WikiLeaks Documents Reveal U.S. Knowingly Imprisoned 150 Innocent Men at Guantánamo

Posted in CAPITALISM, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, DEMOCRACY, HOMELAND SECURITY, NATIONAL SECURITY, POLICY | Leave a comment

A Double Dip Recession for 2012?

CIO!:
1. With corporate profits hitting record gains, the income gap growing; and critical social services, education programs, and health facilities being eliminated, why is the question:

Economists are painting a pretty bleak picture of the economic outlook between now and the November 2012 election. Will this hurt President Obama’s re-election chances? Or will voters blame the Party of No?

Shouldn’t we really be wondering: Why isn’t there a stronger movement to demand and support an alternative progressive candidate who really cares about these issues rather than Obama who just uses them as minor pons in his bid for re-election?

2. Kuttner needs to read Glenn Greenwald’s blog: “Obama’s “bad negotiating” is actually shrewd negotiating” to find the answer to his final question: Can the president shift to a rhetoric and policy that emphasizes the need for more jobs and a stronger recovery, and soon?

By Robert Kuttner
HUFFINGTON POST

Economists are painting a pretty bleak picture of the economic outlook between now and the November 2012 election. Will this hurt President Obama’s re-election chances? Or will voters blame the Party of No?

That, of course, partly depends on what kind of campaign Obama runs and partly on the Republicans. But first, let’s take stock (actually, maybe let’s sell stock).

The Federal Reserve has been buying up lots of bonds to keep interest rates very low. The Fed disguises what it’s doing with the antiseptic and mystifying term, “quantitative easing,” or QE for short. This is the second time the central bank has tried this trick, hence the coy nickname, QE 2. The problem is that very low interest rates only take you so far in a depressed economy.

For the most part the Fed’s policy has been good for large banks and good for the stock market. Ordinary borrowers, businesses and homebuyers have trouble getting credit.

But other factors are starting to limit the effectiveness of very low interest rates.

For one, the very low rates in the US are depressing confidence in the dollar. That means we start importing inflation. For another, rising commodity prices worldwide — partly the result of the Fed’s policy, partly due to rising demand in India and China — means increasing prices of consumer goods at home.

Five-dollar-a-gallon gas is not good for President Obama. Nor is the practice of food processing companies shrinking the size of standard packages to disguise price increases. And in the one part of the economy that might benefit from a little inflation, low interest rates have not worked to levitate depressed housing values.

The time-tested remedy, when cheap money ceases working, is expansive fiscal policy — government deficits and public investment. Now there’s an idea.

Oops. Forget it.

There is, of course, huge pressure from the nation’s opinion elites to cut the deficit, long before the economy is out of the woods. It comes from four potent sources.

Wall Street deficit hawks have been banging these drums for three decades, even during the late 1990s when the budget was in surplus.

The elite media buys this story, hook, line, and sinker. Big deficits are seen as proof of partisan gridlock and government irresponsibility. The six bipartisan horsemen of budget apocalypse, Senators Warner, Chambliss et. al. are widely depicted as fiscal heroes. The pundits seem to forget where these deficits came from.
Continue reading →

Posted in CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT | Leave a comment

Inflation Explained

Posted in CAPITALISM, GOVERNMENT, GREED, POLICY | Leave a comment

Earth Day Special: Vandana Shiva and Maude Barlow on the Rights of Mother Earth

Posted in CAPITALISM, ENVIRONMENT, SOLUTIONS | 1 Comment

Obama’s “bad negotiating” is actually shrewd negotiating

By Glenn Greenwald
Salon

Whether in economic policy, national security, civil liberties, or the permanent consortium of corporate power that runs Washington, Obama, above all else, is content to be (one could even say eager to be) guardian of the status quo. And the forces of the status quo want tax cuts for the rich, serious cuts in government spending that don’t benefit them (social programs and progressive regulatory schemes), and entitlement “reform” — so that’s what Obama will do.

In December, President Obama signed legislation to extend hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush tax cuts, benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Last week, Obama agreed to billions of dollars in cuts that will impose the greatest burden on the poorest Americans. And now, virtually everyone in Washington believes, the President is about to embark on a path that will ultimately lead to some type of reductions in Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits under the banner of “reform.” Tax cuts for the rich — budget cuts for the poor — “reform” of the Democratic Party’s signature safety net programs — a continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies and a new Middle East war launched without Congressional approval. That’s quite a legacy combination for a Democratic President.

All of that has led to a spate of negotiation advice from the liberal punditocracy advising the President how he can better defend progressive policy aims — as though the Obama White House deeply wishes for different results but just can’t figure out how to achieve them. Jon Chait, Josh Marshall, and Matt Yglesias all insist that the President is “losing” on these battles because of bad negotiating strategy, and will continue to lose unless it improves. Ezra Klein says “it makes absolutely no sense” that Democrats didn’t just raise the debt ceiling in December, when they had the majority and could have done it with no budget cuts. Once it became clear that the White House was not following their recommended action of demanding a “clean” vote on raising the debt ceiling — thus ensuring there will be another, probably larger round of budget cuts — Yglesias lamented that the White House had “flunked bargaining 101.” Their assumption is that Obama loathes these outcomes but is the victim of his own weak negotiating strategy.

I don’t understand that assumption at all. Does anyone believe that Obama and his army of veteran Washington advisers are incapable of discovering these tactics on their own or devising better strategies for trying to avoid these outcomes if that’s what they really wanted to do? What evidence is there that Obama has some inner, intense desire for more progressive outcomes? These are the results they’re getting because these are the results they want — for reasons that make perfectly rational political sense.

Conventional D.C. wisdom — that which Obama vowed to subvert but has done as much as any President to bolster — has held for decades that Democratic Presidents succeed politically by being as “centrist” or even as conservative as possible. That attracts independents, diffuses GOP enthusiasm, casts the President as a triangulating conciliator, and generates raves from the DC press corps — all while keeping more than enough Democrats and progressives in line through a combination of anti-GOP fear-mongering and partisan loyalty.

Isn’t that exactly the winning combination that will maximize the President’s re-election chances? Just consider the polling data on last week’s budget cuts, which most liberal commentators scorned. Americans support the “compromise” by a margin of 58-38%; that support includes a majority of independents, substantial GOP factions, and 2/3 of Democrats. Why would Democrats overwhelmingly support domestic budget cuts that burden the poor? Because, as Yglesias correctly observed, “just about anything Barack Obama does will be met with approval by most Democrats.” In other words, once Obama lends his support to a policy — no matter how much of a departure it is from ostensible Democratic beliefs — then most self-identified Democrats will support it because Obama supports it, because it then becomes the “Democratic policy,” by definition. Adopting “centrist” or even right-wing policies will always produce the same combination — approval of independents, dilution of GOP anger, media raves, and continued Democratic voter loyalty — that is ideal for the President’s re-election prospects.

That tactic in the context of economic policy has the added benefit of keeping corporate and banking money on Obama’s side (where it overwhelmingly was in 2008), or at least preventing a massive influx to GOP coffers. And just look at the team of economic advisers surrounding Obama from the start: does anyone think that Bill Daley, Tim Geithner and his army of Rubin acolytes and former Goldman Sachs executives are sitting around in rooms desperately trying to prevent budget cuts and entitlement “reforms”?

Why would Obama possibly want to do anything different? Why would he possibly want a major political war over the debt ceiling where he looks like a divisive figure and looks to be opposing budget cuts? Why would he possibly want to draw a line in the sand defending Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from any “reforms”? There would be only two reasons to do any of that: (1) fear that he would lose too much of his base if he compromised with the GOP in these areas, or (2) a genuine conviction that such compromises are morally or economically intolerable. Since he so plainly lacks both — a fear of losing the base or genuine convictions about this or anything else — there’s simply nothing to drive him to fight for those outcomes.

Continue reading →

Posted in CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY, GOVERNMENT | Leave a comment

McDonald’s Solicited by City Hall for Dolores Park San Francisco

By Kevin Montgomery
Uptown Almanac

A slew of information obtained through the Sunshine Ordinance revealed that the SF Department of Recreation and Parks both neglected local businesses and put little thought into the commercialization of city parks.

As you may recall earlier this fall, many area local businesses, neighborhood “activists”, and Dolores Park neighbors were upset over “chain” businesses moving into Dolores.  The controversy stemmed from what they claimed was a lack of outreach done by Rec. & Parks on the program and quickly ballooned into a debate about what our parks should be used for.  Eventually groups circulated a petition claiming McDonald’s would be next to move into Dolores (which I initially dismissed as hyperbole), threats were made against businesses planning on opening in park, and one of the two businesses canceled their plans to open.

Following the controversy, Rec. and Park director Phil Ginsburg wrote about the merits of food carts operating in SF Parks in the Chronicle, citing the popularity of “Creme Brulée Man, Sexy Soup Lady, Adobo Hobo, Soul Cocina and Mobile Pho” as well as the thriving scene in NYC’s Central Park, where people can purchase “inexpensive and popular fare ranging from soup and sandwiches to Turkish tacos.”

In a city as diverse and dense as San Francisco, the Recreation and Park Department is devoted to maintaining and improving what open space we have. Bringing a carefully chosen cadre of food carts into our parks is a natural extension of that. Food provides a reason for gathering. Gatherings are where people interact and community is formed. Parks provide a natural space to gather. Uniting food and parks creates an active, dynamic space for San Franciscans to enjoy.

While his words would lead you to believe the Department was truly interested in assisting aspiring businesses, the preponderance of companies invited to bid were non-local businesses.  Among the notified companies were Auntie Annes Pretzels, Ben & Jerry’s, Burger King, Double Rainbow, Fuddruckers, Ghirardelli, Haagen Dazs, Jamba Juice, Nestle Café, Orange Julius, Peet’s Coffee & Tea, Pizza Hut, Subway, TCBY, The Cheescake Factory, Walt Disney, Wendy’s, and World Wrapps.

Local businesses were almost completely ignored.  In fact, of the 910 companies contacted, only a few dozen local San Francisco companies were listed, including Boulevard (Downtown), Buena Vista Cafe (Marina), Burger Joint (Mission), Cable Car Coffee Company (Powell), Castro Cheesery (Castro), City Hall Cafe (Civic Center), Deli-Up Cafe (Mission), Graffeo Coffee (North Beach), Imperial Tea Court (multiple locations), It’s-It Ice Cream, La Cocina (Mission), Zuni Cafe (Civic Center).  Even more troubling, no local food carts already operating in or around Dolores Park were told about the opportunity.

Program Lacked Proper Planning

Ginsburg’s op-ed suggested that the Department had debated the merits of commercializing open spaces.  However, the requests for program plans revealed no such thought was put into the decision to privatize parks.  The request directly made to Recreation and Parks:

A copy of the business plan, strategic plan, work plan or any internal strategy documents surrounding this initiative/program. Documents that answer: How it was conceived? What are the pros/cons? What are the risks and mitigation of those risks? What were the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of this idea? What are the financial projects? What are the liability issues? What is the environmental impact? What kind of outreach is necessary? What are the legal implications? Etc.

The Department was unable to provide any documents for this request, which implies no strategy was put into the program and was initiated on a whim.

Future Commercialization

Under the program that is commercializing Dolores Park, many other neighborhood parks are going to be litered with food trucks.  Duboce Park is going to have a juice truck (company unknown), Marina Green will have Twirl and Dip Soft Serve and Annakoot Indian Food, the Band Shell in Golden Gate Park will have Blue Bottle Coffee, Little Guys Sliders, Sam’s Chowder-Mobile, and Waffle-Mania, and Civic Center will have Leba (a falafel truck) and Blue Bottle Coffee.

Nick Kinsey, the Assistant Director of Property and Concession Management for the Department of Recreation and Parks, also says that the Department is still accepting proposals for Dolores Park, but “I am not sure that we would consider anything additional at Dolores at this point.”

More Info

Initial Request for Proposals Letter [PDF]

List of Businesses Contacted [HTML]

Previously on Uptown Almanac

Posted in CAPITALISM, CONSUMERISM | Leave a comment

Is the World Too Big to Fail? The Contours of Global Order

Noam Chomsky in Amsterdam (13-03-2011) from Chomsky in Nederland on Vimeo.

Posted in CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY, GLOBALIZATION, POLICY, RESOURCES | Leave a comment

Status anxiety in the age of austerity

Posted in AUSTERITY, CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY | Leave a comment

The Top 10 Tax Breaks — And How They Help The Wealthy The Most

By Jake Bialer
HUFFINGTON POST

This is the time of year when we are most aware of our tax burdens. But what we may be less aware of are all the huge tax breaks built into our system. Most Americans benefit from one or more — but it’s the wealthy who benefit the most.

The government spends money through appropriations and writing checks, but it also showers individuals and companies with a astonishing array of special exemptions, credits and deductions that amount to a $1.1 trillion giveaway each year. (For comparison: the big budget fight that concluded last week cut spending by about $38 billion.)

About half of the money lost to “tax expenditures” comes from the 10 breaks listed below.

Few of the biggest breaks directly benefit corporate America. Most are widely distributed among the population and are meant to reward and encourage what is generally considered responsible behavior. Each break also represents a powerful, and in some cases broad-based, constituency.

But in stark contrast to, say, social programs, tax breaks vastly favor the rich over the middle class and the poor.

They vastly favor people who own homes (especially expensive homes), can put a lot away for their retirements, have generous health insurance plans and live in high-tax states. Even something as simple as the deduction for charitable donations favors the wealthy: Because they pay higher marginal tax rate, they get a bigger federal subsidy for each dollar they give.

Some of these terms may require a little explanation:

1. Tax-free health insurance contributions. The tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits is the single largest tax break — it alone will cost the government $1 trillion in foregone taxes over the next five fiscal years. This huge tax expenditure massively subsidizes the nation’s employer-based health insurance system. It also provides an incentive to employers to overspend in health benefits (which are tax free) and pay less in salary (from which, of course, the IRS takes a bite). This tax break only helps families with at least one member employed by an employer who offers them health benefits. Others have to buy health insurance with after-tax dollars.

2. The mortgage interest deduction. The second-largest tax break is essentially the nation’s largest housing program. By letting taxpayers who itemize deduct the interest they pay on their home mortgages, the government massively subsidizes home ownership. The more expensive the home — and the higher the homeowner’s tax bracket — the bigger that subsidy is.

3. Treatment of capital gains at death. When you die, the government forgives your capital gains tax on appreciated assets that you pass on to your heirs. In accounting terms, this is the “step up in basis” on death. From the heirs’ perspective, it means that the “basis” going forward (the amount above which anything is considered taxable capital gains) is the value of the asset at the time they received it. So if you buy stock at $1,000 and it’s worth $10,000 when you die, your heir gets $10,000 as the basis. No one ever pays taxes on the $9,000 in appreciation. Now imagine a multi-million-dollar stock portfolio and multi-million-dollar homes — and you’re talking real money.

4. Tax-free contributions to 401(k)s. Federal government policy encourages savings for retirement by allowing employees and employers to make tax-free contributions to retirement plans, the most common of which is the 401(k). This break is a big gift to the financial securities industry, which is where most of this money goes, and to the very wealthy. Indeed, the bulk of benefits go to high-income households, while little goes to the lower and moderate income households. There are limits to how much can be contributed tax-free, but the amount of tax foregone through contributions to 401(k) plans, along with employer plans, when combined still make tax-deferred retirement savings the second largest tax expenditure.

5. Exclusion of net imputed rental income. Homeowners don’t pay themselves rent. If they didn’t own their own homes, they would pay rent — and whoever received that rent would have to declare it as income and pay taxes on it. But this “imputed rental income” goes untaxed — another major subsidy to homeowners. The foregone rent is called “imputed rental income,” and the White House Office of Management and Budget calculates the foregone tax that results from it at $50 billion a year.

6. Deductibility of state and local taxes. The rationale behind this deduction is that taxes paid to state or local governments reduce a taxpayer’s ability to pay federal income tax. But state and local taxes essentially “pay” for services that, if purchased directly by the taxpayer, would not be deductible. The benefits of this deduction are disproportionately enjoyed by the wealthy, property owners, and residents of high-tax states. Because so many of those high-tax states are blue, this is one tax deduction that some conservative activists actually want dead.

7. Acclerated depreciation. The tax code allows businesses to deduct the costs of investing in such things as equipment faster than the objects in question actually wear out. Seth Hanlon writes for the Center for American Progress: “Accelerated depreciation in general should be thought of as a multibillion-dollar federal spending program that subsidizes business investments. And when they single out specific industries for special benefit, depreciation rules are akin to spending ‘earmarks.'”

8. Capital gains. Salaries, rents, royalties, interest — they’re all considered regular income by the IRS, and get taxed at marginal rates up to 35 percent. But income from the sale of capital assets held for more than a year is considered long-term capital gains, and gets taxed at a flat 15 percent rate. This is a huge windfall for the investor class — and represents a quarter of a trillion dollars in lost revenue over 5 years.

9. Deductibility of charitable contributions. The IRS allows taxpayers to deduct charitable contributions from their taxable income. This amounts to an approximately $43 billion a year subsidy to charitable organizations — and because of progressive taxation, the deduction is more valuable to rich taxpayers than to poor ones. One scholar recently proposed doubling the deduction temporarily to stimulate job growth; but there is actually more talk about reducing or adjusting it instead.

10. Employer plans. This refers to employment-based retirement plans other than 401(K)s. See No. 4.

Posted in CAPITALISM, ECONOMY, POLICY, Tax cuts for the rich | Leave a comment

The War In Afghanistan: How Much Are You Paying?

By Amanda Terkel
HUFFINGTON POST

WASHINGTON — As Americans breathe a sigh of relief over finally filing the returns on what they owe (or are owed from) Uncle Sam this Tax Day, the progressive group Rethink Afghanistan wants them to consider how much of their money is funding the war in Afghanistan, now in its 10th year.

The group, a project of the Brave New Foundation, has created a Cost of War calculator, allowing Americans to figure out how much of their tax dollars are going toward the war, based on their income and filing status.

For example, a single person making $40,000 in 2010 essentially paid $1,694 for the war. A married couple filing jointly and earning a combined $100,000 has $4,757 of their tax dollars going toward the effort.

The United States is spending more than $100 billion a year in Afghanistan, amounting to about $2 billion a week.

The Defense Department received $513 billion in funding in the FY 2011 continuing resolution, approximately $5 billion above last year’s level. Another $158 billion is provided for overseas contingency operations (emergency funding). The war in Afghanistan will receive $108 billion of that funding, while the war in Iraq will receive $50 billion.

Last week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, along with groups like the Liberty Coalition and Sojourners, participated in an event hosted by Rethink Afghanistan on Capitol Hill highlighting the cost of war.

“We can’t pay our bills here, yet we’re spending $8 billion a month in Afghanistan,” Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), one of the event’s panelists, recently told The New York Times. “I don’t know what our country is trying to accomplish. History says Afghanistan will never be a nation. It will be a country of tribes. We’re wearing out the troops and spending money we don’t have.”

In a CNN interview last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he’s not “confident” that the war in Afghanistan will be successful, remarking, “[T]he American people have, and rightfully so, a very short attention span. We cannot continue to keep dumping this money. … Think of what that would do for renewable energy for this country.”

Posted in CAPITALISM, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, ECONOMY, POLICY | Leave a comment