Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The Big Fix (Hold on to your Wallets)


The drumbeat about deficits has reached deafening levels. The president warns about "out of control" spending. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke calls for bringing deficits down. The opinion pages bristle with rants about the U.S. turning into Greece, headed to default. Next week, the first session of the president's "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" will convene. The next day, shamelessly, the two co-chairs and the staff director (all committed deficit hawks) will grace a forum sponsored by the Peterson Foundation, established by Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson largely to gin up hysteria about America's long term deficits.
Premature Ejaculation
This potion is being served long before its time. Sure, deficits are big and the projections are scary. But the economy is struggling to get out of a big hole. Unemployment is still near 10%. Foreclosures are still rising. Banks aren't lending; businesses aren't hiring. Deficit spending is critical to what little growth we've seen.
The president and the Congress should be focused on jobs, not deficits. Ironically, when pushed, most of the purveyors of the hysteria agree. Bernanke admits we shouldn't roll back the spending too soon, and is keeping interest rates (for the banks) near zero. David Walker, head of the Peterson Foundation, agrees deficits might be larger in the short run to create jobs and help get the economy going. But these cautions can't be heard amid the clamor about deficits.
The Elite's Big Fix
Consider this another example of Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine." Not wanting to let the crisis go to waste, an elite consensus is congealing on how to bring the deficits down.
Call it the big fix. "Everything is on the table," we're told. That's code for a trade-off. Republicans accept tax increases; Democrats accept spending cuts.
But the fix is in the details. On the revenue side, the favored vehicle is a value added tax (VAT). The VAT is essentially a hidden sales tax, levied at each stage of a product's production. Conservatives, who, unlike Dick Cheney, believe deficits matter, accept it because it is regressive, taxing spending, not investment or wealth. Liberals accept it because it is hidden, and could generate a lot of revenue.
The debate has already begun around the VAT. John McCain, in his new guise as conservative partisan, brought a resolution to the Senate denouncing the VAT as a "massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income." Eighty-five Senators voted for the non-binding resolution, including all six members of the President's Commission. The administration has since denied that it has any designs on a VAT. But these protestations are simply reflections on how serious the move towards a VAT has become.
On the spending side, cuts in Social Security, Medicare and domestic spending are targeted. The Republican co-chair of the President's Commission, former Senator Alan Simpson is an infamous scourge of Social Security. The Democratic co-chair Erskine Bowles favored the Clinton effort to privatize it. The deal is foreshadowed by the president's budget which calls for a three year freeze on domestic discretionary spending, and "pay-go" limits on entitlements, insisting that any increase in entitlements be paid for.
All this is wrapped in gauzy poll designed packaging. A VAT will sold as a corporate tax reform. Entitlements, we're told, must be brought under control as the boomers age. Domestic spending is rife with waste, fraud and abuse.
Stuff and Nonsense
There's only one problem with this consensus -- it is both wrong-headed and dangerous. It ignores how we got into this hole, is blind to the challenges the country faces, and offends the values that made this country great. Here's a little common sense:
1. Ignore False Prophets
As Dean Baker has pointed out, the elite deficit agenda is being peddled by the same folks that profited from the bubble bust economy that drove us over the cliff. Wall Street moguls Pete Peterson and Robert Rubin, leaders of the effort, have preached against deficits for years, arguing that they would eventually lead to recession. They never uttered a word about the housing bubble, the financial casino, the excesses and frauds of Wall Street that actually blew up the economy. They made a lot of money along the way. But their profits don't make them sound prophets. 

2. Get the Question Right First
The question isn't how we raise taxes, cut spending and balance the budget. The question is how we return to an economy of full employment with a broad and prosperous middle class. If we create a prosperous and growing economy, wages will go up, revenues will go up, spending on unemployment and misery will go down, and budgets will come into greater balance. Growth is an essential precondition to sound finances. We last had debt of this size relative to the economy at the end of World War II. We invested in the GI Bill and educated a generation. We built the interstate highways. We transferred war industries to private companies. We launched the Marshall Plan, and created markets for products in Europe. And we grew our way out of the debt burdens over time, as we built the middle class society that was America's pride.
3. Wrong diagnosis, wrong remedy
To understand what remedy is, you've got to have a clear view of what the problems are. The irony of the elite consensus is that in every particular, it ignores the problems we face, and calls for remedies that would make things worse.
Consider:
We don't have an "entitlements problem." Social Security is in surplus and, if the economy grows and workers capture a fair share of the productivity they help generate, Social Security will be in surplus as far as the eye can see.
We also don't have a "Medicare problem." We have a broken health care system. The source of virtually the entire long term projected deficits comes from soaring health care costs. We're spending 50% more than other industrial countries per capita and getting worse results in terms of good health. The new health care reform does offer some hope of reducing the rate of cost increase. A single payer system -- extending Medicare to all - would do far more. But the problem isn't entitlements or greedy geezers, but a broken health care system.. Cutting Medicare and Social Security won't solve that problem.
Consider:
We now suffer Gilded Age inequality. The wealthiest 1% of Americans not only pockets 21% percent of the national income; they hold more than one-third of the privately held wealth. Plus they've enjoyed the largest tax cuts over the last decades. IRS figures show that the wealthiest 400 Americans -- averaging over $263 million in income in 2006 -- now pay taxes at a rate (17%) lower than their chauffeurs.
Yet the elite consensus is pushing a VAT that will burden the working and middle class far more than the wealthy. Instead we should be talking about increasing top end tax rates, taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income (last done when Reagan was president), and cracking down on tax avoidance schemes, levying a speculation tax on short-term financial speculation, reviving the estate tax. And of course, we need to set a "price on carbon," a regressive tax no doubt, but one that at least is focused on taxing spending on what we need to reduce.
Consider:
On the spending side, we spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. We spend more to defend South Korea than the South Koreans do. We police the world and maintain an empire over some 750 bases. And, the military is by far the largest cesspool of waste, fraud and abuse in government. The Defense Department's books are in such disarray that none of the services can be audited, much less pass an audit.
At the same time, we have a debilitating domestic public investment deficit that is rapidly getting worse. As the president has said, we need to build a new foundation for our economy. And that requires investing in education and training so our children get the best education in the world; investing in research and development so we remain on the cutting edge of invention and science; building a 21st Century infrastructure - from a smart electric grid, to fast trains, cutting edge broadband, and renewable energy. And we've got to rebuild a basic infrastructure - from schools to sewers to bridges - that is aged and literally falling apart. Sure, if the Congress is ready to take on entrenched interests, we can cut a lot of fat out of domestic spending (consider subsidies for Big Oil, Big Agra, and Big Pharma for starters), but in the end we should be spending more, not less on vital domestic investments.
So it makes no sense at all to focus on domestic spending cuts, and leave the military off the table.
Beware Bipartisan Blight
Most Americans want the two parties to work together to solve problems. But when the parties come together to do something big, Americans should be particularly vigilant. Too often, that reflects a strong elite consensus, willing and able to purchase support on both sides of the aisle.
The elite consensus described above already has a lot of momentum and money behind it. You'll see publicists from AEI on the corporate right joining those from the Center for American Progress, on the center-left. Clinton's former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin joining Nixon's former Commerce Secretary Pete Peterson. Editorial boards will echo established authority.
But trust your common sense. The reality is that they have it wrong. If we follow their advice now, we're likely to suffer a renewed recession. And their prescriptions will make America more unequal and less secure. We'll continue to squander resources across the world, while failing to build a sound foundation for the future at home. America's broad middle class, the pride of our democracy, will continue its decline. And our politics and our lives will get nastier and more brutish.

Robert L. Borosage

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Shorting The Middle Class: The Real Wall Street Crime


Arianna Huffington

Posted: April 19, 2010 06:46 PM

The press is all abuzz with news of the SEC suing Goldman Sachs for fraud. While this is certainly big news in itself, even more important is what it says about what the financial elite has been doing to America for the last 30 years: shorting the middle class.
The SEC's action is a perfect moment for us to look at the bigger picture of how the American people were sold on the promise of never-ending prosperity while Wall Street was overseeing a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the richest Americans.

The results have been devastating: a disappearing middle class, a precipitous drop in economic and social mobility, and ultimately, the undermining of the foundation of our democracy.
Thirty years ago, top executives at S&P 500 companies made an average of 30 times what their workers did -- now they make 300 times what their workers make. And between 2000 and 2008, the poverty rate in the suburbs of the largest metro areas in the U.S. grew by 25 percent -- making these suburbs home to the country's largest and fastest-growing segment of the poor.
The human toll of the shorting of the middle class is brought to life on sites likeRecessionwire.comLayoffSupportNetwork.com, and HowIGotLaidOff.com where the casualties of Wall Street's systemic scam share their personal stories.
Looking through these sites, I came upon a story that struck me as emblematic of where America's middle class finds itself these days. It feels like a dark reboot of the American Dream. Think Horatio Alger rewritten by O. Henry.
It's the story of Dean Blackburn of Alameda, California. The first part of his life was a classic American success story. Raised in Minnesota by a single mom, a teacher, he was "middle class by default." Through a combination of smarts and hard work, he made his way to Yale, then took a succession of jobs in the growing Internet world that had him steadily progressing up the economic ladder.
Then came February 2009, when he was laid off on the last day of the month. His boss chose that day because it meant the company wouldn't have to pay for another month of his health coverage. "Looking back on it," he told me, "that hurt more than the layoff itself -- just knowing that the president of the company was exactly that calculating and that unfeeling about my own, and my family's wellbeing." The timing, Blackburn continued, "put those 'family days' and company picnics in a weird new light."
Fourteen months later, he is still looking for a new job. As he, his wife, and their 2-year-old daughter deal with the immediate financial struggles his extended unemployment has brought, Blackburn has become acutely aware of the broader implications of the shorting of the middle class. "Ultimately," he says, "it's not about a dip in corporate profits, but a change in corporate attitude -- a change that means no one's job is safe, and never will be, ever again."
It's one of the reasons he's decided to try to start his own company, NaviDate, a data-driven twist on online dating sites: "It's no longer a trade-off between doing what you love and having stability. Stability is long gone, so you better do something you love!"
Achieving middle class stability and having your children do better than you, the way you had done better than your parents, has always been the American Dream, but, as Blackburn notes, mobility now is increasingly one way: "The plateaus of each step, which can be a great place to stop a bit and catch your breath, are gone. Now, it's climb, climb, climb, or start sliding back down immediately." The result: "the odds are you're going to wind up at the bottom eventually, unless you get lucky."
Luck. That's what the American Dream now rests on. It used to be about education, hard work and perseverance, but the system is rigged to such an extent now that the way to keep your head above water is to get lucky. The middle class life is now the prize on a scratch-off lottery ticket.
In November 2008, as the initial aftershocks of the economic earthquake were being felt, David Brooks predicted the rise of a new social class -- "the formerly middle class" -- made up of those who had joined the middle class at the end of the boom only to fall back due to the recession. "To them," he wrote, "the gap between where they are and where they used to be will seem wide and daunting."
But, in the year and a half since Brooks wrote this, the ranks of the formerly middle class have swelled far beyond those who joined at the tail end of the boom.
The evidence that the middle class has been consistently shorted is so overwhelming -- and the results so potentially damaging to our society -- that even bastions of establishment thinking are on alert. In a new strategy paper, The Hamilton Project -- the economic think tank founded by Robert Rubin (a big beneficiary of the shorting of the middle class) -- argues, in the Project's own words, "that the American tradition of expanding opportunity from one generation to the next is at risk because we are failing to make the necessary investments in human, physical, and environmental capital."
Of course, it's even worse than that. We are actually cutting back on our current investment in people (see the human cost of massive budget cuts in education, health care, and social services in state after state after state -- all across America).
After reading the details of the SEC's filing against Goldman Sachs, it's hard not to come away thinking: "Why would anyone ever do business with that firm again?" Likewise, after even a cursory examination of the treatment of the American middle class by the Wall Street/Washington class over the past few decades, one should also wonder why anyone would ever do business with that crowd again. And yet, there they are, still running things at the Treasury, the Fed, and the National Economic Council.
The urgent need for the reorganization of our financial system goes far beyond the upcoming debate on new financial regulations. And it goes far beyond the media's right versus left framing. It's a question about the future of our country, and whether we are going to stop the slide toward a Third World system in which there are just two classes: those at the bottom and those at the top.
A lot of people at the top of the economic food chain have done very well shorting the middle class. But the losers in those bets weren't Goldman Sachs investors -- they were millions of hard working Americans who had heard the pitch and bought into the American Dream, only to find it had been replaced by a sophisticated scam.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Health, life insurers hold $1.88 billion in fast-food stocks: AJPH article





Harvard researchers say insurers put profits over health
Just weeks after the passage of a health bill that will dramatically increase the number of Americans covered by private health insurers, Harvard researchers have detailed the extent to which life and health insurance companies are major investors in the fast-food industry.
Although fast food can be consumed responsibly, research has shown that fast-food consumption is linked to obesity and cardiovascular disease, two leading causes of death, and contributes to the poor health of children. The evidence is so compelling that as part of the new law more than 200,000 fast-food and other chain restaurants will be required to include calorie counts on their menus, including their drive-through menus.
A new article on insurance company holdings, published online in today's [Thursday, April 15] American Journal of Public Health, shows that U.S., Canadian and European-based insurance firms hold at least $1.88 billion of investments in fast-food companies.
"These data raise questions about the opening of vast new markets for private insurers at public expense, as is poised to happen throughout the United States as a result of the recent health care overhaul," says lead author Dr. Arun Mohan.
Among the largest owners of fast-food stock are U.S.-based Prudential Financial, Northwestern Mutual and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, and European-based ING.
U.S.-based Northwestern Mutual and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company both offer life insurance as well as disability and long-term care insurance. Northwestern Mutual owns $422.2 million of fast-food stock, with $318.1 million of McDonald's. Mass Mutual owns $366.5 million of fast-food stock, including $267.2 in McDonald's.
Holland-based ING, an investment firm that also offers life and disability insurance, has total fast-food holdings of $406.1 million, including $12.3 million in Jack in the Box, $311 million in McDonald's, and $82.1 million in Yum! Brands (owner of Pizza Hut, KFC and Taco Bell) stock.
New Jersey-based Prudential Financial Inc. sells life insurance and long-term disability coverage. With total fast-food holdings of $355.5 million, Prudential Financial owns $197.2 of stock in McDonald's and also has significant stakes in Burger King, Jack-in-the-Box, and Yum! Brands.
The researchers also itemize the fast-food holdings of London-based Prudential Plc, U.K.-based Standard Life, U.S.-based New York Life, Scotland-based Guardian Life, Canada-based Manulife and Canada-based Sun Life. (See table; all data current as of June 11, 2009.)
"Our data illustrate the extent to which the insurance industry seeks to turn a profit above all else," says Dr. Wesley Boyd, senior author of the study. "Safeguarding people's health and well-being take a back seat to making money."
Mohan, Boyd and their co-authors, Drs. Danny McCormick, Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, all at the Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, culled their data from Icarus, a proprietary database of industrial, banking and insurance companies. Icarus draws upon Securities and Exchange Commission filings and news reports from providers like Dow Jones and Reuters. In addition, the authors obtained market capitalization data from Yahoo! Finance.
The authors write, "The health bill just enacted in the Washington will likely expand the reach of the insurance industry. Canada and Britain are also considering further privatization of health insurance. Our article highlights the tension between profit maximization and the public good these countries face in expanding the role of private health insurers. If insurers are to play a greater part in the health care delivery system they ought to be held to a higher standard of corporate responsibility."
Several of these same researchers, all of whom are affiliated with Physicians for a National Health Program, have previously published data about the extent to which the insurance industry is invested in tobacco. They say that because private, for-profit insurers have repeatedly put their own financial gain over the public's health, readers in the United States, Canada and Europe should be wary about insurance firms' participation in care.
Insurance industry holdings in fast-food companies (in millions of U.S. dollars) as of June 11, 2009.

Insurance
Company
Jack in
the Box
McDonald's
Burger King
Yum! Brands
Wendy's/
Arby's Group
Total
Prudential plc



80.5

80.5
Prudential Financial
34.1
197.2
43.7
80.5

355.5
Mass Mutual
23.1
267.2
58.8
17.4

366.5
New York Life
2.4




2.4
Northwestern Mutual
40.9
318.1

63.2

422.2
Sun Life



26.8

26.8
Standard Life

63.0



63.0
ING
12.3
311.7

82.1

406.1
Manulife

89.1

53.7
3.3
146.1
Guardian Life
7.2



9.5
16.7
MetLife




2.2
2.2
Total
120.0
1,183.3
165.5
404.2
15.0
1,888.0


"Life and Health Insurance Industry Investments in Fast Food," Arun V. Mohan, M.D., M.B.A.; Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.; David U. Himmelstein, M.D.; and J. Wesley Boyd, M.D., Ph.D. American Journal of Public Health, April 15, 2010.
Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) is an organization of 17,000 doctors who support single-payer national health insurance. To speak with a physician/spokesperson in your area, visit www.pnhp.org/stateactions or call (312) 782-6006.


Physicians for a National Health Program
29 E Madison Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602
Phone (312) 782-6006 | Fax: (312) 782-6007
www.pnhp.org | info@pnhp.org
© PNHP 2010

The Great Bloody Hole in the British (Insert USA) Election Campaign: Afghanistan


Johann Hari

Posted: April 15, 2010 07:00 PM

In the election campaign here in Britain, there is a big blood-splattered hole we are all supposed to ignore. We are at war. It is a war that 64 percent of Brits believe is "unwinnable" and should end now. It is a war that has killed 281 British people and an untold, uncounted number of Afghan civilians. It is a war that costs £4.5bn a year. It is a war to keep Hamid Karzai in power - even though he announced last week: "I swear I am going to join the Taliban." Yet the three biggest political parties are shouting their slogans over the hole as if it does not exist.
So what are they refusing to see? Hamid Karzai was picked by the US and British governments as the Afghan leader most likely to serve their interests, and his regime exists solely because of massive military support from them. Yet - in a sign of how Afghan opinion has tipped after eight years of war - even he now speaks with rage against them. He says the US and Britain's planned military assault on Kandahar this summer must not go ahead because the local population strongly oppose it. He warns there is "a fine line between resistance and revolt" and soon "this revolt will turn into a resistance and I will join it."
Now Karzai is following his own script, the authors of this war have dropped all pretense that they wanted an independent democratic government in Afghanistan. For example, Rudi Giuliani, who was one of the leading neoconservatives making the case for invasion, just said: "Karzai's there because of us, he's our creation, we put him there... I'm not sure we want to engage in the fiction that we're dealing with a democratically elected [leader]... that'd be a major fiction." He said that now Karzai fleetingly follows his people's demands rather than ours, there "might be grounds for shooting" him, and "we need to think about what comes after." He then added, with no irony: "This guy's a thug."
So - we are currently sending young people to kill and die in order to prop up a sort-of-kinda-elected President who (like his people) opposes almost all our actions and is threatening to defect to The Enemy. You might think that is worth discussing. Yet when Afghanistan comes up in this election, the sole subject of complaint is that our helicopters don't work as well as they should.
Why would Karzai, and so many Afghans, and Brits like me, turn like this, after welcoming the toppling of the vile Taliban in 2001? Here's a moment that distills why. Last month, General Stanley McCrystal, the NATO commander, was talking about how he guards the massive military convoys that move through the country. He said: "We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat."
That wasn't considered a story. It didn't dominate the headlines. It was considered a normal thing to say. But imagine somebody bragging that he had shot "an amazing number" of British people, but "none has ever proven to be a threat." How would we react? Ah, the main political parties say, but all these complications and casualties are worth it, because there is a wider driving purpose to the war. They say we must stay for one reason: to fight jihadism. If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here. If we don't deprive them of bases, they'll be hitting our places.
At first glance, this may sound persuasive. But look closer. Al Qaeda's attacks don't originate in these "bases", and don't require them: 9/11 was plotted in Hamburg and Florida; 7/7 was planned out in Yorkshire. Anything that could be done in a cave in Torah Borah could be done on a mountaintop in Yemen or a moor outside Manchester: it's highly mobile. If we charge in with Bazookas to conquer one of these places, they simply move to another - and goad us to follow. General Jim Jones, Barack Obama's National Security Advisor, says there are just 100 foreign jihadis in the whole of Afghanistan. They've simply packed up and gone elsewhere. So who are we fighting there? The CIA says they are "a tribal, localized insurgency" who "see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power" and have "no goals" outside the country.
But while the war is catching or killing very few jihadis, it is creating a huge number of them. After every bombing and every massacre, there is a swelling pools of relatives who scream at the camera that they now want to become suicide bombers. Those tapes are beamed back to Britain - where they are used to radicalize young Muslims. I have interviewed dozens of ex-jihadis - and they almost all named those videos as a key point in pushing them over from repellent religious bigotry into overtly planning violence. The 7/7 bombers themselves named it; the Detroit pantsbomber was howling about Afghanistan as he tried to detonate his scrotum.
If you really loathe and oppose jihadism, you have to soberly assess the best way to erode its power over time. Charging around with a blowtorch isn't putting out the fire. Indeed, the jihadists say quite clearly that they want the war to continue for as long as possible. Osama Bin Laden brags that it gives him extra recruits and will "bankrupt" the West.
The other arguments that used to be used to justify the war have become a polite after-cough. Women's rights? My friend Malalai Joya is the most popularly elected woman in Afghanistan. She has been expelled from the parliament and silenced in the media for pointing out that "things have not improved for women," because the occupiers have "transferred power to fundamentalist warlords who are just like the Taliban."
The defenders of the war are reduced to chanting "Back Our Boys!" To use the troops as rhetorical human shields to shut down democratic debate about whether they should carry on killing and dying is the worst insult to the soldiers I know. If the only way to Back Our Boys was to demand they stay on an unwinnable battlefield, no disastrous war would ever have been stopped, and we would still be fighting East of Suez. If you really want to back our boys, get them out of the crosshairs and into their homes.
You may think I'm wrong about all this. I respect that - but don't you at least think this should be part of the election debate? Don't you think you should be presented with a choice? Why has it been left to the small, unfairly marginalized Green Party to speak for 64 percent of the public on this?
In Israel earlier this year, the former Labour MP Lorna Fitzsimons reassured the massed ranks of the Israeli establishment that growing British disgust at the military occupation of Palestinian lands was nothing to worry about because "public opinion does not influence foreign policy in Britain. Foreign policy is an elite issue." She was saying - don't worry; Britain isn't a real democracy - its foreign policy serves the interests of geopolitics and corporations and elites, not those messy, fickle, inconvenient majorities. It's a view that spreads far beyond our policies towards Israel/Palestine. In a fascinating leaked CIA report on European public opinion, they say they are "counting on public apathy about Afghanistan" and boast that so far leaders have been "enabled... to ignore voters". They are worried the charge into Kandahar could cause disgust, but the British election will be over by then.
This muffled cry from the caves of Kandahar is a useful counter-point to this election. It reminds us that, while the small differences between the main parties at election time do matter, they often aren't the primary force that transforms the country. Almost every civilising change in Britain - from feminism to worker's rights to opposing bad wars - came from ordinary citizens banding together and demanding it all year, every year, whether there was an election or not, no matter how unlikely it seemed, until they prevailed. The British ambassador to Afghanistan Mark Sedwill says we will be there "for a generation" more. If you want to prove him wrong, then you have to demand it publicly - long after the terribly limited ballot papers are gathered into a fake middle and tossed away.

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here or here.