It’s the Economy Stupor

August 18, 2008

By rights, John McCain should be getting hammered on economics.

After all, Mr. McCain proposes continuing the policies of a president who’s had a truly dismal economic record — job growth underthe current administration has been the slowest in 60 years, evenslower than job growth under the first President Bush. And the publicblames the White House, giving Mr. Bush spectacularly low ratings onhis handling of the economy.

Meanwhile, The Times reports that, according to associates, Mr. McCain still “dials up” Phil Gramm, the former senator who resigned as co-chairman of the campaign after calling America a “nation of whiners” and dismissing the country’s economic woes as nothing more than a “mental recession.” And Mr. Gramm is still considered a top pick for Treasury secretary.

So Mr. McCain would seem to offer a target a mile wide: a die-hardsupporter of failed economic policies who takes his advice from people completely out of touch with the lives of working Americans.

But while polls continue to show that the public, by a large margin, trusts Democrats more than Republicans to handle the economy, recent polling shows that Barack Obama has at best a small edge over Mr. McCain on the issue — four points in a recent Time magazine poll, and he is one point behind according to Rasmussen Reports, which does automated polling. And Mr. Obama’s failure to achieve a decisive edge on economic policy is central to his failure to open up a big lead in overall polling.

Why isn’t the Obama campaign getting more traction on economic issues?

It’s not the Republican offensive on offshore drilling. It’s true that many Americans have apparently been misled by bogus claims about gas price relief. But as I’ve already pointed out, Democrats in general retain a large edge on economic issues.

Nor is there any valid basis for the complaints, highlighted in Sunday’s Times, that Mr. Obama isn’t offering enough policy specifics.

Delve into the Obama campaign Web site and you’ll find plenty of policy detail. And the campaign’s ads reel off lots of specific policy proposals — too many, if you ask me.

No, the problem isn’t lack of specifics — it’s lack of passion. When it comes to the economy, Mr. Obama’s campaign seems oddly lethargic.

I was astonished at the flatness of the big economy speech he gavein St. Petersburg at the beginning of this month — a speech that was billed as the start of a new campaign focus on economic issues. Mr. Obama is a great orator, yet he began that speech with a litany of statistics that were probably meaningless to most listeners.

Worse yet, he seemed to go out of his way to avoid scoring political points. “Back in the 1990s,” he declared, “your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000.” Um, not quite: real median household income didn’t rise $6,000 during “the 1990s,” it did so during the Clinton years, after falling under the first Bush administration. Income hasn’t fallen $1,000 in “recent years,” it’s fallen under George Bush, with all of the decline taking place before 2005.

Obama surrogates have shown a similar inclination to go for the capillaries rather than the jugular. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by two Obama advisers offered another blizzard of statistics almost burying the key point — that most Americans would pay lower taxes under the Obama tax plan than under the McCain plan.

All this makes a stark contrast with the campaign of the last Democrat to make it to the White House, who had no trouble conveying passion over matters economic.

In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination in 1992, a year in which economic conditions somewhat resembled those today, Bill Clinton denounced his opponent as someone “caught in the grip of a failed economic theory.” Where Mr. Obama spoke cryptically in St. Petersburg about a “reckless few” who “game the system, as we’ve seen in this housing crisis” — I know what he meant, I think, but how many voters got it? — Mr. Clinton declared that “those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft, and those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded.” That’s the kind of hard-hitting populism that’s been absent from the Obama campaign so far.

Of course, Mr. Obama hasn’t given his own acceptance speech yet. Al Gore found a new populist fervor in August 2000, and surged in the polls. A comparable surge by Mr. Obama would give him a landslide victory this year.

But it’s up to him. If Mr. Obama can’t find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far, he may yet lose this election.

Two articles on how Barak Obama and John McCain understand Economics


Obama, the optimist on trade

By Susan Aaronson

The writer is research associate professor of international affairs and business, George Washington University

July 22 2008

Around the world, the press has portrayed the 2008 US presidential election as a choice between freer trader John McCain and “protectionist” Barack Obama. That traditional paradigm has helped the media simplify the differences between the two men. However, such these labels do not accurately describe either candidate. And it does not fully portray the candidate, Mr Obama, who has the more optimistic vision of trade.

The conventional wisdom labels Mr McCain as a freer trader because he supports three bilateral trade agreements negotiated by the Bush administration. Mr Obama, in contrast, has come out forcefully against these agreements. Moreover, because Mr Obama states that he wants to review the effects of existing trade agreements, the press has found him to be unenthusiastic about trade liberalisation. (It is important to note that the US is already conducting a similar review of the World Trade Organisation.) Finally, Mr Obama has support from many US unions, which traditionally have taken a protectionist stance.

In fact, both men are pro-trade; they each support using trade agreements to open markets and create economic efficiencies. But the two have different perspectives regarding what trade agreements should do, what rules these agreements should include, and whom these agreements should directly benefit.

Mr McCain sees trade as a means to the end of economic growth and trade agreements as simply economic instruments. He has said very little about how he would use trade agreements to address negative side effects of globalisation, such as pollution. Nor has he articulated how the US can ensure that the economic growth stimulated by trade is equitable. Beyond suggesting tax breaks for business, he has not explained how the US can ensure that companies remain in the US and continue to hire US workers, rather than rely on technologies to remain productive. To bolster his freer trade bona fides, he has stated: “Only risks to the security of our vital interests or egregious offences to our most cherished political values should disqualify a nation from entering into a free trade agreement with us.” But Mr McCain’s support for freer trade has limits – especially when important constituents are adamant about trade bans. As an example, he supports continued trade sanctions against Cuba and Iran and enhanced targeted sanctions against human rights abusing nations Zimbabwe and Burma.

Mr Obama, in contrast, is a trade enthusiast as well as a trade agreements reformer. He sees trade as a means to the end of enhancing human welfare. Thus, he has stated: “From financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other’s success.” He recognises that Americans cannot succeed unless globalisation promotes greater access to resources and opportunities for more of the world’s people (our future growth markets). Mr Obama also believes that trade agreements are essential tools of global governance. He recognises that public concerns about trade are really concerns about inadequate governance – instances where our trade partners are unwilling or unable to adopt and enforce rules to protect workers, consumers and the environment. Demanding such standards in bilateral agreements will not alter global market conditions or empower all workers. Nonetheless, trade agreements can, if properly written, improve both the supply and demand for good governance at the national and international level.

Mr Obama also has put forth a consistently positive vision of the potential of trade to promote human rights. Many human rights activists think trade with human rights abusing regimes is a form of complicity that can indirectly perpetuate wrongdoing in countries such as Sudan. But Mr Obama has openly questioned this view, asking whether the US has more or less leverage with less commerce. He has argued that cutting off trade may not be the best (or only) strategy to bring democracy to Cuba or Iran.

Like Mr McCain, Mr Obama’s vision of trade has some inconsistencies. He has yet to reconcile his internationalist and co-operative worldview with his promises to Democratic special interests. In addition, he has relied on jargon such as fair trade, without defining such terms in a global context.

Press coverage and public rhetoric about trade lags reality. Clearly when we talk about trade agreements today we are talking about regulations that can affect productivity, investment levels, prices and other important economic factors. But trade agreements can also ensure that more people have access to more resources such as credit, education, safe food and healthcare as well as greater opportunities. While Mr McCain sees trade agreements as a means of increasing the nation’s riches, Mr Obama sees trade agreements as tools that can both empower individuals and help our trade partners improve governance.



Tuesday, July 22, 2008

A Short Primer on McCainomics Versus Obamanomics: Top-Down or Bottom-Up

Robert Reich
Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

McCain and Obama represent two fundamentally different economic philosophies. McCain's is top-down economics; Obama's is bottom-up.

Top-down economics holds that:

1. If you give generous tax breaks to the rich, they will have greater incentive to work hard and invest. Their harder work and added investments will generate more jobs and faster economic growth, to the benefit of average working people.

2. If you give generous tax breaks to corporations, reduce their payroll costs, and impose fewer regulations on them, they will compete more successfully in global commerce. This too will result in more jobs for Americans and faster growth in the United States.

3. The best way to reduce the energy costs of average Americans is to give oil companies access to more land on which to drill, lower taxes, and lower capital costs. If they get these, they'll supply more oil, which will reduce oil prices.

4. The best way to deal with the crisis in credit markets is to insure large Wall Street investment banks, as well as Fannie and Freddie, against losses. This will result in more loans at lower rates to average Americans. (Bailing them out may risk "moral hazard," in the sense that they will expect to be bailed out in the future, but that's a small price to pay for restoring liquidity.)

All of these propositions are highly questionable, especially in a global economy. The rich do not necessarily invest additional post-tax earnings in the United States; they invest wherever around the world they can get the highest returns. Meanwhile, large American-based corporations are doing business all over the world; their supply chains extend to wherever they can find low labor costs combined with high output, and their sales to wherever they can find willing buyers. Oil companies, too, are operating globally and set their prices largely at the point where global supply meets global demand. Additional drilling here creates environmental risks for us but generates the same marginal benefits for consumers in China, India, and Europe as we might enjoy (most likely not for a decade or more). Credit markets are global as well, so the beneficiaries of bailouts of large investment banks and lenders are also worldwide while the potential costs (including moral hazard) fall on American taxpayers.

This isn't to argue that top-down economics is completely nonsensical. America is, after all, the world's largest economy. So whatever helps the top of it will to some extent trickle down to everyone else here, and whatever hurts the top is likely to impose some burdens all the way down.

But in a global economy, bottom-up economics makes more sense. Bottom-up economics holds that:

1. The growth of the American economy depends largely on the productivity of its workers. They are rooted here, while global capital and large American-based global corporations are not.

2. The productivity of America workers depends mainly on their education, their health, and the infrastructure that connects them together. These public investments are therefore critical to our future prosperity.

3. Global capital will come to the United States to create good jobs not because our taxes or wages or regulatory costs are low (there will always be many places around the world where taxes, wages, and regulatory costs are lower) but because the productivity of our workers is high.

4. The answer to our energy costs is found in the creativity and inventiveness of Americans in generating non-oil and non-carbon fuels and new means of energy conservation, rather than in access by global oil companies to more oil. So subsidize basic research and development in these alternatives.

5. Finally, in order to avoid a recession or worse, it's necessary to improve the financial security of average Americans who are now sinking into a quagmire of debt and foreclosure. Otherwise, there won't be adequate purchasing power to absorb all the goods and services the economy produces. (As to "moral hazard," the financial institutions that did the lending had more reason to know of the risks involved than those who did the borrowing.)

Listen carefully to the economic debate in the months ahead in light of these two competing economic philosophies. And hope that the latter wins out in years to come.

Bordertown


There is a 2006 movie starring Jennifer Lopez and Martin Sheen that you should see. It’s called “Bordertown,” directed by Gregory Nava, and based on the book by the same name written by Diana Washington Valdez, an El Paso, Texas, journalist. It is a serious, political movie that takes a passionate social justice position on the immigration debate. It tells the powerful true story of life in the border town of Juarez, Mexico. Anyone wanting to see the effects of globalization, Free Trade, and NAFTA (all of which are discussed in the movie) should rent a copy and view it. (Note, I say, “rent” because most of us never knew it was in the theatres. It came and went so quickly and was never released to the multiplexes, so most people never had a chance to know whether they liked it or not. Reviews of the movie were very high, but most theatre chains did not want to risk running it.)

Ms. Valdez spent years investigating and documenting the deaths of thousands of women murdered in Juarez since 1993. These murders are called “femicides,” or gender murders. Hundreds of women working in American-owned factories (malquiladoras) were brutally raped and murdered in Juarez, a city gripped by fear. The attacks have been covered up by the local authorities, and still continue today.

Click in the space below for the theatrical "trailer" from the movie:

This movie details the inner work processes of the Maquiladores and their link to NAFTA. It looks at working conditions, low pay, and exploitation of workers, all so that large corporations in Mexico and the USA can make large profits. It also details the corruptness of both the Mexican and the American government, the greed of transnational corporations and the role/reason for the cover ups of these murders which are still going on today.

Click below for a particularly intense scene from the movie in which the two leads debate some of these issues:



And, for what it’s worth, it’s interesting to note that both Martin Sheen and Jennifer Lopez are people of faith. Both, are very active in their local Catholic parishes, and both on occasion have noted the connection between their political activism and their religious faith. Not to disparage the mega-church evangelicals with thirty-thousand member churches, who teach that Christianity applies only to issues of personal morality, the truth is that the spinal cord of Christian ethics is a commitment challenging and changing the political, economic, racial, and social impediments to fully human existence.

If You Think Education is Expensive, Try Ignorance: How Eliminating User Fees Helped 2 Million Kenyan Kids Go to School

An interview with Mary Njoroge

Multinational Monitor, NOV/DEC 2007 , VOL 29 No. 5

Mary Njoroge was Kenya's National Coordinator for Early Childhood Development and the Director of Basic Education until her retirement in 2006. She oversaw the Abolition of School Fees Initiative in 2003 and was awarded the Moran of the Burning Spear, one of Kenya's highest honors. Njoroge now works as an educational consultant. Multinational Monitor interviewed Njoroge in December 2007, before Kenya's national election.

Multinational Monitor: When were school fees first introduced in Kenya?

Mary Njoroge: They were introduced in the late 1980s and the 1990s through the structural adjustment programs promoted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

MM: So the idea for the fees came from the World Bank?

Njoroge: Yes, it did.

MM: And how did the Bank direct Kenya to impose school fees?

Njoroge: During that time, most low-income countries were working with the IMF and World Bank to set caps for the wage bills - the amount that could be spent on wages in different government departments - and the amount of money that the government could use for programs. One associated idea was to make sure that communities were contributing financially to the services that the government was providing. That was a problem, because even as the fees were introduced, poverty levels were rising in most of the country, and the parents were not able to pay the fees. That led to many, many children dropping out of school - just because of the inability of parents to pay the fee.

MM: In Kenya, when the decision was taken and there was no choice but to impose fees, how was that implemented? Did that become a national requirement or did it vary by different regions in the country?

Njoroge: No, it was national. Every parent was supposed to pay fees for tuition expenses and uniforms for the children. In Africa, uniforms are very, very important for making everybody from different socioeconomic backgrounds look the same. Fees also went to meet expenses for textbooks, even for expansion of infrastructure - classrooms, the school buildings themselves and sanitary facilities in the schools.

MM: How much was the fee?

Njoroge: There was no guidance on what level fee individual schools should charge, and that became a problem. The size of the fee was left to the discretion of the PTAs [parent-teacher associations] in schools. And unfortunately fees were imposed in quite a number of places for reasons you couldn't explain. And some of the money wasn't necessarily put to school use. A chunk of it was misused over time by the principal and the people overseeing the school. Many, many parents were discouraged and children fell out of the school system because there wasn't a guide for how school fees were going to work, or how much fees would be.

MM: Did the national government reduce the amount it was giving the schools on the theory they were raising money from the fees?

Njoroge: Yes, it did. Initially, the schools received federal grants. That would, for example, pay for some of the workers that were working there, for the teachers and for some of the programs of the school. Then, during this particular strategy, the government grants were removed and the parents were forced to accommodate the costs.

MM: And how much money did the schools raise from the fees? How important were they to their budgets?

Njoroge: The fees were important because it was from the fees that the schools could buy books, buy chalk, buy exercise books and any readers that they were going to use. Fees also paid for the running of the school, the overhead of the school. That money was very important. The schools were not going to be able to run without it.

MM: How did the fees affect the ability of families to send their children to school?

Njoroge: It affected the very poor children whose parents were not able to raise the fees that the schools were asking for. Initially, the choice was if children have to go to school, which children would go? And boys were the ones sent to school in the very poor communities and girls were left at home. Eventually, even that became difficult and for the very poor communities both boys and girls dropped out of the school system. Only those who were able to afford the school fees were left to continue.

MM: Was there supposed to be an exemption for poor families?

Njoroge: No, there wasn't. It was a blanket fee for everybody regardless of socioeconomic status.

MM: So the fees continued from the beginning of the 1990s, all through the decade?

Njoroge: Yes; up to about January 2003 when the current government took power and they abolished the fees. So all along education programs were being financed by fees from parents.

MM: How did the issue of fees rise to the level of political importance in Kenya?

Njoroge: The abolition of fees came as one of the strategies to reduce the level of poverty in the country. The level of poverty continued to rise to a level where more than 50 percent of Kenyans were living below a dollar a day. So asking them to pay around $8 or so for primary school was almost impossible. The current government regards education as one of the vehicles that can reduce poverty in the country. And when they came into power, they decided all the children of Kenya were going to have at least primary education free, with the hope that they would move on to high school and start participating in the economic status of the country and therefore lower the poverty level.

MM: The school fees became a significant issue in the 2002 presidential election.

Njoroge: Yes, it did. It was one of the election campaign issues.

MM: What was the response from the population to this promise to eliminate the school fees?

Njoroge: It was taken very positively because almost everybody in Kenya thinks education is very important for moving out of poverty and giving individual families hope. So there was a lot of appreciation for any proposal that was promising to put children back in school. Particularly because in the past, even the poorest of families struggled to find a way to pay the fees. They would pay more than one third of the family income to ensure that at least one child could attend school. So that is why everybody voted for this government. The education promise alone was enough, plus all the other positive things that they promised.

MM: Do you think this issue helped decide the election?

Njoroge: Yes, it did, and it still does. We are again approaching elections, scheduled for the end of December 2007. Everybody campaigning is highlighting education as a key issue and discussing how to continue improving what has been done. They are even discussing the issue of high school fees, since most of the children that entered school after fees were lifted have now completed primary school.

MM: And everyone agrees, no fees?

Njoroge: Yes, they do.

MM: This is a case where a candidate campaigned on the promise to eliminate school fees and then, with your help, delivered on the promise. How was it carried out?

Njoroge: The government improved the way it raises taxes from the people. In the past, the taxes were not being collected properly and therefore there was not enough revenue to fund various programs in the country. But this government has really collected a lot of taxes. They have also developed transparency and accountability strategies to ensure the money is actually going to the programs that people have prioritized, like education and health. And therefore the government has been able to raise national and internal resources to finance about 90 percent of the budget for this program. Only 10 percent of the funding is coming from outside donors.

MM: The fees were lifted in 2003?

Njoroge: Yes, in January 2003.

MM: That was immediately upon the new government taking office?

Njoroge: Yes.

MM: And what happened?

Njoroge: When the new government came in and announced that in the new year, children could attend school without paying fees, we witnessed an additional 1 million new children in our schools, over and above the 5.9 million who had already been in the school system. When all of those primary school-going children who had dropped out of the school system over the years came back to the classes they had left, that posed a lot of challenges to the teachers and to the system, which was not quite prepared. But over time I think we have addressed the issue and students have continued learning.

Now, not only did we receive 1 million children on that first day of the new academic year, we have over the years received an additional million more. We now have 2 million more children in school because of this initiative; we have almost 8 million children now in our primary schools.

MM: So a full quarter of the students were not going to school because of fees?

Njoroge: That's right.

MM: You had a sudden flood of students. How was the school system able to handle it?

Njoroge: Part of the training of the teachers was how to handle these extra learners. Some of the teachers are going through training even now on what we call "multi-grade." Multi-grade is a system where you teach learners of different age groups together in the same class by using different strategies. That was not necessary before, but now, because the learners are of different age groups, the teachers have had to go through that kind of training. We are still in the process of training all of the teachers.

The other training that has been found to be very, very important is how to handle children with special needs. When the government said education is free, children with special needs and various disabilities and who didn't have the opportunity to go to school before, also came to school. Unfortunately, teachers initially didn't have the skills to handle children with hearing or sight or mental disabilities. The Minister of Education is currently expanding the training of the teachers to handle the children with special needs.

The other thing that is required, but is still not there, is the expansion of facilities for children with special needs. For those that may be blind, we may convert the primary school curriculum into Braille, and we will probably even develop sign language for those that are deaf. So there are still challenges there.

The children with special needs still continue to attend school, but the integration is only working for those with mild disabilities. Those with severe disabilities require specialized education institutions and equipment, which the resources have not allowed to be put in place.

MM: What would you say to people who argue that it's a mistake to eliminate school fees because systems are not equipped to handle the surge of new children?

Njoroge: I would say they are wrong in the case of Kenya. It has worked because there was political will. There was very high professional commitment by the Minister of Education and the leadership, and there was strong desire by parents to ensure their children are lifted from the desperate situations in which they are living.

I would say anybody that is saying it is a mistake is wrong. In places like Kenya and many, many African countries, I think if we were asked to go through it again we would not change anything. Although it is true that the program had problems at the beginning, with determination it continued to be improved and children can now learn.

When the fees were lifted, we immediately saw the kids at school. It led to investment of resources by the government into the education system. It led to developing new strategies to finance the education program in a transparent and accountable manner, which also has attracted international donors. It is worth letting the children have the opportunity to go to school.

MM: Are there still uniform or textbook fees in Kenya?

Njoroge: No, there aren't. The monies that have been made available by the government and the international community have helped schools procure all the textbooks and the teaching materials that they require. To date, I think every primary school has all the textbooks they require in every class for every subject. What is missing is the expansion of the facilities and employment of additional teachers to make sure that that we don't have too many kids in a class.

MM: The ministry would like to hire more teachers?

Njoroge: Yes, it would.

MM: And you have more teachers already trained?

Njoroge: Yes, we do. We had a freezing of recruitment for additional public workers, particularly teachers, in 1997 when the IMF agreed with the government on a particular ceiling for primary school and high school teacher wage expenses. The IMF wanted the government to use funds to pay down its external debts. Although that was in place, we continued training teachers, and we have about 60,000 trained teachers who are unemployed and out there. Some of them are teaching as volunteer teachers. However, it is certain that the additional 2 million children requires at least an additional 40,000 teachers. Until we have sat down with the IMF to discuss it, we cannot absorb those teachers into the system because of those ceilings.

MM: The agreement from 1997 is still in place?

Njoroge: Yes, it is.

MM: So there's an agreement that is now 10 years old on how large the wage budget can be for education?

Njoroge: Yes. The ceilings and the agreements that the IMF normally has with individual countries do not necessarily take note of the Millennium Development Goals commitments. For example, almost all countries have agreed that they have to meet the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education, ensuring that all children are going to school. That obviously requires additional teachers, and it requires additional resources in education. Discussions are needed so that additional teachers can be recruited into the system. And those discussions are not taking place in quite a number of countries in Africa.

MM: What has been the experience of other countries in Africa in lifting school fees?

Njoroge: I cannot necessarily give a blanket statement on each of the countries. But I think that it is not right for any country to be charging fees, because that country is forever going to remain in poverty unless it can educate its children. And it is only then that a country can start getting out of poverty and its population can start being able to participate in the economic activities of the country. So any country that is still charging fees ought to be assisted in terms of raising the monies internally as well as getting international support so that their children can actually go to school. I think it is wrong for any country to be charging fees.

MM: Many countries have followed Kenya's example.

Njoroge: Yes. After Kenya abolished its school fees, about 14 other African countries have followed, such as Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana, Malawi.

One of the things that they are following is our financing model, which we introduced for this particular program, where funds are sent directly to school accounts. In the past, funds went through the different levels of [the government] where a lot of resources were deducted for administrative fees. The current system now is sending money directly from the Minister of Finance, through the commercial banks and into bank accounts of individual primary schools. And therefore funds that are meant for the children and the activities of the school are not leaked in between. And, again, what we have done is to establish accountability and transparency standards at the school level, so the principal and the people who are handling the money can be held accountable by committees composed of both teachers and parents, and everybody can follow up on how much money is being spent and where the money at the school level is going. That model has worked both in Kenya and most of the other countries that have abolished fees.

Within Kenya, even the Ministry of Health is in the process of introducing that kind of financing, so they can send their funds directly to their health facilities in the country.

MM: Within Kenya, are fees still in place for secondary schools?

Njoroge: Fees are still in place in secondary schools. However, because of the many, many children who are now completing primary school, everybody - the government and civil society - is concerned and determined that the transition rate from primary to secondary should be raised. And because poverty is still substantial, the government has decided starting in January 2008 to meet the tuition costs in every public secondary school and leave the other fees, for example, for boarding expenses, to be met by the parents and guardians. We do have many boarding schools, particularly for girls. So if parents insist that they want their children to go to a boarding school, then they will meet that cost, but the government has covered the cost of the tuition.

MM: There are efforts to increase support from the rich countries for education. Can you give some sense of where that stands and the importance of foreign aid for supporting education?

Njoroge: In 2000, when the Millennium Development Goals were drafted and agreed on by a number of countries, donor countries agreed that they were going to support the development goals and strategies through what we called the Fast Track Initiative. They agreed to support countries that would take the step of abolishing school fees and allocating national resources for education.

Quite a number of those countries have been contributing. They are not giving all the money that they promised they would contribute, but at least they are providing some funds. Countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Japan and Germany have been contributing to the Fast Track Initiative and the monies have been going to help those countries that have abolished fees.

New Products on the Jubilee Products Page

Probably not too "non-partisan" but lots of fun if you are of a certain persuasion. Pick up one now for your "older" significant other, and bedazzle the pollsters when they call.


make custom gifts at Zazzle

Majority of Americans Want NAFTA Renogiated

A new survey by Rasmusson Reports found that 56 percent of Americans want the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiated - only 16 percent supported the agreement. The survey seems to indicate an even sharper rejection of the free trade deregulation model than an earlier suvey from October. Rising oil and food prices are likely a factor.

Support for the renegotiation of NAFTA was also a consensus heard at a conference IATP co-organized earlier this year with legislators and NGO leaders from the U.S., Mexico and Canada. For a guide on what renegotiation might look like, we should consider an informal agreement between U.S. and Mexican sugar farmers - where the deal is actually designed to work for farmers in both countries, rather than pitting them against each other. Just as NAFTA served as a blueprint for other free trade agreements around the world, a thoughtful, transparent and democratic renegotiation could serve as a blueprint for rethinking future trade agreements.

(http://iatp.typepad.com/thinkforward/2008/06/majority-of-ame.html)

Cap-And-Trade 101


All three of the candidates for president came around at the end of the primary season to support some form of a cap and trade plan to help cut carbon emissions. “Cap and Trade,” in case you missed it, means that laws would be passed to cap the total amount of emissions produced by polluting companies. Some will be able to cut back to a level under that cap and they will be able to “trade” the difference back for credit. Others will still go over that cap, but if they do they will pay for it by fines. The under polluters in effect would be trading their good works for the sins of the over polluters. The hope is that (along other yet-to-be-determined conservation techniques) the combination of carrots and sticks will begin to pull down emissions to tolerable levels before they become simply intolerable and we cease to exist as a species.


With both presidential candidates (and Hillary Clinton) supporting some form of cap and trade, it is certain that next year we will at least begin to move the ball forward on this issue. So, at the very least we have moved from the rejection of any plan in the Bush administration to a debate now on what is the best kind of system.


The difference is between how the permits to pollute are allocated. Senator McCain’s plan would most of the permits to companies that are now the biggest polluters. This makes a lot of sense. The largest polluters are those who will have the hardest time pulling down their emissions to the capped levels.


On the other hand, Senator Obama supports allocating permits through an auction. Under his plan, every company—large or small—would buy the rights to pollute according to how much they go over the cap. The result is that the biggest polluters would pay for the most rights. The logic here is that if they pay a larger fee, then they would have a larger incentive to work harder next year on cutting their carbon emissions.


There is benefit in both plans, but I come down on the second, mainly because I’m unhappy that the worst polluters have been allowed to get to this level in the first place. Atmosphere is something that should be a part of the civic commons. If you use up something that belongs to the total community, then you should pay for it. When a gas company back in Oklahoma uses up the gas under my grandfather’s property, I get a check each month. They are using up my natural resource. We get a dividend for their removing a resource that I own.


Why shouldn’t the same principle apply when industries use the biggest common resource of all? The money they pay for permits could be returned as yearly dividends to every American family. Or they could be spent on pollution research, on environmental resource protection. Every little bit helps.


Part of the logic behind Senator McClain’s proposal is that if the industries that pollute the most will pass their higher fees on to the consumers. That’s true, but at the same time that will decrease their sales (consumers won’t purchase as much of their products) and in the long run it will in their best interests to pull down the emissions to help pull up their incomes. And as soon as they lower their emissions down to below the cap, they will start receiving yearly dividend checks which would offset any price increases.


So, while both plans will move the ball forward on pollutants, in case you happen to be in one of those town meetings the two candidates are talking about and get to ask a question, don’t ask them whether they are for or against cap-and-trade. Ask them how the permits will be divided up. Who wins and who loses on each system. That’s a much smarter question.

America's Democratic Collapse

By Chris Hedges
June 4, 2008

Note: Chris Hedges gave this keynote address on Wednesday, May 28, in Furman University's Younts Conference Center. The address was part of protests by faculty and students over the South Carolina college's decision to invite George W. Bush to give the May 31 commencement address.

When it was announced in May that Bush would deliver the commencement address, 222 students and faculty signed and posted on the school's Web site a statement titled "We Object." The statement cites the war in Iraq and the administration's "obstructing progress on reducing greenhouse gases while favoring billions in tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies that are earning record profits."

"We are ashamed of the actions of this administration. The war in Iraq has cost the lives of over 4,000 brave and honorable U.S. military personnel," the statement read. "Because we love this country and the ideals it stands for, we accept our civic responsibility to speak out against these actions that violate American values."

I used to live in a country called America. It was not a perfect country, God knows, especially if you were African American or Native American or of Japanese descent in World War II, or poor or gay or a woman or an immigrant, but it was a country I loved and honored. This country gave me hope that it could be better. It paid its workers wages that were envied around the world. It made sure these workers, thanks to labor unions and champions of the working class in the Democratic Party and the press, had health benefits and pensions. It offered good public education. It honored basic democratic values and held in regard the rule of law, including international law and respect for human rights. It had social programs from Head Start to welfare to Social Security to take care of the weakest among us, the mentally ill, the elderly and the destitute. It had a system of government that, however flawed, was dedicated to protecting the interests of its citizens. It offered the possibility of democratic change. It had a media that was diverse and endowed with the integrity to give a voice to all segments of society, including those beyond our borders, to impart to us unpleasant truths, to challenge the powerful, to explain ourselves to ourselves.

I am not blind to the imperfections of this America, or the failures to always meet these ideals at home and abroad. I spent 20 years of my life in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans as a foreign correspondent reporting in countries where crimes and injustices were committed in our name, whether during the Contra war in Nicaragua or the brutalization of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation forces. But there was much that was good and decent and honorable in our country. And there was hope.

The country I live in today uses the same words to describe itself, the same patriotic symbols and iconography, the same national myths, but only the shell remains. America, the country of my birth, the country that formed and shaped me, the country of my father, my father's father and his father's father, stretching back to the generations of my family that were here for the country's founding, is so diminished as to be nearly unrecognizable. I do not know if this America will return, even as I pray and work and strive for its return. The "consent of the governed" has become an empty phrase. Our textbooks on political science are obsolete. Our state, our nation, has been hijacked by oligarchs, corporations and a narrow, selfish political elite, a small and privileged group which governs on behalf of moneyed interests. We are undergoing, as John Ralston Saul wrote, "a coup d'etat in slow motion." We are being impoverished -- legally, economically, spiritually and politically. And unless we soon reverse this tide, unless we wrest the state away from corporate hands, we will be sucked into the dark and turbulent world of globalization where there are only masters and serfs, where the American dream will be no more than that -- a dream, where those who work hard for a living can no longer earn a decent wage to sustain themselves or their families, whether in sweatshops in China or the decaying rust belt of Ohio, where democratic dissent is condemned as treason and ruthlessly silenced.

I single out no party. The Democratic Party has been as guilty as the Republicans. It was Bill Clinton who led the Democratic Party to the corporate watering trough. Clinton argued that the party had to ditch labor unions, no longer a source of votes or power, as a political ally. Workers, he insisted, would vote Democratic anyway. They had no choice. It was better, he argued, to take corporate money. By the 1990s, the Democratic Party, under Clinton's leadership, had virtual fundraising parity with the Republicans. Today the Democrats get more. In political terms, it was a success. In moral terms, it was a betrayal.

The North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the country by the Clinton White House as an opportunity to raise the incomes and prosperity of the citizens of the United States, Canada and Mexico. NAFTA would also, we were told, staunch Mexican immigration into the United States.

"There will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home," President Clinton said in the spring of 1993 as he was lobbying for the bill.

But NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, had the curious effect of reversing every one of Clinton's rosy predictions. Once the Mexican government lifted price supports on corn and beans for Mexican farmers, they had to compete against the huge agribusinesses in the United States. The Mexican farmers were swiftly bankrupted. At least 2 million Mexican farmers have been driven off their land since 1994. And guess where many of them went? This desperate flight of poor Mexicans into the United States is now being exacerbated by large-scale factory closures along the border as manufacturers pack up and leave Mexico for the cut-rate embrace of China's totalitarian capitalism. But we were assured that goods would be cheaper. Workers would be wealthier. Everyone would be happier. I am not sure how these contradictory things were supposed to happen, but in a sound-bite society, reality no longer matters. NAFTA was great if you were a corporation. It was a disaster if you were a worker.

Clinton's welfare reform bill, which was signed on Aug. 22, 1996, obliterated the nation's social safety net. It threw 6 million people, many of them single mothers, off the welfare rolls within three years. It dumped them onto the streets without child care, rent subsidies and continued Medicaid coverage. Families were plunged into crisis, struggling to survive on multiple jobs that paid $6 or $7 an hour, or less than $15,000 a year. But these were the lucky ones. In some states, half of those dropped from the welfare rolls could not find work. Clinton slashed Medicare by $115 billion over a five-year period and cut $25 billion in Medicaid funding. The booming and overcrowded prison system handled the influx of the poor, as well as our abandoned mentally ill. And today we stand in shame with 2.3 million of our citizens behind bars, most for nonviolent drug offenses. More than 1 in 100 adults in the United States is incarcerated, and 1 in 9 black men ages 20 to 34 is behind bars. The United States, with less than 5 percent of the global population, has almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners.

The growing desperation across the United States is unleashing not simply a recession -- we have been in a recession for some time now -- but the possibility of a depression unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s. This desperation has provided a pool of broken people willing to work for low wages and without unions or benefits. This is good news if you are a corporation. It is very bad news if you work for a living. For the bottom 90 percent of Americans, annual income has been on a slow, steady decline for three decades. The majority's income peaked at $33,000 in 1973. By 2005, according to New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston in his book "Free Lunch," it had fallen to a bit more than $29,000, this despite three decades of economic expansion. And where did that money go? Ask ExxonMobil, the biggest U.S. oil and gas company, which made a $10.9 billion profit in the first quarter of this year, leaving us to pay close to $4 a gallon to fill up our cars. Or better yet, ask Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson, whose compensation rose nearly 18 percent to $21.7 million in 2007, when the oil company pulled in the largest profit ever for a U.S. company. His take-home pay package included $1.75 million in salary, a $3.36 million bonus and $16.1 million of stock and option awards, according to a company filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He also received nearly $430,000 of other compensation, including $229,331 for personal security and $41,122 for use of the company aircraft. In addition to his pay package, Tillerson, 56, received more than $7.6 million from exercising options and stock awards during the year. Exxon Mobil earned $40.61 billion in 2007, up 3 percent from the previous year. But Tillerson's 2007 pay was not even the highest mark for the U.S. oil and gas industry. Occidental Petroleum Corp. CEO Ray Irani made $33.6 million, and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. chief James Hackett took in $26.7 million over the same period.

For each dollar earned in 2005, the top 10 percent got 48.5 cents. That was the top tenth's greatest share of the income pie, Johnston writes, since 1929, just before the Roaring '20s collapsed in the Great Depression. And within the top 10 percent, those who made more than $100,000, nearly all the gains went to the top tenth of 1 percent, people like Tillerson or Irani or Hackett, who made at least $1.7 million that year. And until we have real election reform, until we make it possible to run for national office without candidates kissing the rings of Tillersons, Iranis and Hacketts to get hundreds of millions of dollars, this rape of America will continue.

While the Democrats have been very bad, George W. Bush has been even worse. Let's set aside Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. George Bush has also done more to dismantle our Constitution, ignore or revoke our statutes and reverse regulations that protected American citizens from corporate abuse than any other president in recent American history. The president, as the Boston Globe reported, has claimed the authority, through "signing statements," to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, whistle-blower protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." George Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional. The Bush administration has gutted environmental, food and product safety, and workplace safety standards along with their enforcement. And this is why coal mines collapse, the housing bubble has blown up in our face, and we are sold lead-contaminated toys imported from China. Bush has done more than any president to hand our government directly over to corporations, which now get 40 percent of federal discretionary spending.

Over 800,000 jobs once handled by government employees have been outsourced to corporations, a move that has not only further empowered our shadow corporate government but helped destroy federal workforce unions. Everything from federal prisons, the management of regulatory and scientific reviews, the processing or denial of Freedom of Information requests, interrogating prisoners and running the world's largest mercenary army in Iraq has become corporate. And these corporations, in a perverse arrangement, make their money off the American citizen. Halliburton in 2003 was given a no-bid and non-compete $7 billion contract to repair Iraq's oil fields, as well as the power to oversee and control Iraq's entire oil production. This has now become $130 billion in contract awards to Halliburton. And flush with taxpayer dollars, what has Haliburton done? It has made sure only 36 of its 143 subsidiaries are incorporated in the United States and 107 subsidiaries (or 75 percent) are incorporated in 30 different countries. Halliburton is able through this arrangement to lower its tax liability on foreign income by establishing a "controlled foreign corporation" and subsidiaries inside low-tax, or no-tax, countries known as a "tax havens." They take our money. They squander it. And our corporate government not only funds them but protects them. Halliburton -- and Halliburton is just one example -- is the engine of our new, rogue corporate state, serviced by people like George Bush and Dick Cheney, once the company's CEO.

The disparity between our oligarchy and the working class has created a new global serfdom. Credit Suisse analysts estimates that the number of subprime foreclosures in the United States over the next two years will total 1,390,000 and that by the end of 2012, 12.7 percent of all residential borrowers in the United States will be forced out of their homes. The corporate state, which as an idea is an abstraction to many Americans, is very real when the pieces are carefully put together and linked to a system of corporate power that has made this poverty, the denial of our constitutional rights, and a state of permanent war inevitable. The assault on the American working class -- an assault that has devastated members of my own family -- is nearly complete. The U.S. economy has 3.2 million fewer jobs today than it did when George Bush took office, including 2.5 million fewer manufacturing jobs. In the past three years, nearly 1 in 5 U.S. workers was laid off. Among workers laid off from full-time work, roughly one-fourth were earning less than $40,000 annually. A total of 15 million U.S. workers are unemployed, underemployed, or too discouraged to job hunt, according to the Labor Department. There are whole sections of the United States which now resemble the developing world. There has been a Weimarization of the American working class. And the assault on the middle class is now under way. Anything that can be put on software -- from finance to architecture to engineering -- can and is being outsourced to workers in countries such as India or China who accept a fraction of the pay and work without benefits. And both the Republican and Democratic parties, beholden to corporations for money and power, allow this to happen.

Take a look at our government departments. Who runs the Defense Department? The Department of Interior? The Department of Agriculture? The Food and Drug Administration? Who runs the Department of Labor? Corporations. And in an election year where we are numbed by absurdities, we hear nothing about this subordinating of the American people to corporate power. The political debates, which have become popularity contests, are ridiculous and empty. They do not confront the real and advanced destruction of our democracy. They do not confront the takeover of our electoral processes.

We have watched over the past few decades the rise of a powerful web of interlocking corporate entities, a network of arrangements within subsectors, industries, or other partial jurisdictions to diminish and often abolish outside control and oversight. These corporations have neutralized national, state and judicial authority. They dominate, for example, a bloated and wasteful defense industry, which has become sacrosanct and beyond the reach of politicians, most of whom are left defending military projects in their districts, no matter how redundant, because they provide jobs. This has permitted a military-industrial complex, which contributes lavishly to political campaigns, to spread across the country with virtual impunity.

Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The U.S. has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions on the planet. The defense budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the Second World War even as we have more than $400 billion in annual deficits. More than half of federal discretionary spending goes to defense. This will not end when Bush leaves office. And so we build Cold War relics like $3.4 billion submarines and stealth fighters to evade radar systems the Soviets never built and spend $ 8.9 billion on ICBM missile defense that will be useless in stopping a shipping container concealing a dirty bomb. The defense industry is able to monopolize the best scientific and research talent and squander the nation's resources and investment capital. These defense industries produce nothing that is useful for society or the national trade account. (Seymour) Melman, like President Eisenhower, saw the defense industry as viral, something that, as it grew, destroyed a healthy economy. And so we produce sophisticated fighter jets while Boeing is unable to finish its new commercial plane on schedule, and our automotive industry tanks. We sink money into research and development of weapons systems and starve technologies to fight against global warming and renewable energy. Universities are awash in defense-related cash and grants, and struggle to find money for environmental studies. This massive military spending, aided by this $3 trillion war, is hollowing us out from the inside. Our bridges and levees collapse, our schools decay, and our safety net is taken away.

The corporate state, begun under Ronald Reagan and pushed forward by every president since, has destroyed the public and private institutions that protected workers and safeguarded citizens. Only 7.8 percent of workers in the private sector are unionized. This is about the same percentage as in the early 1900s. There are 50 million Americans in real poverty and tens of millions of Americans in a category called "near poverty." Our health care system is broken. Eighteen thousand people die in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine, every year because they can't afford health care. That is six times the number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks, and these unnecessary deaths continue year after year. But we do not hear these stories of pain and dislocation. We are diverted by bread and circus. News reports do little more than report on trivia and celebrity gossip. The FCC, in an example of how far our standards have fallen, defines shows like Fox's celebrity gossip program "TMZ" and the Christian Broadcast Network's "700 Club" as "bona fide newscasts." The economist Charlotte Twight calls this vast corporate system of spectacle and democratic collapse "participatory fascism."

How did we get here? How did this happen? In a word, deregulation -- the systematic dismantling of the managed capitalism that was the hallmark of the American democratic state. Our political decline came about because of deregulation, the repeal of antitrust laws, and the radical transformation from a manufacturing economy to a capital economy. This understanding led Franklin Delano Roosevelt on April 29, 1938, to send a message to Congress titled "Recommendations to the Congress to Curb Monopolies and the Concentration of Economic Power." In it, he wrote:

The first truth is that the liberty of democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

The rise of the corporate state has grave political consequences, as we saw in Italy and Germany in the early part of the 20th century. Antitrust laws not only regulate and control the marketplace, they serve as bulwarks to protect democracy. And now that they are gone, now that we have a state that is run by and on behalf of corporations, we must expect inevitable and perhaps terrifying political consequences.

I spent two years traveling the country to write a book on the Christian right called "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." In depressed former manufacturing towns from Ohio to Kentucky it was the same. There are tens of millions of Americans for whom the end of the world is no longer an abstraction. They have lost hope. Fear and instability has plunged the working class into personal and economic despair, and not surprisingly into the arms of the demagogues and charlatans of the radical Christian right who offer a belief in magic, miracles and the fiction of a utopian Christian nation. And unless we re-enfranchise these Americans back into the economy, unless we give them hope, our democracy is doomed.

As the pressure mounts, as this despair and desperation reaches into larger and larger segments of the American populace, the mechanisms of corporate and government control are being bolstered to prevent civil unrest and instability. It is not accidental that with the rise of the corporate state comes the rise of the security state. This is why the Bush White House has pushed through the Patriot Act (and its renewal), the suspension of habeas corpus, the practice of "extraordinary rendition," the warrantless wiretapping on American citizens and the refusal to ensure free and fair elections with verifiable ballot-counting. It is part of a package. It comes together. It is not about terrorism or national security. It is about control. It is about their control of us.

Sen. Frank Church, as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence in 1975, investigated the government's massive and highly secretive National Security Agency. He wrote:

"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. Telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

When Sen. Church made this statement, the NSA was not authorized to spy on American citizens. Today it is.

... We are fed lie after lie to mask the destruction the corporate state has wrought in our lives. The consumer price index, for example, used by the government to measure inflation, has become meaningless. To keep the official inflation figures low, the government has been substituting basic products they once measured to check for inflation with ones that do not rise very much in price. This trick has kept the cost-of-living increases tied to the CPI artificially low. The disconnect between what we are told and what is actually true is worthy of the old East German state. The New York Times' consumer reporter, W.P. Dunleavy, wrote that her groceries now cost $587 a month, up from $400 a year earlier. This is a 40 percent increase. California economist John Williams, who runs an organization called Shadow Statistics, contends that if Washington still used the CPI measurements applied back in the 1970s, inflation would be in the 10 percent range. The advantage to the corporations is huge. A false inflation rate, one far lower than the real rate, keeps equitable interest payments on bank accounts and certificates of deposit down. It masks the deterioration of the American economy. The Potemkin statistics allow corporations and the corporate state to walk away from obligations tied to real adjustments for inflation. These statistics mean that less is paid out in Social Security and pensions. It has reduced the interest on the multitrillion-dollar debt. Corporations never have to pay real cost-of-living increases to their employees. The term "unemployment" has also been steadily redefined. This has rendered official data on employment worthless. In real terms, about 10 percent of the working population is unemployed, a figure that is, over the long run, unsustainable. The economy, despite the official statistics, is not growing. It is shrinking. And as the nation crumbles, we are awash with the terrible simplicity of false statistics. We confuse our emotional responses, carefully manipulated by advertisers, pundits, spin doctors, television hosts, political consultants and focus groups, with knowledge. It is how we elect presidents and those we send to Congress, how we make decisions, even decisions to go to war. It is how we view the world. Four media giants -- AOL-Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, and Rupert Murdoch's NewsGroup -- control nearly everything we read, see and hear. This growing disconnect with reality is the hallmark of a totalitarian state.

"Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines," Hannah Arendt wrote, "totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never-ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations. The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda -- before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone's disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world -- lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world."

So what do we do? Voting is not enough. If voting was that effective, to quote the activist Philip Berrigan, it would be illegal. And voting in an age when elections are stolen by rigged ballot machines and a stacked Supreme Court willing to overturn all legal precedent to make George Bush president, will not work. I am not saying do not vote. We should all vote. But that has to be the starting point if we want to reclaim America. We must lobby, organize and advocate for the dissolution of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. The WTO and NAFTA have handcuffed workers and consumers and stymied our efforts to create clean environments. These agreements are beyond the control of our courts and have crippled our weakened regulatory agencies. The WTO forces our working class to compete with brutalized child and prison labor overseas, to be reduced to this level of slave labor or to go without meaningful work. We need to repeal the anti-worker Taft-Hartley law of 1947. The act obstructs the organization of unions. We need to transfer control of pension funds from management to workers. If these pension funds, worth trillions of dollars, were in the hands of workers, the working class would own a third of the New York Stock Exchange.

The working class has every right to be, to steal a line from Obama, bitter with liberal elites. I am bitter. I have seen what the loss of manufacturing jobs and the death of the labor movement did to my relatives in the former mill towns in Maine. Their story is the story of tens of millions of Americans who can no longer find a job that supports a family and provides basic benefits. Human beings are not commodities. They are not goods. They grieve and suffer and feel despair. They raise children and struggle to maintain communities. The growing class divide is not understood, despite the glibness of many in the media, by complicated sets of statistics or the absurd, utopian faith in unregulated globalization and complicated trade deals. It is understood in the eyes of a man or woman who is no longer making enough money to live with dignity and hope.

George Bush, who will be here on Saturday, has done more to shred, violate or absent the government from its obligations under domestic and international law. He has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons, and defied the Geneva Convention and human rights law. He has set up offshore penal colonies where we deny detainees basic rights and openly engage in torture. He launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. And if we as citizens do not hold him accountable for these crimes, if we allow the Democratic majority in Congress to get away with its refusal to begin the process of impeachment, which appears likely, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that will have terrifying consequences. For a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This new order will undo five decades of international cooperation -- largely put in place by the United States -- destroy our own constitutional rights and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. We are one, maybe two, terrorist attacks away from a police state. Time is running out.

We must not allow international laws and treaties -- ones that set minimum standards of behavior and provide a framework for competing social, political, economic and religious groups and interests to resolve differences -- to be discarded. The exercise of power without law is tyranny. And the consequences of George Bush's violation of the law, his creation of legal black holes that can swallow American citizens along with those outside our borders, run in a direct line from the White House to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and military brigs in cities such as Charleston. George Bush -- we now know from the leaked Downing Street memo -- fabricated a legal pretext for war. He decided to charge Saddam Hussein with the material breach of the resolution passed in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. He had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was in breach of this resolution. And so he and his advisers manufactured reports of weapons of mass destruction and disseminated them to a frightened and manipulated press and public. In short, he lied. He lied to us and to the rest of the world. There are tens of thousands, perhaps a few hundred thousand people, who have been killed and maimed in a war that has no legal justification, a war waged in violation of international law, a war that under the post-Nuremberg laws is defined as "a criminal war of aggression."

We have blundered into nations we know little about. We are caught between bitter rivalries and competing ethnic groups and leaders we do not understand. We are trying to transplant a modern system of politics invented in Europe characterized, among other things, by the division of earth into independent secular states based on national citizenship in a land where the belief in a secular civil government is an alien creed. Iraq was a cesspool for the British when they occupied it in 1917. It will be a cesspool for us as well. We can either begin an orderly withdrawal or watch the mission collapse.

A rule-based world matters. The creation of international bodies and laws, the sanctity of our constitutional rights, have allowed us to stand pre-eminent as a nation -- one that seeks at its best to respect and defend the rule of law. If we demolish the fragile and delicate domestic and international order, if we permit George Bush to create a world where diplomacy, broad cooperation, democracy and law are worthless, if we allow these international and domestic legal safeguards to unravel, our moral and political authority will plummet. We will erode the possibility of cooperation between nation-states, including our closest allies. We will lose our country. And we will, in the end, see visited upon us the evils we visit on others. Read Antigone, when the king imposes his will without listening to those he rules or Thucydides' history. Read how Athens' expanding empire saw it become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. How the tyranny the Athenian leadership imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. This, Thucydides wrote, is what doomed Athenian democracy; Athens destroyed itself. For the primary instrument of tyranny and empire is war and war is a poison, a poison which at times we must ingest just as a cancer patient must ingest a poison to survive. But if we do not understand the poison of war -- if we do not understand how deadly that poison is -- it can kill us just as surely as the disease.

Hope, St. Augustine wrote, has two beautiful daughters. They are anger and courage. Anger at the way things are and the courage to see they do not remain the way they are. We stand at the verge of a massive economic dislocation, one forcing millions of families from their homes and into severe financial distress, one that threatens to rend the fabric of our society. We are waging a war that devours lives and capital, and that cannot ultimately be won. We are told we need to give up our rights to be safe, to be protected. In short, we are made afraid. We are told to hand over all that is best about our nation to those like George Bush and Dick Cheney, who seek to destroy our nation.

A state of fear only engenders cruelty -- cruelty, fear, insanity, and then paralysis. In the center of Dante's circle, the damned remained motionless. If we do not become angry, if we do not muster within us the courage, indeed the militancy, to challenge those in the Democratic and Republican parties who herd us toward the corporate state, we will have squandered our courage and our integrity when we need it most.

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, is a Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. His latest book is Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians.

http://www.alternet.org/story/86973/

Urge Your Senator to Support the Jubilee Act

Join us and call on your U.S. Senators to support the Jubilee Act (S 2166) and break the chains of debt for the world's most impoverished people.

On April 16, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to pass the bi-partisan Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has already held a hearing on the bill on April 24.

Now it is time to TELL THE SENATE to pass the Jubilee Act before time runs out!

The Jubilee Act has strong bi-partisan support in Senate, including over half the members of Foreign Relations Committee, but in order to move the bill forward we need more Senators to show their support by signing on as co-sponsors.

The most important and prophetic debt legislation in seven years, the Jubilee Act will expand access to debt cancellation to all the countries that need it to fight extreme poverty.

If you live in Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York or Oregon: Congratulations, both of your Senators have already signed on to the Jubilee Act (S 2166). But you can still take action by telling your friends and family who live outside of your state to urge their Senators to cosponsor the Jubilee Act. Send a quick email to your loved ones and ask them to make the call.

If you don't live in CT, IL, ME, MN, NY, or OR please show your support for Jubilee by calling ONE or BOTH of your Senators TODAY!

1. Find out who your Senator is by selecting your state from the drop down menu at www.senate.gov (upper right corner). See if one of your Senators has already co-sponsored: List of co-sponsors. If one is a co-sponsor then call the other Senator.

2. Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

3.
Ask to be connected to your Senator's office. The receptionist will answer. Introduce yourself as (your name), a constituent from (city, state).

4.
You will be connected with the staff person (or their voicemail). Say:

"I am calling to urge Senator ________ to support the Jubilee Act (S. 2166), which was passed by the House and had a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, April 24. The Jubilee Act has bipartisan support and would expand debt cancellation for 24 additional impoverished countries, provided they meet criteria to ensure that the money is used for poverty reduction. Do you know Senator _________'s position on the Jubilee Act?"

(You can stop there, or add an additional sentence about why this issue is important to you).

Be sure to thank the receptionist when you are finished.

5. Email Policy Fellow Danielle Pals at danielle@jubileeusa.org with the results of your call. This will enable us to register your Senator's support/opposition and follow up with the office if necessary.

OTHER WAYS TO TAKE ACTION ON THE JUBILEE ACT

If you've already made the call to your Senators, there's still work to do! Here's some ideas of additional ways to push the Jubilee Act forward in the Senate.

Thank you for all of your hard work. Let's keep up the call for Jubilee justice!

In solidarity,

Brian Swarts
National Field Organizer,
Jubilee USA