Friday, March 30, 2012

What Makes Obama Run? From A 1995 Interview

What Makes Obama Run?


Lawyer, teacher, philanthropist, and author Barack Obama doesn't need another career. But he's entering politics to get back to his true passion—community organization



By Hank De Zutter

When Barack Obama returned to Chicago in 1991 after three brilliant years at Harvard Law School, he didn't like what he saw. The former community activist, then 30, had come fresh from a term as president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, a position he was the first African-American to hold. Now he was ready to continue his battle to organize Chicago's black neighborhoods. But the state of the city muted his exuberance.

"Upon my return to Chicago," he would write in the epilogue to his recently published memoir, Dreams From My Father, "I would find the signs of decay accelerated throughout the South Side—the neighborhoods shabbier, the children edgier and less restrained, more middle-class families heading out to the suburbs, the jails bursting with glowering youth, my brothers without prospects. All too rarely do I hear people asking just what it is that we've done to make so many children's hearts so hard, or what collectively we might do to right their moral compass—what values we must live by. Instead I see us doing what we've always done—pretending that these children are somehow not our own."

Today, after three years of law practice and civic activism, Obama has decided to dive into electoral politics. He is running for the Illinois Senate, he says, because he wants to help create jobs and a decent future for those embittered youth. But when he met with some veteran politicians to tell them of his plans, the only jobs he says they wanted to talk about were theirs and his. Obama got all sorts of advice. Some of it perplexed him; most of it annoyed him. One African-American elected official suggested that Obama change his name, which he'd inherited from his late Kenyan father. Another told him to put a picture of his light-bronze, boyish face on all his campaign materials, "so people don't see your name and think you're some big dark guy."

Obama, running to be the Democratic candidate for the 13th District on the south side, was also told—even by fellow progressives—that he might be too independent, that he should strike a few deals to assure his election. Another well-meaning adviser suggested never posing for photos with a glass in his hand—even if he wasn't drinking alcohol.

"Now all of this may be good political advice," Obama said, "but it's all so superficial. I am surprised at how many elected officials—even the good ones—spend so much time talking about the mechanics of politics and not matters of substance. They have this poker chip mentality, this overriding interest in retaining their seats or in moving their careers forward, and the business and game of politics, the political horse race, is all they talk about. Even those who are on the same page as me on the issues never seem to want to talk about them. Politics is regarded as little more than a career."

Obama doesn't need another career. As a civil rights lawyer, teacher, philanthropist, and author, he already has no trouble working 12-hour days. He says he is drawn to politics, despite its superficialities, as a means to advance his real passion and calling: community organization.

Obama thinks elected officials could do much to overcome the political paralysis of the nation's black communities. He thinks they could lead their communities out of twin culs-de-sac: the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation—which helps a few upwardly mobile blacks to "move up, get rich, and move out"—and the equally impractical politics of black rage and black nationalism—which exhorts but does not organize ordinary folks or create realistic agendas for change.

Obama, whose political vision was nurtured by his work in the 80s as an organizer in the far-south-side communities of Roseland and Altgeld Gardens, proposes a third alternative. Not new to Chicago—which is the birthplace of community organizing—but unusual in electoral politics, his proposal calls for organizing ordinary citizens into bottom-up democracies that create their own strategies, programs, and campaigns and that forge alliances with other disaffected Americans. Obama thinks elected officials—even a state senator—can play a critical catalytic role in this rebuilding.

Obama is certainly not the first candidate to talk about the politics of community empowerment. His views, for instance, are not that different from those of the person he would replace, state senator Alice Palmer, who gave Obama her blessing after deciding to run for the congressional seat vacated by Mel Reynolds. She promised Obama that if she lost—which is what happened on November 28—she wouldn't then run against him to keep her senate seat.

What makes Obama different from other progressive politicians is that he doesn't just want to create and support progressive programs; he wants to mobilize the people to create their own. He wants to stand politics on its head, empowering citizens by bringing together the churches and businesses and banks, scornful grandmothers and angry young. Mostly he's running to fill a political and moral vacuum. He says he's tired of seeing the moral fervor of black folks whipped up—at the speaker's rostrum and from the pulpit—and then allowed to dissipate because there's no agenda, no concrete program for change.

While no political opposition to Obama has arisen yet, many have expressed doubts about the practicality of his ambitions. Obama himself says he's not certain that his experimental plunge into electoral politics can produce the kind of community empowerment and economic change he's after.

"Three major doubts have been raised," he said. The first is whether in today's political environment—with its emphasis on media and money—a grass-roots movement can even be created. Will people still answer the call of participatory politics?

"Second," Obama said, "many believe that the country is too racially polarized to build the kind of multiracial coalitions necessary to bring about massive economic change.

"Third, is it possible for those of us working through the Democratic Party to figure out ways to use the political process to create jobs for our communities?"

Obama's intriguing candidacy is the latest adventure in a fascinating life chronicled in Dreams From My Father, published this summer by Times Books. In Obama's words, the book is "a boy's search for his father, and through that search a workable meaning for his life as a black American." In the book, which reads more like a novel than a memoir, Obama comes to terms with the legacy of the African father who left his mother and him when he was two, dropped by when he was ten, and died in an auto accident when he was finishing college. While doing so, Obama takes readers on a multicultural odyssey through three continents and several political philosophies. He casts a skeptical if sympathetic eye on white liberalism, black nationalism, integration, separatism, small-scale economic development, and the transient effectiveness of charismatic black political leaders like the late mayor Washington. While Obama credits all these political movements with bringing some progress to middle-class blacks, he believes that none have built enduring institutions and none have halted the unraveling of black America.

Obama is the product of a brief early-60s college romance and short-lived marriage between a black African exchange student and a white liberal Kansan who met at the University of Hawaii. His critical boyhood years—from two to ten—were spent neither in white nor black America but in the teeming streets and jungle outskirts of Djakarta. Obama's boyhood experiences in Indonesia—where his mother took him when she married another foreign exchange student—propelled him toward a worldview well beyond his mother's liberalism.

"The poverty, the corruption, the constant scramble for security . . . remained all around me and bred a relentless skepticism. My mother's confidence in needlepoint virtues depended on a faith I didn't possess. . . . In a land where fatalism remained a necessary tool for enduring hard-ship . . . she was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism."

When Obama moved back to his grandparents' home in Hawaii, to attend the prestigious Punahou School, he encountered race and class prejudice that would darken his politics even more. At first embarrassed by his race and African name, he soon bonded with the few other African-American students. He quickly learned that integration was a one-way street, with blacks expected to assimilate into a white world that never gave ground. He participated in bitter bull sessions with his buddies on the theme of "how white folks will do you." Obama, who had to reconcile these sentiments with the loving support he had at home from his white mother and grandparents, dismissed much of his buddies' analysis as "the same sloppy thinking" used by racist whites, but he found the racism of whites to be particularly stubborn and obnoxious.

Obama objected when his Punahou basketball coach upbraided the team for losing to "a bunch of niggers." Obama writes that the coach "calmly explained the apparently obvious fact that 'there are black people, and there are niggers. Those guys were niggers.'"

"That's just how white folks will do you," Obama writes. "It wasn't merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn't know they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn."

Obama's politics were tinged with nihilism during his undergraduate years at Occidental College outside Los Angeles. There he played it cool and detached, and began to confuse partying and getting high with rebellion. After he and his buddies joked about the Mexican cleaning woman's forlorn reaction to the mess they'd created at a party, Obama was jolted back to reality by the criticism of a fellow black student, a young Chicago woman. "You think that's funny?" she told him. "That could have been my grandmother, you know. She had to clean up behind people for most of her life." Obama later transferred to Columbia University, where he was shocked by the casual tolerance of whites and blacks alike for the wide disparity between New York City's opulence and ghetto poverty. He graduated from Columbia with a double major in English literature and political science, and a determination to "organize black folks. At the grass roots." He wrote scores of letters looking for the right job, and almost a year later got an offer to come to Chicago. He gave up a job as a financial writer with an international consulting firm and became a $1,000-a-month community organizer.

Here in Chicago, Obama worked as lead organizer for the Developing Communities Project, a campaign funded by south-side Catholic churches to counteract the dislocation and massive unemployment caused by the closing and downsizing of southeast Chicago steel plants.

From 1984 to '88 Obama built an organization in Roseland and the nearby Altgeld Gardens public housing complex that mobilized hundreds of citizens. Obama says the campaign experienced "modest successes" in winning residents a place at the table where a job-training facility was launched, asbestos and lead paint were negotiated out of the local schools, and community interests were guarded in the development of the area's landfills.

Obama left for Harvard in 1988, vowing to return. He excelled at Harvard Law and gave up an almost certain Supreme Court clerkship to come back as promised. Here he met and married his wife, Michelle, a fellow lawyer and activist, joined a law firm headed by Judson Miner, Mayor Washington's corporation counsel, moved into a lakefront condominium in Hyde Park, and launched a busy civic life. He sits on the boards of two foundations with long histories of backing social and political reform, including his own community work—the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. Recently he was appointed president of the board of the Annenberg Challenge Grant, which will distribute some $50 million in grants to public-school reform efforts.

In 1992 Obama took time off to direct Project Vote, the most successful grass-roots voter-registration campaign in recent city history. Credited with helping elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the U.S. Senate, the registration drive, aimed primarily at African-Americans, added an estimated 125,000 voters to the voter rolls—even more than were registered during Harold Washington's mayoral campaigns. "It's a power thing," said the brochures and radio commercials.

Obama's work on the south side has won him the friendship and respect of many activists. One of them, Johnnie Owens, left the citywide advocacy group Friends of the Parks to join Obama at the Developing Communities Project. He later replaced Obama as its executive director.

"What I liked about Barack immediately is that he brought a certain level of sophistication and intelligence to community work," Owens says. "He had a reasonable, focused approach that I hadn't seen much of. A lot of organizers you meet these days are these self-anointed leaders with this strange, way-out approach and unrealistic, eccentric way of pursuing things from the very beginning. Not Barack. He's not about calling attention to himself. He's concerned with the work. It's as if it's his mission in life, his calling, to work for social justice.

"Anyone who knows me knows that I'm one of the most cynical people you want to see, always looking for somebody's angle or personal interest," Owens added. "I've lived in Chicago all my life. I've known some of the most ruthless and biggest bullshitters out there, but I see nothing but integrity in this guy."

Jean Rudd, executive director of the Woods Fund, is another person on guard against self-appointed, self-promoting community leaders. She admires not only Obama's intelligence but his honesty. "He is one of the most articulate people I have ever met, but he doesn't use his gift with language to promote himself. He uses it to clarify the difficult job before him and before all of us. He's not a promoter; from the very beginning, he always makes it clear what his difficulties are. His honesty is refreshing."

Woods was the first foundation to underwrite Obama's work with DCP. Now that he's on the Woods board, Rudd says, "He is among the most hard-nosed board members in wanting to see results. He wants to see our grants make change happen—not just pay salaries."

Another strong supporter of Obama's work—as an organizer, as a lawyer, and now as a candidate—is Madeline Talbott, lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization, a group that's a thorn in the side of most elected officials. "I can't repeat what most ACORN members think and say about politicians. But Barack has proven himself among our members. He is committed to organizing, to building a democracy. Above all else, he is a good listener, and we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side. Conducting a session in a New Horizons classroom, Obama, tall and thin, looks very much like an Ivy League graduate student. Dressed casually prep, his tie loosened and his top shirt button unfastened, he leads eight black women from the Grand Boulevard community through a discussion of "what folks should know" about who in Chicago has power and why they have it. It's one of his favorite topics, and the class bubbles with suggestions about how "they" got to be high and mighty.

"Slow down now. You're going too fast now," says Obama. "I want to break this down. We talk 'they, they, they' but don't take the time to break it down. We don't analyze. Our thinking is sloppy. And to the degree that it is, we're not going to be able to have the impact we could have. We can't afford to go out there blind, hollering and acting the fool, and get to the table and don't know who it is we're talking to—or what we're going to ask them—whether it's someone with real power or just a third-string flak catcher."

Later Obama gets to another favorite topic—the lack of collective action among black churches. "All these churches and all these pastors are going it alone. And what do we have? These magnificent palatial churches in the midst of the ruins of some of the most run-down neighborhoods we'll ever see. All pastors go on thinking about how they are going to 'build my church,' without joining with others to try to influence the factors or forces that are destroying the neighborhoods. They start food pantries and community-service programs, but until they come together to build something bigger than an effective church all the community-service programs, all the food pantries they start will barely take care of even a fraction of the community's problems."

"In America," Obama says, "we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations."

In an interview after the class, Obama again spoke of the need to organize and mobilize the economic power and moral fervor of black churches. He also argued that as a state senator he might help bring this about faster than as a community organizer or civil rights lawyer.

"What we need in America, especially in the African-American community, is a moral agenda that is tied to a concrete agenda for building and rebuilding our communities," he said. "We have moved beyond the clarion call stage that was needed during the civil rights movement. Now, like Nelson Mandela in South Africa, we must move into a building stage. We must invest our energy and resources in a massive rebuilding effort and invent new mechanisms to strengthen and hasten this community-building effort.

"We have no shortage of moral fervor," said Obama. "We have some wonderful preachers in town—preachers who continue to inspire me—preachers who are magnificent at articulating a vision of the world as it should be. In every church on Sunday in the African-American community we have this moral fervor; we have energy to burn.

"But as soon as church lets out, the energy dissipates. We must find ways to channel all this energy into community building. The biggest failure of the civil rights movement was in failing to translate this energy, this moral fervor, into creating lasting institutions and organizational structures."

Obama added that as important and inspiring as it was, the Washington administration also let an opportunity go by. "Washington was the best of the classic politicians," Obama said. "He knew his constituency; he truly enjoyed people. That can't be said for a lot of politicians. He was not cynical about democracy and the democratic process—as so many of them are. But he, like all politicians, was primarily interested in maintaining his power and working the levers of power.

"He was a classic charismatic leader," Obama said, "and when he died all of that dissipated. This potentially powerful collective spirit that went into supporting him was never translated into clear principles, or into an articulable agenda for community change.

"The only principle that came through was 'getting our fair share,' and this runs itself out rather quickly if you don't make it concrete. How do we rebuild our schools? How do we rebuild our communities? How do we create safer streets? What concretely can we do together to achieve these goals? When Harold died, everyone claimed the mantle of his vision and went off in different directions. All that power dissipated.

"Now an agenda for getting our fair share is vital. But to work, it can't see voters or communities as consumers, as mere recipients or beneficiaries of this change. It's time for politicians and other leaders to take the next step and to see voters, residents, or citizens as producers of this change. The thrust of our organizing must be on how to make them productive, how to make them employable, how to build our human capital, how to create businesses, institutions, banks, safe public spaces—the whole agenda of creating productive communities. That is where our future lies.

"The right wing talks about this but they keep appealing to that old individualistic bootstrap myth: get a job, get rich, and get out. Instead of investing in our neighborhoods, that's what has always happened. Our goal must be to help people get a sense of building something larger.

"The political debate is now so skewed, so limited, so distorted," said Obama. "People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change.

"What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer," he wondered, "as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.

"The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.

"Now we have to take this same language—these same values that are encouraged within our families—of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other—and apply them to a larger society. Let's talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values. Right now we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant, not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more."

Obama said he's not at all comfortable with the political game of getting and staying elected, of raising money in backroom deals and manipulating an electable image.

"I am also finding people equivocating on their support. I'm talking about progressive politicians who are on the same page with me on the issues but who warn me I may be too independent."

Although Obama has built strong relationships with people inside Mayor Daley's administration, he has not asked for their support in his campaign. Nor has he sought the mayor's endorsement.

"I want to do this as much as I can from the grass-roots level, raising as much money for the campaign as possible at coffees, connecting directly with voters," said Obama. "But to organize this district I must get known. And this costs money. I admit that in this transitional period, before I'm known in the district, I'm going to have to rely on some contributions from wealthy people—people who like my ideas but who won't attach strings. This is not ideal, but it is a problem encountered by everyone in their first campaign.

"Once elected, once I'm known, I won't need that kind of money, just as Harold Washington, once he was elected and known, did not need to raise and spend money to get the black vote."

Obama took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October's Million Man March in Washington, D.C. His experiences there only reinforced his reasons for jumping into politics.

"What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said. "There was a profound sense that African-American men were ready to make a commitment to bring about change in our communities and lives.

"But what was lacking among march organizers was a positive agenda, a coherent agenda for change. Without this agenda a lot of this energy is going to dissipate. Just as holding hands and singing 'We shall overcome' is not going to do it, exhorting youth to have pride in their race, give up drugs and crime, is not going to do it if we can't find jobs and futures for the 50 percent of black youth who are unemployed, underemployed, and full of bitterness and rage.

"Exhortations are not enough, nor are the notions that we can create a black economy within America that is hermetically sealed from the rest of the economy and seriously tackle the major issues confronting us," Obama said.

"Any solution to our unemployment catastrophe must arise from us working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent, and international economy. Any African-Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don't also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers—whites, Latinos, and Asians. We must deal with the forces that are depressing wages, lopping off people's benefits right and left, and creating an earnings gap between CEOs and the lowest-paid worker that has risen in the last 20 years from a ratio of 10 to 1 to one of better than 100 to 1.

"This doesn't suggest that the need to look inward emphasized by the march isn't important, and that these African-American tribal affinities aren't legitimate. These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a 'lock 'em up, take no prisoners' mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress. Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."

"But cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done. Anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements are not going to lift us up. We've got some hard nuts-and-bolts organizing and planning to do. We've got communities to build."

Obama Pits America’s Makers Against Its Takers

The Obama Record: GOP White House contenders think the president is taking the country down the path to "European socialism." They're wrong. It could be something much more radical.

Eight years ago, virtually out of nowhere, Barack Obama burst onto the national political scene. Few knew this young politician from Chicago, who was trained as a community organizer and civil-rights lawyer.

Fewer still knew of his carefully calculated plans for using the democratic process to gain power and bring about "social change" on a large scale.

But gain it he did. And now — after his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his 2008 presidential triumph — we've had a chance to see how that "change" looks. Obama has unleashed a juggernaut of legislation and regulations on industry that rival the New Deal in scope.

From the moment he stepped into office, Obama has used his power to redistribute capital and bring corporate America under state control. Among other things, he has:

Forced all large banks, including healthy ones, to take federal bailout money while forcing them to pass stress tests before they can get out from under state control.

Forced banks to renegotiate private mortgage contracts to forgive principal payments for customers while ordering the banks to liberalize their lending practices and even open branches in blighted and unprofitable areas outside their service area.

Signed sweeping regulations that give the state new authority to control the entire financial sector — from banks to hedge funds to insurance companies to even car dealers.

(The Dodd-Frank Act gives Obama unprecedented powers to monitor and redirect the capital flow of all financial firms, as well as adjust their capital requirements and even shut them down and restructure them.)

Renegotiated the terms of Detroit creditor contracts so autoworkers get preferential treatment at the expense of shareholders while preserving the high union cost structure that bankrupted GM and Chrysler.

("I owe those unions," Obama has said. "When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I got into politics to fight for these folks.")

Centralized control of the health care industry through 2,730 pages of new mandates that bring insurance companies and drugmakers under the supervision of the state and force the wealthy to subsidize the uninsured at a starting cost of $1.6 trillion.

Transferred an additional $1 trillion in private taxpayer wealth to welfare programs and public works projects, which have increased dependency on the state to record levels.

All of these measures put more power in the hands of the state and, in the case of health care, exert more control over the individual lives of Americans. As such, few are popular.

So how did Obama do it? Or more to the point, how did he get away with doing it?

By making capitalists the enemy of the people. By using media propaganda to convince enough people who lost their jobs or homes in the financial crisis that they were victims of Wall Street "exploitation."

And by fomenting class envy between "the 99%" of Americans he imagines as "struggling" and a nebulous 1% overclass of "millionaires and billionaires" and "fat cat bankers" he demonizes as "greedy."

"We can either settle for a country where a few people are doing very well and everybody else is having to just struggle to get by, or we can build an economy where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share," Obama said Feb. 21 from the White House.

"That's the economy that I want," he added. "Those who don't want it will be forced to pay their fair share."

History provides a harsh reminder of how such class warfare ends if carried out to its extreme.

Less than a century ago, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia portrayed a life-or-death "class struggle" between capitalists and workers. The Bolsheviks were inspired by Karl Marx, another trained lawyer who never spent a day in the private sector. They followed his 1848 blueprint for worker revolution, "The Communist Manifesto."

Marx argued that capitalism splits industrial society into two hostile camps: the "bourgeois" — whom he described as anyone employing a worker, owning a business or making money from investments — and the "proletariat" that he figured made up the other 90% of society. He claimed that the wealth controlled by the top 10% "exists solely due to its nonexistence in the hands of those (other) nine-tenths."

In other words, profits produced by merchants, entrepreneurs and investors don't really belong to them. Marx believed they were stolen from workers and that workers would one day rise up and, justifiably, "wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois."

Turning the tables, the working class would then become the ruling class — though Marx believed this would happen in stages.

Socialism was the first or "lower" phase of communist society, he envisioned, where democracy and vestiges of capitalism are still present but only as a means to an end.

The final or "higher" phase of communism abandons state capitalism altogether and runs a centrally planned economy under a new constitution.

"Only then," Marx proclaimed, "can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Marx argued the dreams of the "individual" should be sacrificed for the "collective."

"Individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations." (Actually it wasn't Marx who said that — it was Obama, in a little-noticed 1995 interview he conducted with a liberal Chicago journal.)

Marx also called for abolishing the traditions, institutions and religions of the old order, arguing that the masses couldn't fully serve "the State" if they still clung to religion. (Again, hearing any echoes?)

The Bolsheviks struck in 1917. Their leader, V.I. Lenin, immediately declared war on banks, scapegoating "vile" and "greedy" bankers and merchants for all the problems of the underclass. His battle cry, as he seized banks and shops, was "Loot the looters!"

For the revolution to succeed, Lenin said he had to first control capital. And if he controlled banks, he could more easily control the industries they financed.

Nationalizing medicine was also key. If the communists controlled health care, Lenin said, they could own and control families — from cradle to grave.

Lenin's other main target was the education system. If the Reds socialized schooling, from kindergarten to college, they could brainwash the masses into serving the state instead of their own "selfish" interests.

By 1920, Lenin had established "free" universal health care (excluding the "deprived class" of merchants) and "free" higher education for all (except for the sons and daughters of merchants, who were blocked from college).

He also had succeeded in nationalizing all commercial banks as well as transportation.

How did the new ruling class finance (at least in the initial stages, before the USSR went bankrupt) its "fairer" economy? By soaking the rich with punitive taxes, redistributing their wealth and shaking down bankers. Sound familiar?

Such battle lines have, tragically, been redrawn in America, the same capitalist nation that defeated Soviet communism only two decades ago.

On one side are the people who create wealth. On the other are those who loot it.

This election, the most critical in American history, will decide who wins.

There Goes Obama Again, Misleading About The Energy Industry

As Ronald Reagan famously said, "There you go again."

Of course, Reagan was blaming Jimmy Carter for launching false attacks during a debate. And that line was so effective, it not only helped Reagan win the debate, but a presidential election that would change American history.

But "there you go again" can apply equally to President Obama. Once again this week, the president was out on the campaign trail bashing and oil and gas companies. And he continued to spread major falsehoods about this industry, which I guess is the polite way to put it.

Obama is obsessed with oil and gas. He is a prisoner of the left-wing environmental groups. And really, he's extending his leftist class-warfare attack from rich people to successful oil and gas producers.

What seems to have Obama especially steamed is the fact that the conventional-energy companies are profitable. Especially the five largest. So he wants to tax them. He then wants to redistribute their income to his favorite green-energy firms. Sound familiar?

I don't know which is more important to the president — the fact that he hates fossil fuel, or the fact that he hates success. Or that he wants an energy-entitlement state. But here's what I do know, factually.

Oil companies have an effective corporate tax rate well above 40%. And they operate within one of the highest-taxed industries in America. According to the Tax Foundation, for more than 25 years, oil and gas companies have sent more tax dollars to Washington and state capitals than they earned in profits. That's a fact.

Single-handedly, oil and gas companies finance over 10% of nondefense discretionary spending within the U.S. budget. According to the Wall Street Journal, Exxon Mobil, the world's largest energy firm, paid out $59 billion in total U.S. taxes over the five years prior to 2010 while earning only $40.5 billion in domestic profits.

And Obama wants to raise taxes on conventional-energy firms by somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion? Whatever happened to the supply-side principle that if you tax something more, you get less of it?

But with gasoline prices headed towards $5 a gallon, and with oil prices over $100 a barrel, virtually the whole country outside of the White House wants more oil, more retail gas for the pump and more energy supplies everywhere in order to bring prices down. Raising taxes won't do it.

Make no mistake about it: Fossil fuel is going to drive the U.S. economy for decades to come. Green energy is not.

Obama's other line of attack is that oil companies shouldn't get any subsidies. They made too much money for that. Well, I'm against oil subsidies. There's about $90 billion worth in the federal budget. Better to end them, slash corporate tax rates across the board, and let the free market decide energy policy and production.

But on the subject of subsidies, so-called renewable-energy subsidies (think Solyndra) are 49 times greater than fossil-fuel subsidies, according to studies by the Congressional Research Service. And the Congressional Budget Office says renewable green energy received 68% of energy-related tax preferences in fiscal year 2011, while fossil fuels got only 15%.

Additionally, oil, natural gas, and coal received 64 cents per megawatt hour in subsidies, while wind power alone received $56.29 per megawatt hour. That's 100 times what fossil fuels got.

By the way, the so-called subsidies that Obama is talking about are really depreciation write-offs for investment. Oil companies get a 6% deduction from income. Most manufacturing industries get 9%. And every company in the economy is eligible for faster investment write-offs.

Frankly, the most pro-growth corporate-tax policy would be 100% cash-expensing for new investment, a slashed corporate tax rate, and no more subsidies, preferences and carve-outs. That would be a huge job-creator.

But Obama is too busy spewing falsehoods to support his ideological agenda than to take account of the facts. And while he's at it, one of the greatest, pro-growth revolutions ever is taking place right under his nose. It's the oil and gas shale miracle, which if left unfettered will turn America and Canada into an energy-independent New Middle East inside of 10 years.

In fact, the collapse of natural-gas prices brought on by this revolution could become one of the biggest tax cuts for the economy in history, making all our industries vastly more competitive, revolutionizing transportation, and providing more consumer real income at home.

Obama should quit the demagoguery, stop bashing oil and gas, stop taxing success, and let our ingenious, creative, free-enterprise private economy spur America to a new generation of prosperity.

The U.S. Is Now No. 1— In Corporate Tax Rates

Taxes: As the president complains once again that oil companies are getting unfair tax breaks, the U.S. passes Japan as the leader in business taxes. Workers, investors and entrepreneurs will bear the cost.

On April 1, Japan will cut its corporate tax rate to 36.8% from 39.5%. This includes a 10% surtax that will expire in 2014. As it does, the U.S. will officially have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, with average combined federal and state profit levies of 39.2%. And, no, this is not an April Fools' joke.

The news comes after President Obama once again said oil company profits justified ending $4 billion in "subsidies" and shifting the money to research on clean-energy fuels.

Except there's no money to shift since the $4 billion is simply money the government doesn't take in the first place under incentives available to all manufacturing companies, from Apple to President Obama's favorite company, General Electric.

Just as we are the only industrial country not fully developing its domestic energy resources, we are the only country not slashing its corporate taxes. Great Britain was to cut its corporate tax rate on April 1 to 24% from 26% and will cut the rate again to 23% in 2013.

On Jan. 1 of this year, Canada cut its federal corporate tax rate to 15% from 16.5%.

Canada's combined rate is 26% when the average rate of the Canadian provinces is added to the federal rate. Coupled with an unfettered energy development policy, Canada's tax policy creates a low-cost, business-friendly environment, unlike the America that Obama is fundamentally transforming into a socialist command-economy that tilts at windmills.

It was the final link in Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's pro-growth Economic Action Plan. There is no railing against corporate greed and oil companies north of the border.

"Creating jobs and growth is our top priority," says Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. "Through our government low-tax plan ... we are continuing to send the message that Canada is open for business and the best place to invest."

Canada understands that to create growth you must let the risk takers reap the rewards of success. On the flip side, you don't bail out the failures.

Neither do you try to pick winners and losers. You let the free market do that. The way to create revenue growth is to increase the tax base, not the tax rates.

Canadian policy favors those who pull the wagon rather than those who ride it. It also favors the creation of wealth rather than the redistribution of it.

"The Harper government has pursued a strategic objective to disembed the federal state from the lives of citizens," wrote University of Calgary professor Barry Cooper in the Calgary Herald.

Sounds like a plan to us.

According to "Paying Taxes 2012," published by the World Bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers, there have been 133 major corporate tax cuts globally since 2006. From 2006 to 2010 alone, more than 75 nations cut their corporate tax rates — some more than once.

A chart produced by the Tax Foundation using OECD and IMF data shows that while our corporate tax rate has remained as flat as our economy, the rest of the world has discovered that lower corporate tax rates are good for business and economic growth.

When you tax something, you get less of it, particularly when you're talking about economic activity.

Corporations in fact do not pay taxes, but pass on money to the government that comes from higher prices for their goods and services, lower wages and benefits for fewer workers, and lower dividends to their stockholders and investors.

Yet the Obama administration, bucking a worldwide trend, continues to fixate on the distribution of the golden eggs rather than the health of the goose.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

New York's Bloomberg Says Let The Homeless Eat Nothing

Nanny State: It seemed impossible, but New York's Big Brother Bloomberg has outdone his smoking and trans-fat bans. He is ordering homeless shelters to refuse donated food that isn't nutritionally "assessed."

'Let them eat squat" might be an appropriate motto for New York City's "mayor for life," Michael Bloomberg, who in 2009 broke his promise to honor the city's term limits law. He would rather see the five boroughs' downtrodden starve than consume excess cholesterol.

City hall says that it cannot analyze food that organizations have been donating for years or even decades, so the shelters must turn the food away. A new document from the bureaucracy dictates serving sizes, as well as salt, fat and calorie limits, fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.

As the New York Post reports, the Upper West Side orthodox Jewish congregation Ohab Zedek can no longer drop off "freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events" — a common charitable activity carried out by many of the city's churches and other religious institutions.

Today, state power over the individual has expanded, with Bloomberg successfully banning smoking in all commercial locales and the serving of trans fats in all city restaurants — the latter a dubious health measure since other fats can be worse for your body.

Much of the supposedly nonnutritious food that Bloomberg has banned from the homeless really amounts to leftovers from what the city's rich eat. No wonder a Rasmussen poll this week found 82% of American adults opposed to such a ludicrous ban.

But lefty New York politicians such as Bloomberg are proud to see their diktats emulated elsewhere, in spite of the cost in personal freedom. Elk Grove, Calif., for instance, is now considering banning smoking in all apartment complexes.

That's right: The health police are invading your home. But fleeing to your local homeless shelter may mean starving.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Two new polls show majority want Supreme Court to overturn ObamaCare

As the issue of ObamaCare goes to the Supreme Court this week, two new polls show what most other pollsters have found for the last two years — the majority of Americans want ObamaCare overturned. We’ll start with the new Reason-Rupe poll, which surveyed 1200 general-population adults to find that 62% believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional:

As the Supreme Court hears challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act this week, a new Reason-Rupe poll of 1,200 adults finds 62 percent of Americans believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance, while 30 percent think requiring health insurance is constitutional.

Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. The Reason-Rupe poll finds 87 percent of Americans believe Congress does not have the power to require the purchase of broccoli, while 8 percent say Congress can force you to buy vegetables.

Reason-Rupe finds 54 percent of Americans think the health care law will result in the rationing of health care services. Half of Americans have an unfavorable view of the health care law, while 32 percent have a favorable view of it. Similarly, 49 percent say the law should be repealed and 36 percent would let it stand.

There’s a fairly obvious disconnect in these numbers, in the 13-point difference between respondents who say that the law is unconstitutional (62%) while only 49% want it repealed. That leaves 13% who think it violates the Constitution but somehow think it should remain law — or at best are unsure whether it should or not. This looks like a symptom of poor civics instruction in the US, which should teach that the Constitution is the foundational legal document of the country, and that laws cannot contradict it, especially federal law, which the Constitution explicitly exists to limit.

Still, only 36% think it should be kept in place in the Reason/Rupe survey, which is otherwise rather friendly to Obama. The D/R/I is a strange 41/38/13, but at least the difference between Democrats and Republicans is within the ballpark, even if independents are undersampled. Obama’s job approval rating in this survey is 48/46, although his approval on economic policy is 44/53. A majority of the respondents say they will either definitely vote for Obama (30%) or could do so (21%). Those are better numbers than Obama gets in other polls, so the survey hardly oversampled Obama critics to get these numbers.

The sample is a little different in The Hill’s poll, but the results are about the same:

Half of likely voters want the Supreme Court to overturn President Obama’s healthcare law, according to The Hill’s latest poll.

Just 42 percent said the court should uphold the law, with 50 percent saying it should be struck down.

A majority of both men and women want the law voided. By a 52-percent-to-39-percent margin women are more opposed to it than men, who oppose it 48 percent to 45 percent, a difference that matches the poll’s 3-point margin of error.

Only blacks (74 percent), Democrats (71 percent) and liberals (75 percent) want the law upheld. While even the youngest voters oppose the law (47 percent to 42 percent among those aged 18-39), opposition grows to 53 percent among voters aged 65 and older.

This poll surveyed likely voters rather than general-population adults, and its D/R/I is 32/36/32, which probably oversamples Republicans by a small margin at the expense of Democrats. However, the numbers aren’t that much different. That’s bad news for President Obama, especially when it comes to the public perception of his signature legislative achievement. Only 22% believe it will make the quality of health care better — twenty points lower than those who want the bill upheld. Forty-two percent believe it will make health care worse, and another 30% believe it will do nothing to improve or worsen health care, which makes nearly three-quarters of likely voters who believe ObamaCare will either be ineffective or worse.

That’s not the only problem for Obama in this poll, either. Democrats have owned the health care issue for years over Republicans, usually well into double digits. Today’s poll shows a dead heat between Democrats and Republicans on trust regarding health-care policies, 44% each (indies give Dems the edge, but within the MoE at 40/37). That’s a big problem for Democrats heading into the fall elections, especially with Obama getting hammered on another traditional Democratic strength, the economy [see update III].

Finally, there is a big vote of no-confidence in the Supreme Court as well. The Hill asked whether the justices decide cases based on the Constitution or on their own personal political beliefs. By more than 2-1 (56/27), voters believe the justices act on their personal political beliefs rather than the Constitution. That ratio holds up across every demographic in the crosstabs. One presumes that a 5-4 decision on this case will only corroborate that impression.

Update: Reason responded to my issue with the D/R/I composition. In an e-mail from Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications for the Reason Foundation, the original D/R/I was 30/28/37, which undersamples Democrats and Republicans a little but gets the ratios reasonably close. The published 41/38/13 resulted from adding leaners to the D/R and subtracting them from independents.

It’s nice to have a publication actually respond to these concerns, but then again, I have always considered Reason to be top-drawer anyway.

Update II: In my last update, I mistakenly wrote that the original D/R/I of the sample was 30/28/27. It was 30/28/37, which I have fixed above. Sorry for the confusion on the typo.

Update III: Actually, I should note that the Democratic polling advantage on health care disappeared two years ago, and Republicans had a double-digit lead on the issue at the midterms. This is an improvement for Democrats, but it’s still no longer one of their core advantages.

ObamaCare's oxymoron


By George Will

On Monday the Supreme Court begins three days of oral arguments concerning possible — actually, probable and various — constitutional infirmities in Obamacare. The justices have received many amicus briefs, one of which merits special attention because of the elegant scholarship and logic with which it addresses an issue that has not been as central to the debate as it should be.

Hitherto, most attention has been given to whether Congress, under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, may coerce individuals into engaging in commerce by buying health insurance. Now the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm, has focused on this fact: The individual mandate is incompatible with centuries of contract law. This is so because a compulsory contract is an oxymoron.

The brief, the primary authors of which are the IJ’s Elizabeth Price Foley and Steve Simpson, says that Obamacare is the first time Congress has used its power to regulate commerce to produce a law “from which there is no escape.” And “coercing commercial transactions” — compelling individuals to sign contracts with insurance companies — “is antithetical to the foundational principle of mutual assent that permeated the common law of contracts at the time of the founding and continues to do so today.”

In 1799, South Carolina’s highest court held: “So cautiously does the law watch over all contracts, that it will not permit any to be binding but such as are made by persons perfectly free, and at full liberty to make or refuse such contracts. . . . Contracts to be binding must not be made under any restraint or fear of their persons, otherwise they are void.” Throughout the life of this nation it has been understood that for a contract to be valid, the parties to it must mutually assent to its terms — without duress.

In addition to duress, contracts are voidable for reasons of fraud upon, or the mistake or incapacity of, a party to the contract. This underscores the centrality of the concept of meaningful consent in contract law. To be meaningful, consent must be informed and must not be coerced. Under Obamacare, the government will compel individuals to enter into contractual relations with insurance companies under threat of penalty.

Also, the Supreme Court in Commerce Clause cases has repeatedly recognized, and Congress has never before ignored, the difference between the regulation and the coercion of commerce. And in its 10th Amendment cases (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”), the court has specifically forbidden government to compel contracts.

In 1992, the court held unconstitutional a law compelling states to “take title to” radioactive waste. The court said this would be indistinguishable from “a congressionally compelled subsidy from state governments” to those who produced the radioactive waste. Such commandeering of states is, the court held, incompatible with federalism.

The IJ argues: The 10th Amendment forbids Congress from exercising its commerce power to compel states to enter into contractual relations by effectively forcing states to “buy” radioactive waste. Hence “the power to regulate commerce does not include the power to compel a party to take title to goods or services against its will.” And if it is beyond Congress’s power to commandeer the states by compelling them to enter into contracts, it must likewise be beyond Congress’s power to commandeer individuals by requiring them to purchase insurance. Again, the 10th Amendment declares that any powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.

Furthermore, although the Constitution permits Congress to make laws “necessary and proper” for executing its enumerated powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce, it cannot, IJ argues, be proper to exercise that regulatory power in ways that eviscerate “the very essence of legally binding contracts.” Under Obamacare, Congress asserted the improper power to compel commercial contracts. It did so on the spurious ground that this power is necessary to solve a problem Congress created when, by forbidding insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions, it produced the problem of “adverse selection” — people not buying insurance until they need medical care.

The IJ correctly says that if the court were to ratify Congress’s disregard for settled contract law, Congress’s “power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point.” Which is why this case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

‘Democrats, Socialists and Communists…We Are All Together’: Piven Draws Chilling Connections

Democrats, Socialists and Communists...We Are All Together: Piven Draws Chilling Connections

Renown Leftist Activist: Francis Fox Piven.

According to Frances Fox Piven:

  • The Occupy Movement is made up of “All parts of the Left.”
  • That includes proudly: “Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists.”
  • Must all work together because of the “Huge task of transforming America and the world.”
  • “We are all together”
At last weekend’s Left Forum 2012, the annual pep-rally for liberal thought, renown leftist professor and activist Francis Fox Piven shown some light onto the makeup of the current America Left. In this minute of audio, Piven tells the packed auditorium which worldview philosophies embody their movement:

“There is room for all of us. Religious leftists, people who think peace is the answer, those who think that wholesome food is what we really need, ecologists and old-fashioned Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Socialists and Communists.”

Piven goes on to discuss the major undertaking that the leftist movement is working on and why these ideologies must unite:

“We can work together because we have a really huge task before us, transforming America and the World.”

Both statements were met with applause and agreement from the audience of over one thousand.



The genesis of the Occupy movement was a theme that gripped the Forum this year. The evicted movement has made some dark predictions over their plans for this spring. However, Piven’s comments were just one of many revealing facts about the movement to come. Stay tuned.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

'Global warming' gets a rebranding

By ERICA MARTINSON and JONATHAN ALLEN | 3/21/12 12:09 AM EDT

Shhhh! Don’t talk about global warming!

There’s been a change in climate for Washington’s greenhouse gang, and they’ve come to this conclusion: To win, they have to talk about other topics, like gas prices and kids choking on pollutants.

More than two years since Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan died in Congress, the strategic shift represents a reluctant acknowledgment from environmentalists that they’ve lost ground by tackling global warming head-on. Their best bet now lies in a bit of a bait and switch: Help elect global warming fighters by basing campaigns on kitchen-table issues.

“You don’t have to be James Carville to figure out that talking about people’s health and the health of their children … is going to make a difference to the average voter,” Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said.

In particular, the greens are targeting Midwestern swing voters in advance of the presidential and congressional elections in November.

Earlier this month, the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council made a seven-figure ad buy in swing states featuring young children with asthma inhalers making their way through the Capitol.

“We’re going to talk a lot about the health implications of dirty air,” said Heather Taylor, director of NRDC’s political arm. “I think that the Midwest is one of those places where [there are] a million great clean energy stories, especially. And they’re not being told right now, because we’ve tended to be in other markets. That’s an area where we feel like it’s time to go tell those stories.”

The new focus comes as the American Lung Association is about to release on Wednesday the latest round of its semi-annual polling on public health and environmental regulations in which a bipartisan set of polling firms found that a majority of respondents believe that it is “more important to ensure that we have strong safeguards that protect our air quality and public health” than to “streamline unnecessary environmental regulations.”

There’s a lot at stake: Republicans have portrayed President Barack Obama and his minions at various federal agencies as job killers in a time of high unemployment and fragile economic growth. The left has figured out it needs a better message — one that’s more resonant on the local level — to combat the job-killer talk.

So melting glaciers are giving way to smog-induced asthma. And fuel-efficiency is now a matter of pump prices, not pollutants.

The Sierra Club and NRDC advertisement is focused on the effects of regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions on incidences of asthma attacks, and cheering the Obama administration for planned greenhouse gas regulations for power plants.

Industry attorney Scott Segal called the new Sierra Club-NRDC ads “a new low in the groups’ highly inappropriate and offensive exploitation of the important subject of childhood asthma,” and “at best, a cynical election-year ploy that detracts from serious discussion of environmental protection.”

Similarly, the lung association, which spent $10 million on its Healthy Air Campaign last year, has been aggressive in its push against Republican efforts to repeal or block environmental regulations. One series of ads features a baby in a red carriage coughing outside power plants and Washington, D.C., landmarks.

“We are sort of stepping up our public advocacy on who’s standing up for clean air and who’s standing up for big polluters,” said ALA Assistant Vice President Peter Iwanowicz.

“Critics for a long time have argued that environmentalists and our issues don’t connect with people,” said Sierra Club National Political Director Tony Cani. “The idea is this: When it comes to any issue, whether it’s Keystone, EPA regulations or any other issue … how does that impact individuals? How does it impact families? I think that it’s fair to say that that’s not always been a strength of environmentalists.”

Global warming, in particular, has presented a messaging challenge.

“I think climate change is more difficult to explain,” Cani said. “When we’re talking about the immediate effects of some of these policies and some of these issues that will lead to climate change, they’re very serious too. We think that when we’re talking about [health] issues … we’re still talking about climate change,” he added. They “might not be using that word or that phrase.”

It’s no surprise that climate change has become less important to voters, said Thom Riehle, a longtime Democratic pollster who is now a senior vice president for YouGov.com.

Whereas support for climate change mitigation was at 50 percent to 60 percent in 2007, Riehle said, “it’s dramatically lower now.”

But, Riehle said, there’s one small group of voters that swing on energy issues — and it’s a subset of the overall swing vote. Here’s its profile: independents and conservative Democrats who live in the heartland, were born during the baby boom or as part of Generation X, went to college but didn’t finish a four-year degree and are more sensitive to environmental issues than the average voter.

But they are also “skeptical about how far strong environmentalists would take things,” Riehle said.

That helps explain why green groups have a tough ride during a highly charged election year.

Republicans are likely to “try to corner Obama into taking extreme environmental positions that they can play off of,” Riehle said. “Once the administration issues a proposal to reduce carbon dioxide from power plants, I would expect that Republicans and their super PAC would pounce on that proposal with all their might.”

The Lung Association polling, conducted among likely voters across the country with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, suggests Americans would like to see tighter limitations on pollutants, including mercury, smog, carbon dioxide and vehicle emissions. Support for stricter standards ranged from 60 percent of respondents on emissions from cars to 78 percent on mercury from power plants.

By 51 percent to 43 percent, more respondents said it is more important to protect air quality than to reduce regulation of industry. Forty-nine percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats and 41 percent identified themselves as Republicans.

The Lung Association also oversampled in battleground states Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as Maine, finding, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points, that all three states were less likely than the national average to believe protecting air quality trumps preventing regulation. In Ohio, the numbers were upside down, with killing regulations winning 53 percent to 42 percent.

Riehle said he wouldn’t put much stock in the left’s focus on cleaning up air quality. Polls show that 65 percent to 70 percent of adults are very satisfied with air quality, he said, noting that “almost every group is participating in that majority.”

“My warning would be that you have not made the argument on health effects” to most voters. “People think the air is cleaner than it was, and it is.”

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush

Chart - Deficit 2012 (Credit: CBS)
(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."

His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

Just $31B from Buffett rule tax on rich

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama's plan for a "Buffett rule" tax on the wealthy would rake in just $31 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress' official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.

That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama's budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.

The alternative minimum tax, originally aimed at ensuring that wealthy Americans pay taxes despite deductions and other breaks, has begun affecting upper middle-class families. Congress acts every year to minimize its impact.

The Buffett rule has become a leading symbol of Obama's and congressional Democrats' election-year efforts to persuade voters that they are the party championing economic fairness. Republicans have mocked it as one aimed at scoring political points that would have little real budgetary impact.

The plan is named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has said taxes on the rich are too low. Obama has proposed requiring that people earning at least $1 million annually pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes, but has provided few details.

In an analysis provided to The AP on Tuesday, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that a bill introduced last month by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., attempting to enshrine Obama's proposal into law would collect $31 billion through 2022. The measure has little chance of advancing soon, especially before the November elections.

Late Tuesday, Seth Larson, a spokesman for the senator, said his office had received a revised estimate from the joint committee projecting that the tax change would net the government $47 billion over that same period of time. Larson said the increase was due to a technical change, but he said he could not immediately describe what that change was.

"Now that we have this analysis, I hope the president will stop the class warfare and start leading by putting out real proposals to bring down our debt, get rid of the AMT and reform our broken tax code," Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a written statement, using the alternative minimum tax's acronym.

Hatch's Finance committee GOP aides requested the study.

Whitehouse said other groups, including the respected bipartisan Tax Policy Center, have estimated that the proposal could earn more than $31 billion.

"No matter how you slice it, that's real money that could help bring down our deficit. Most important: It's simply the right thing to do," he said in a statement.

Whitehouse's bill would require people making at least $2 million a year pay at least 30 percent of their earnings in taxes, though they could deduct certain amounts for their charitable contributions. The tax would be phased in for people earning at least $1 million annually.

Friday, March 16, 2012

‘This American Life’ Retracts Entire Episode About Working Conditions at Apple Supplier Factory in China

Posted on March 16, 2012 at 4:26pm by Madeleine Morgenstern

This American Life Retracts Entire Episode About Working Conditions at Apple Supplier Factory in China

AP

The weekly public radio program “This American Life” on Friday announced it was retracting its entire story about the working conditions in an Apple supplier factory in China.

The story, “Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory,” followed actor and writer Mike Daisey’s visit to the Foxconn factory where his iPhone was made and the poor working conditions he supposedly encountered there. Adapted from Daisey’s one-man theatrical show, “The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” the story made headlines when it aired in January and was followed by a wave of coverage about Apple’s working practices.

“We’re horrified to have let something like this onto public radio,” program host Ira Glass said in a blog post. The story “contained significant fabrications. We’re retracting the story because we can’t vouch for its truth.”

The episode, which the show said was the single most popular podcast in the history of “This American Life,” featured Daisey’s account of meeting mistreated workers, relying on a translator to communicate with them. In a later interview, the blog post said, an NPR correspondent for a separate radio program spoke with the translator, who disputed much of what Daisey had said.

The exact discrepancies will be detailed during the show’s next program, where it will spend a full hour on the retraction:

Some of the falsehoods found in Daisey’s monologue are small ones: the number of factories Daisey visited in China, for instance, and the number of workers he spoke with. Others are large. In his monologue he claims to have met a group of workers who were poisoned on an iPhone assembly line by a chemical called n-hexane. Apple’s audits of its suppliers show that an incident like this occurred in a factory in China, but the factory wasn’t located in Shenzhen, where Daisey visited.

Daisey‘s interpreter Cathy also disputes two of the most dramatic moments in Daisey’s story: that he met underage workers at Foxconn, and that a man with a mangled hand was injured at Foxconn making iPads (and that Daisey’s iPad was the first one he ever saw in operation). Daisey says in his monologue:

He’s never actually seen one on, this thing that took his hand. I turn it on, unlock the screen, and pass it to him. He takes it. The icons flare into view, and he strokes the screen with his ruined hand, and the icons slide back and forth. And he says something to Cathy, and Cathy says, “he says it’s a kind of magic.”

Cathy Lee tells [NPR's "Marketplace" correspondent Rob] Schmitz that nothing of the sort occurred.

Responding to the decision by “This American Life” to retract the episode, Daisey said he stands by his work and that is show “is a theatrical piece”:

What I do is not journalism. The tools of the theater are not the same as the tools of journalism. For this reason, I regret that I allowed THIS AMERICAN LIFE to air an excerpt from my monologue. THIS AMERICAN LIFE is essentially a journalistic ­- not a theatrical ­- enterprise, and as such it operates under a different set of rules and expectations. But this is my only regret. I am proud that my work seems to have sparked a growing storm of attention and concern over the often appalling conditions under which many of the high-tech products we love so much are assembled in China.

The New York Times detailed some of the circumstances surrounding the original Jan. 6 broadcast:

Mr. Glass acknowledged the risk inherent in repurposing a monologue. “When I saw Mike Daisey perform this story on stage, when I left the theater I had a lot of questions,” he told listeners. “I mean, he’s not a reporter, and I wondered, did he get it right? And so we’ve actually spent a few weeks checking everything that he says in his show.”

Over a dozen people were contacted in the fact-checking process, Mr. Glass said, including “journalists who cover these factories, people who work with the electronics industry in China, activists, labor groups.”

And “nobody,” he said, “seemed very surprised” by the working conditions described by Mr. Daisey.

In the end, Glass said Friday, “Daisey lied to me and to ‘This American Life’ producer Brian Reed during the fact checking we did on the story, before it was broadcast.”

“That doesn‘t excuse the fact that we never should’ve put this on the air. In the end, this was our mistake.”