have healthcare, and deny insurers from rejecting consumers with pre-existing conditions?

If Democrats have any hope of maintaining power, they too need to put viable solutions on the table for Middle America, where people care a hell of a lot more about jobs and the economy than government-run healthcare, union card check, the protection of gays from hate crimes, and cap and trade. Both parties have failed miserably to address the needs of Middle America, which I suppose is why I feel so disillusioned with both parties.

A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/

Obama's Pesticide-Pushing Nominee

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:15:36 -0800

Kate Sheppard | Washington | November 13

Mother Jones - The president taps an exec from the pesticide lobby—which slammed Michelle Obama's organic garden—for a top agriculture post.

When Michelle Obama announced plans to plant an organic garden at the White House, nearly everybody thought it was a great idea. Everybody except for the pesticide industry. Representatives from a branch of the industry's main trade association, CropLife America (CLA), wrote to the First Lady asking her to respect the role of "conventional agriculture;" they added in a separate note to supporters that the thought of the White House's chemical-free vegetables made them "shudder." But the public swipe at the president's wife didn't stop the administration from nominating senior CLA executive Islam "Isi" Siddiqui to a key post: chief agricultural negotiator for the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR). If confirmed, Siddiqui will be responsible for, among other things, negotiating international agreements governing the use of pesticides.

CLA is the American branch of CropLife International, a powerful global lobby; its members include agriculture giants such as Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, and DuPont. Siddiqui joined the CLA in 2001 as a registered lobbyist, and since 2003 has served as its vice president of science and regulatory affairs. In that position, he's played a critical role in setting CLA’s domestic and international agenda.

Chiding Michelle Obama for not using "crop protection products" in her garden is one of the milder tactics CLA has deployed in service of its cause. During Siddiqui's tenure at the organization, it has lobbied aggressively to weaken domestic and international regulations on pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.

The Great Atomic Film Cover-Up

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:26:28 -0800

Greg Mitchell | Nov 10 | Huff

Early this week, President Obama -- perhaps under new pressure as a Nobel Peace Prize winner -- said he would like to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki during his presidency. If he does, he will become the first sitting U.S. president to make that trip.

Yesterday, Veterans Day arrived, so here I'd liked to pay tribute to two of the most remarkable veterans I've ever encountered.

In the weeks following the atomic attacks on Japan 64 years ago, and then for decades afterward, the United States engaged in airtight suppression of all film shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings. This included footage shot by U.S. military crews and Japanese newsreel teams. In addition, for many years, many newspaper photographs were seized or prohibited.

The general public did not see any of the newsreel footage for 25 years, and the U.S. military film remained hidden for nearly four decades. I first probed the coverup back in 1983, and developed it further in later articles and in my 1995 book with Robert Jay Lifton, Hiroshima in America and in a 2005 documentary Original Child Bomb. To see some of the footage, go to my blog.

As editor of Nuclear Times in the early 1980s, I met Herbert Sussan, one of the members of the U.S. military film crew. The color U.S. military footage would remain hidden until the early 1980s, and has never been fully aired. It rests today at the National Archives in College Park, Md., in the form of 90,000 feet of raw footage labeled #342 USAF. I have a VHS copy of all of it today.

When that footage finally emerged, I spoke with and corresponded with the man at the center of this drama: Lt. Col. Daniel A. McGovern, who directed the U.S. military film-makers in 1945-1946, managed the Japanese footage, and then kept watch on all of the top-secret material for decades.

"I always had the sense," McGovern told me, "that people in the Atomic Energy Commission were sorry we had dropped the bomb. The Air Force -- it was also sorry. I was told by people in the Pentagon that they didn't want those [film] images out because they showed effects on man, woman and child....They didn't want the general public to know what their weapons had done -- at a time they were planning on more bomb tests. We didn't want the material out because...we were sorry for our sins."

Sussan, meanwhile, struggled for years to get some of the American footage aired on national TV, taking his request as high as President Truman, Robert F. Kennedy and Edward R. Murrow, to no avail.

More recently, McGovern declared that Americans should have seen the damage wrought by the bomb. "The main reason it was classified was...because of the horror, the devastation," he said. Because the footage shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was hidden for so long, the atomic bombings quickly sank, unconfronted and unresolved, into the deeper recesses of American awareness, as a costly nuclear arms race, and nuclear proliferation, accelerated.

In 2005, Editor & Publisher (where I am editor) broke the news that articles written by famed Chicago Daily News war correspondent George Weller about the effects of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki were finally published, in Japan, almost six decades after they had been spiked by U.S. officials. But suppressing film footage shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was even more significant, as this country rushed into the nuclear age with its citizens having neither a true understanding of the effects of the bomb on human beings, nor why the atomic attacks drew condemnation around the world. The common view abroad, and among many U.S. historians, is that Russia's entry into the war (long scheduled and carried out on August 8) would have forced a Japanese surrender long before any U.S. invasion took place. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower himself later said it was not necessary to hit Japan "with that awful thing."

A Suggestion To The American Public

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:15:24 -0800

I think Paul Burka's analysis here is pretty spot on about Gov. Perry's chances if he beats Kay Bailey-Hutchison. And I think he probably will.

But if I may make a suggestion to my fellow Americans: never again elect a Texan as president. Why? Because both of them have been disasters. (I don't count George Herbert Walker Bush among them, because he's the scion of the East Coast aristocracy, not a native Texan in mindset.) LBJ: Vietnam. George W. Bush? Iraq and so much more.

Just a suggestion.

Watchdog slams ‘bogus’ Justice Dept. demand for news site’s visitor logs

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:21:56 -0800

Daniel Tencer | Nov 10

Raw Story - A Justice Department subpoena requesting all available information on all visitors to an independent news site is raising serious privacy concerns, and questions about how much information the US government is storing about its citizens' news reading habits.

Privacy watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation has released an extensive report on a "bogus" attempt by a US attorney in Indiana to get Indymedia.us, an independent left-leaning news site, to hand over all the data it had about all the users who visited the site on a particular day.

Further adding to civil libertarians' and privacy watchdogs' concerns is the fact that the Justice Department ordered Indymedia to keep silent about the request.

"This overbroad demand for internet records not only violated federal privacy law but also violated [Indymedia's] First Amendment rights, by ordering [it] not to disclose the existence of the subpoena without a US attorney’s permission," the EFF's Kevin Bankston wrote.

And while Indymedia is an unabashedly left-wing news site, advocating causes such as gay rights and anti-globalization, some of the site's defenders in the wake of the subpoena controversy are right-wing pundits who are drawing a parallel between the Indymedia case and the war of words between the White House and Fox News.

Fox News host Glenn Beck sent out a Twitter message on Tuesday drawing attention to the Indymedia story. Though the Tweet was non-committal -- "Interesting times we live in. Can't wait to see what this story is about." -- it did raise the unusual prospect of a prominent right-wing commentator championing the rights of a left-wing news site.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:58:27 -0800

Nov 8

NYT - Frank Rich:

On Tuesday, Congressional Democrats, with the White House’s consent, voted to gut the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the post Enron-WorldCom law passed in 2002 to prevent corporate accounting tricks and fraud. Arthur Levitt, the former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, told me on Friday it was “surreal” that Democrats were now achieving the long-held Republican goal of smashing “the golden chalice” of reform. If investors cannot have transparency, Levitt said, “the whole system is worthless.”

Floyd Norris:

The Sarbanes-Oxley law also took steps to reinforce the independence of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which writes accounting rules in the United States. By giving the board a secure source of financing, legislators said they were protecting it from the threats of the companies that had previously made donations to keep the board functioning.

But this Congress has made clear that independence for the accounting rule writers can go too far — particularly if the rules force banks to reveal the horrid mistakes they previously made.

This year, a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at which legislators sought no facts but instead threatened dire action if the chairman of the financial accounting board did not promptly make it easier for banks to ignore market values of the toxic securities they owned. The board caved in, which may be one reason why banks are reporting fewer losses these days.

But the board’s retreat was not enough to satisfy the banks. The American Bankers Association is now pushing Congress to give a new systemic risk regulator — either the Federal Reserve or some panel of regulators — the power to override accounting standards. The view of the bankers is that the financial crisis did not stem from the fact that the banks made lots of bad loans and invested in dubious securities; it was caused by accounting rules that required disclosure when the losses began to mount.

** Committee Allows a Break on Certain Auditing Rules

Chomsky Doubts Change from Obama

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:36:54 -0800

Mamoon Alabbasi | Baltimore Chronicle

Editorial note by Robert Parry: A year after Barack Obama was elected President, many on the American Left are criticizing him for not achieving all they had hoped for – including an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a complete rejection of George W. Bush’s “war on terror,” and sharp reductions in military spending.

But MIT professor Noam Chomsky suggests those hopes were always naïve and that only a powerful grassroots movement can force such changes, as reported in this guest article by Mamoon Alabbasi that previously appeared in Middle East Online:

As civilized people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back of former U.S. President George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of Washington's foreign policy under President Barack Obama.

During two lectures organized by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines behind U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II.

"As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," Chomsky said.

"But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a different story," he added.

"There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world," explained Chomsky.

Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of U.S. foreign policy during the period of its global dominance is what he termed as "the Mafia principle."

Democrats lose ground in US polls

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:07:46 -0800

November 3

BBC - US Democrats have lost ground in two key elections for governor, according to unofficial results.

Republican candidate Bob McDonnell has won in Virginia, while the race in the Democrat heartland of New Jersey is said to be too close to call.

The results are being seen as a test of the two parties' standings one year after President Obama was elected.

Two Congressional seats are also up for grabs in New York and California. New York is among cities choosing a mayor.

Who Said Change Was Hard?

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:31:26 -0800

It’s hard to believe that a year has come and gone since then candidate Obama became President-elect Obama and then President Obama. For some reason it seems like it has been longer than that I guess if you listen to the “newsmakers” and other talking heads he has been in office for at least 3 years. I mean after all the war in Iraq is still going on, not to mention Afghanistan and the possibility of its escalation, unemployment is nearing record highs, we still don’t have health-care reform, and gays still can’t serve openly in the military. The list of unfulfilled promises is longer now than it was during the campaign. What has this guy done, besides win the Nobel Peace prize?

The American capacity for amnesia has never failed to amaze me and in the case of this President it has reached a new all-time record for brevity. Don’t get me wrong I have my own concerns that there is still much work to be done, but I think that what has been lost in these calculations was whether the Obamania would translate into actual activism and not just the usual round of after election complaining. So far there has been very little transformation of the electorate into a more activist population. I love it when people tell me they are supporters of this person or of that policy and then when you ask them what have they actually done to bring about the programs or policy changes that they supposedly support, they will often times say nothing. It kills me to see all of the people still sporting their Obama bumper stickers, yard signs, and tee-shirts (oh did I mention their chia’s) as if they are some new sort of chic fashion to say, “whoo I’m still cool.” If all you do is wear a tee-shirt or sport a bumper sticker on your Honda then you are not a supporter and you are not cool, you are someone who is trying to be identified with something you never understood.

Many people have expressed their displeasure with the pace and direction of change taking place in America and are ready to start blaming the President. To those people I say it took 244 years to end slavery in America, it took 144 years for women to vote, and it took 219 years to elect the first black President so change comes slowly to this country. When you add to this mix an entrenched opposition whose only plan is criticizing and opposing your plans then you really have the ingredients for rapid change. Why hasn’t anyone noticed that the loyal opposition has yet to submit a plan for anything since the President has taken office? Shouldn’t they be required to present some sort of alternative plan to be taken seriously? It’s amazing how little we require of our elected officials. I realize that after W. the bar has hit an all-time low but this is ridiculous. The opposition should be required to present an alternative plan within 60 days of the majority party’s introduction of a program. Ok, you don’t agree with this plan or this solution so what are the alternatives? The least they could do is to present the American public with their alternative and let them decide which plan has more merit.

The fact that change is difficult should not be a reason to accept doing nothing; it should be a rallying cry to continue the push for change. As much as I enjoy sitting behind my laptop and pumping out these compelling diaries what I know is that real change does not occur from behind this screen. For change to be real and sustained it must occur in the streets and in our local communities. A perfect example is the “summer of rage” and the “teabaggers” now of course these were Astroturf demonstrations but imagine if they had of been real the effect they could have had. Hell, they almost had an effect and they were fake. The point is that throughout the history of America real change has required people who were willing to get out of their comfy Lazy-Boys and slippers and take to the streets for what they believed in. If it had not been for those types of folks we would still be sending young men to their deaths in Vietnam and black folks would still be dodging fire hoses and police dogs.

We will only get the change that we are willing to stand up for, not sit around complaining about and if that change does not come fast enough who can we blame for it? One of my biggest concerns following the election would be that too many people would believe that the election changed everything. The truth is that the election changed nothing. It was a nice historic photo-op but the reality is that those who wish the status quo to remain the same are still wielding the levers of power and if you think that one lone black man is going to change that, then you are more delusional than I thought you were. Those levers must be as Charleston Heston famously put it, “pried from their cold dead hands.” Who said change was hard? Change is not hard, the hard part is remembering what needs to be changed and what needs to be changed is our attitudes. Change is not hard. What’s hard is draggin my lazy ass off the couch, now that’s hard!

Those who expect moments of change to be comfortable and free of conflict have not learned their history. - Joan Wallach Scott
The Disputed Truth

Obama Signs Largest Military Budget since World War II

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:23:22 -0800

Earlier this week, President Obama signed into law the $680 billion FY 2010 Defense Authorization Bill, the largest such budget since the end of World War II. If you missed that aspect of the story, you weren’t alone. Many news stories chose instead to focus on the hate crime provisions tacked onto the bill.

I’ve often quarreled with the inclusion of superfluous legislative riders, and the hate crime provision is more superfluous than most. (Indeed, as my Cato colleague David Rittgers has pointed out, it might be worse than superfluous.)

But I want to focus on the president’s failure to halt the inexorable growth in military spending. His capitulation on a number of spending programs — even as he complains of rampant waste and abuse within the Pentagon — signals to American taxpayers that they should expect more of the same. It sends an equally harmful message to our friends and allies around the world: stand back, we’ll take care of it.

You see, most of the money we spend on our military is not geared to defending the United States. Rather, it encourages other countries to free-ride on the U.S. military instead of taking prudent steps to defend themselves.

The massive defense bill represents only part of our military spending. The appropriations bill moving through Congress governing veterans affairs, military construction and other agencies totals $133 billion, while the massive Department of Homeland Security budget weighs in at $42.8 billion. This comprises the visible balance of what Americans spend on our national security, loosely defined. Then there is the approximately $16 billion tucked away in the Energy Department’s budget, money dedicated to the care and maintenance of the country’s huge nuclear arsenal.

All told, every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on these programs and agencies next year. By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China’s per capita spending is less than $100.

The massive imbalance between what Americans spend on our military, and what others spend, flows directly from our foreign policy. Several decades ago, Washington opted to be the world’s policeman, and has ever since discouraged other countries from spending more on their own defense. President Obama has tacitly questioned this approach in the past, and has called on other countries to step forward and do more. But by signing this monstrosity, his actions drown out his words.

The president has defended his support for continued bloated military spending, with additional monies going especially to a larger conventional army, as a way to reduce the strains on our troops and their families. This is a noble impulse. But a far better way to relieve the burdens on our overstretched force is to rethink all of our global military commitments, and align our strategy to our means. A new grand strategy, predicated on self-reliance and restraint, would relieve the burdens from the backs of our troops and from taxpayers. That new strategy would compel other countries to finally assume their rightful responsibilities in defending themselves and their respective regions.

The governing class in Washington has consistently resisted such a change. It is enamored of its ability to manage not just the rest of the country, but indeed the rest of the world, and sees no reason to change. Neither, it would seem, does President Obama. By embracing a military budget explicitly geared toward sustaining the status quo, the president virtually ensures that other countries will not share in the costs of keeping the world relatively prosperous and at peace.

I’ll be discussing our massive military spending and other aspects of U.S. national security policy next Friday with Daniel Wirls, a professor at UC Santa Cruz, and the author of a forthcoming book on U.S. military spending that looks terrific. The event is sponsored by the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation and will be held at the UC’s Washington Center from 10:00 to 11:30. To learn more and to register, visit their web site.

By Christopher Preble. To read more, visit http://blog.psaonline.org

US Congress to vote on UN Gaza report

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:38:07 -0800

Oct 31

AFP - The US House of Representatives is expected to vote Tuesday on a resolution calling on President Barack Obama to reject the UN's Goldstone report, which accuses Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes in Gaza.

The bipartisan proposal calls on President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration" of the Goldsone report, dismissing it as "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy."

The measure also "reaffirms its support for the democratic, Jewish state of Israel, for Israel's security and right to self-defense," as well as "Israel's right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors."

When will Congress reaffirm its support for the rights of Palestinians? Don't hold your breath, I can see Congress disavowing the report...except for wrongs done by Palestine