A growing number of right-wing lawmakers have expressed opposition to raising the debt ceiling, a normally noncontroversial action that Congress has to take every few years to prevent the government from defaulting on it debt and potentially shutting down. Despite the dire consequences, conservatives are attempting to hold the debt ceiling vote hostage to extort draconian cuts to federal programs, and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has even launched an ad campaign to stoke public support for her plan. Bachmann — whose office confirmed today that she is seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2012 — is demanding that Congress go “cold turkey” to eliminate the deficit before the debt ceiling comes up for a vote.Like much of what modern conservatives stand for, opposing the rising of the debt ceiling is irresponsible posturing. All smoke and mirrors with no substance. One marginally reasonable Republican explains why Bachmann, Paul and other tea idiots are wrong - Conservative historian Bruce Bartlett explains why Tea Party thinking on national debt ceiling is "idiotic"
With a vote coming as soon as February or March of this year, even conservative stalwart Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, who says he is a fan of Bachmann, calls her plan a “silly position,” noting, “there’s no turkey cold enough to enable us to avoid raising the debt ceiling”:
When you click on the ad, you’ll read that Bachmann is asking us “to personally tell Congress not to increase the amount of money the government can borrow” by adding our names to the “Don’t Raise the Debt Ceiling” petition.
This is irresponsible. I’ve seen no plausible plan that would enable us to go “cold turkey” (to use her term) fast enough or dramatically enough that we could reduce the deficit to zero in a few months–which is what would be required if Congress were not to authorize an increase in the debt ceiling. [...]
But there’s no turkey cold enough to enable us to avoid raising the debt ceiling.
While Kristol’s comment is directed specifically toward Bachmann, it could equally apply to numerous other far-right lawmakers like Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) who are demanding equally harsh and nonsensical cuts to government spending. Already, House Republicans have conceded that they can’t even find the $100 billion they promised to cut from the budget, and as Kristol suggests, Bachmann and her comrades’ position on the debt ceiling just more rhetorical nonsense, but with very real consequences.
But isn't there a limit to how irresponsibly politicians can act? When the House Republicans rejected the first TARP authorization vote, the reaction in financial markets swiftly changed their minds. Wouldn't the same thing be likely to happen this time around?
Perhaps. But do we really want to pay that price? Do we really want to introduce an element of doubt into the financial markets, that a security that is primarily bought because there is assumed to be risk zero risk of default is no longer safe? There is no other security on earth that has that reputation, not even German government bonds. The U.S. Treasury is the gold standard and we have benefited enormously from this fact. Every time there is some disruption in the world financial markets, people flee to quality by buying Treasuries. As a result, we have benefited by not having to pay for the consequences of our own profligacy. Foreign central banks hold trillions of dollars of Treasuries as the backing for their own securities. The minute we introduce an element of doubt into their own minds about whether these debts will be paid, suddenly other alternative investments may start to look better to them, and we will lose market share, which will greatly increase the costs of borrowing over the long term. It's the most monumental insanity that I can even imagine.
I really don't think it makes a lot of sense to shoot ourselves in the foot, just to make an idiotic point about the debt being too large. If people really believe that, they should vote to increase taxes and cut spending, and thereby reduce the Treasury's need to borrow.
Conservative media figures have blamed the recent increases in oil and gas prices on President Obama's drilling policies. However, experts point to expectations of increased demand and other factors.The modern Republican party is like a group of petulant children that are always looking for someone else to blame. They are not patriots, they're uber nationalists who only care about what is good for the extreme agenda of the conservative movement.
Beck: Oil Prices Rising Because "The Administration [Is] Making It Harder To Drill." From the January 4 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: I told you that they have a plan. They have a destination. They have a solution. But they needed to create the problem. Never waste a crisis. You have the solution, never waste the crisis to bring you to that solution. You create the problem so the public will beg for the solution that you have designed. What are the problems they're creating? Oil going up. Why? The administration making it harder to drill. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 1/4/11]
In Fact, Experts Point To Speculation and Boost In Demand
WSJ: Rise In Oil Prices "Has Been In Anticipation Of Improving Supply And Demand Conditions." The Wall Street Journal reported on December 30: "The 12% rise in crude oil since mid-November has been in anticipation of improving supply and demand conditions. Demand in China and better-than-expected data on the U.S economy helped push oil to fresh two-year highs this month. Now, investors appear more cautious heading into 2011." [Wall Street Journal, 12/30/10]
AEI Scholar: "We Probably Couldn't Produce Enough To Affect The World Price Of Oil." From a January 1 Greenwire report:
If gas prices keep increasing, Republicans probably will make a push on increased fossil fuel production, said Ken Green, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute think tank.
[...]
But experts disagreed about how much impact additional drilling could have. Crude oil is a global commodity, Green said.
"The world price is the world price," Green said. "Even if we were producing 100 percent of our oil," he said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, "our price would go up to the same thing.
"We probably couldn't produce enough to affect the world price of oil," Green added. "People don't understand that."
U.S. production could be negated by decisions that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries makes, said Philip Verleger Jr., energy economist, and David Mitchell EnCana, professor of management, at the University of Calgary's business school.
"Suppose the U.S. were to boost production 1 million barrels a day," Verleger said. "OPEC has the capacity to cut 1 million barrels."
The oil industry has been able to convince people there is a connection between U.S. drilling and prices, Verleger said. [Greenwire via NYTimes.com, 1/4/11]
FoxNews.com: Experts Say "Consumption Growth In Developing Countries," Rather Than Drilling Policies, Caused Increase In Oil Prices. From a December 3 article on FoxNews.com:
The rise in oil comes on the same week that the Obama administration announced it will not allow offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or off the Atlantic coast for at least seven more years because of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in April that killed 11 workers and unleashed about 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf.
That decision was cheered by environmental interests and Democratic lawmakers along both coasts but slammed by Republicans and the oil and gas industry who say the move will kill jobs and make America even more dependent on foreign oil.
Energy analysts though did not blame the announcement for the surge in oil prices. Instead, they pointed to consumption growth in developing nations.
[...]
Kevin Book, managing director of Clearview Energy Partners, told FoxNews.com that his firm sees oil rising to $107 a barrel in 2013 "if economic growth follows its current trajectory."
Book explained that his firm's forecast implies that there is substantial non-OPEC slow downs at the same time as there is significant demand growing in emerging economies in Asia and other places.
"What it does is draw inventory down and lowers capacity in the system," he said. "It also pulls more OPEC oil into circulation."
The Obama administration's announcement reversed it's decision to hunt for oil and gas that the president himself announced three weeks before the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The oil and gas industry and many Republicans say the Obama administration is stifling domestic oil production and contradicting the will of recession-weary voters eager for new jobs.
But Book says that announcement was not a surprise and had no effect on the rise of oil. While the U.S. has an abundant supply of its own oil, environmental concerns go hand in hand with domestic production, he said.
"We're going to use OPEC's oil," he said. "The problem isn't doing business with OPEC. The problem is doing business in a world where OPEC is becoming less relevant."
"The true value of OPEC from a price stability standing to its members is predicated on the idea it has to do what it has to do or Saudi Arabia will flood the market with cheap oil," he said. [FoxNews.com, 12/3/10]
Market Analyst Cited "Refinery Problems" Constricting Supply. From a January 3 NPR report:
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
As you have no doubt noticed at the gas pump, gasoline prices are back up. According to AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report, the national average price of a gallon of regular is now over $3. Why? Well, that's our question for Phil Flynn, senior market analyst for PFGBEST Research in Chicago.
Mr. Flynn, what's the answer? Why?
Mr. PHIL FLYNN (Senior Market Analyst, PFGBEST Research): Well, partly because the economy is getting better, believe it or not. We're seeing more demand, not only here in the United States, but throughout the globe, and that's driving up the price. But I wish that was all that there was to it. To be honest with you, what we're seeing in the price of gasoline shouldn't be happening.
SIEGEL: What are you talking about? What has happened that has aggravated this problem?
Mr. FLYNN: Well, I think if you look over the past few weeks, you have to go back to the France strikes. A few months ago, of course, because of the France austerity package, France shut down some major refineries. And when those refineries went down, Europe was scrambling to get supplies - supplies that would normally end up here in the United States.
And then after that, you had all these refinery problems. You had a refinery going down in Venezuela. You had one going down in St. Croix, one down in the East Coast. And before you knew it, we see these gasoline prices surging forward. [All Things Considered, 1/3/11]
CNNMoney.com: Oil Analyst Attributes Some Of Price Increase to Speculation. From a January 1 CNNMoney.com report:
Oil surge: Oil, the main ingredient in gasoline, has also been on a tear, with crude prices topping $90-a-barrel for the first time in more than two years.
Platts senior oil analyst Linda Rafield attributes some of the spike in oil prices to speculation.
"That can push prices to a level that doesn't reflect supply and demand," Rafield said. [CNNMoney.com, 1/1/11]
While the United States has suffered the worst recession in living memory, I find that I have very few financial concerns. Many of my friends are in the same position: Most of us attended private schools and good universities, and we will be able to provide these same opportunities to our own children. No one in my immediate circle has a family member serving in Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, the only sacrifice we were asked to make for our beloved country was to go shopping. Nearly a decade has passed, with our nation's influence and infrastructure crumbling by the hour, and yet those of us who have been so fortunate as to actually live the American dream--rather than merely dream it--have been spared every inconvenience. Now we are told that we will soon receive a large tax cut for all our troubles. What is the word for the feeling this provokes in me? Imagine being safely seated in lifeboat, while countless others drown, only to learn that another lifeboat has been secured to take your luggage to shore...
Most Americans believe that a person should enjoy the full fruits of his or her labors, however abundant. In this light, taxation tends to be seen as an intrinsic evil. It is worth noting, however, that throughout the 1950's--a decade for which American conservatives pretend to feel a harrowing sense of nostalgia--the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90 percent. In fact, prior to the 1980's it never dipped below 70 percent. Since 1982, however, it has come down by half. In the meantime, the average net worth of the richest 1 percent of Americans has doubled (to $18.5 million), while that of the poorest 40 percent has fallen by 63 percent (to $2,200). Thirty years ago, top U.S. executives made about 50 times the salary of their average employees. In 2007, the average worker would have had to toil for 1,100 years to earn what his CEO brought home between Christmas in Aspen and Christmas on St. Barthes.
We now live in a country in which the bottom 40 percent (120 million people) owns just 0.3 percent of the wealth. Data of this kind make one feel that one is participating in a vast psychological experiment: Just how much inequality can free people endure? Have you seen Ralph Lauren's car collection? Yes, it is beautiful. It also cost hundreds of millions of dollars. "So what?" many people will say. "It's his money. He earned it. He should be able to do whatever he wants with it." In conservative circles, expressing any doubt on this point has long been synonymous with Marxism.
And yet over one million American children are now homeless. People on Medicare are being denied life-saving organ transplants that were routinely covered before the recession. Over one quarter of our nation's bridges are structurally deficient. When might be a convenient time to ask the richest Americans to help solve problems of this kind? How about now?
It is easy to understand why even the most generous person might be averse to paying taxes: Our legislative process has been hostage to short-term political interests and other perverse incentives for as long as anyone can remember. Consequently, our government wastes an extraordinary amount of money. It also seems uncontroversial to say that whatever can be best accomplished in the private sector should be. Our tax code must also be reformed--and it might even be true that the income tax should be lowered on everyone, provided we find a better source of revenue to pay our bills. But I can't imagine that anyone seriously believes that the current level of wealth inequality in the United States is good and worth maintaining, or that our government's first priority should be to spare a privileged person like myself the slightest hardship as this once great nation falls into ruin.
And the ruination of the United States really does seem possible. It has been widely reported, for instance, that students in Shanghai far surpass our own in science, reading, and math. In fact, when compared to other countries, American students are now disconcertingly average (slightly below in math), where the average includes utopias like Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Albania, Kazakhstan, and Indonesia. President Obama was right to recognize this as a "Sputnik moment." But it is worse than that. This story was immediately followed by a report about giddy Creationists in the state of Kentucky being offered $40 million in tax subsidies to produce a full-scale model of Noah's ark. More horrible still, this ludicrous use of public money is probably a wise investment, given that such a monument to scientific ignorance will be guaranteed to attract an ovine influx of Christian tourists from neighboring states. Seeing facts of this kind, juxtaposed without irony or remedy at this dire moment in history, it is hard not to feel that one is witnessing America's irreversible decline. Needless to say, most Americans have no choice but to send their children to terrible schools--where they will learn the lesser part of nothing and emerge already beggared by a national debt now on course to reach $20 trillion. And yet Republicans in every state can successfully campaign on a promise to spend less on luxuries like education, while delivering tax cuts to people who, if asked to guess their own net worth, could not come within $10 million of the correct figure if their lives depended on it.
American opposition to the "redistribution of wealth" has achieved the luster of a religious creed. And, as with all religions, one finds the faithful witlessly espousing doctrines that harm almost everyone, including their own children. For instance, while most Americans have no chance of earning or inheriting significant wealth, 68 percent want the estate tax eliminated (and 31 percent consider it to be the "worst" and "least fair" tax levied by the federal government). Most believe that limiting this tax, which affects only 0.2 percent of the population, should be the top priority of the current Congress.
The truth, however, is that everyone must favor the "redistribution of wealth" at some point. This relates directly to the issue of education: as the necessity of doing boring and dangerous work disappears--whether because we have built better machines and infrastructure, or shipped our least desirable jobs overseas--people need to be better educated so that they can apply themselves to more interesting work. Who will pay for this? There is only one group of people who can pay for anything at this point: the wealthy.
To make matters more difficult, Americans have made a religious fetish of something called "self-reliance." Most seem to think that while a person may not be responsible for the opportunities he gets in life, each is entirely responsible for what he makes of these opportunities. This is, without question, a false view of the human condition. Consider the biography of any "self-made" American, from Benjamin Franklin on down, and you will find that his success was entirely dependent on background conditions that he did not make, and of which he was a mere beneficiary. There is not a person on earth who chose his genome, or the country of his birth, or the political and economic conditions that prevailed at moments crucial to his progress. Consequently, no one is responsible for his intelligence, range of talents, or ability to do productive work. If you have struggled to make the most of what Nature gave you, you must still admit that Nature also gave you the ability and inclination to struggle. How much credit do I deserve for not having Down syndrome or any other disorder that would make my current work impossible? None whatsoever. And yet devotees of self-reliance rail against those who would receive entitlements of various sorts--health care, education, etc.--while feeling unselfconsciously entitled to their relative good fortune. Yes, we must encourage people to work to the best of their abilities and discourage free riders wherever we can--but it seems only decent at this moment to admit how much luck is required to succeed at anything in this life. Those who have been especially lucky--the smart, well-connected, and rich--should count their blessings, and then share some of these blessings with the rest of society.
The wealthiest Americans often live as though they and their children had nothing to gain from investments in education, infrastructure, clean-energy, and scientific research. For instance, the billionaire Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, recently helped kill a proposition that would have created an income tax for the richest 1 percent in Washington (one of seven states that has no personal income tax). All of these funds would have gone to improve his state's failing schools. What kind of society does Ballmer want to live in--one that is teeming with poor, uneducated people? Who does he expect to buy his products? Where will he find his next batch of software engineers? Perhaps Ballmer is simply worried that the government will spend his money badly--after all, we currently spend more than almost every other country on education, with abysmal results. Well, then he should say so--and rather than devote hundreds of thousands of dollars to stoking anti-tax paranoia in his state, he should direct some of his vast wealth toward improving education, like his colleague Bill Gates has begun to do.
There are, in fact, some signs that a new age of heroic philanthropy might be dawning. For instance, the two wealthiest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, recently invited their fellow billionaires to pledge the majority of their wealth to the public good. This is a wonderfully sane and long overdue initiative about which it is unforgivable to be even slightly cynical. But it is not sufficient. Most of this money will stay parked in trusts and endowments for decades, and much of it will go toward projects that are less than crucial to the future of our society. It seems to me, however, that Gates and Buffett could easily expand and target this effort: asking those who have pledged, along with the rest of the wealthiest Americans, to immediately donate a percentage of their net worth to a larger fund. This group of benefactors would include not only the super-rich, but people of far more modest means. I do not have 1/1000 the wealth of Steve Ballmer, but I certainly count myself among the people who should be asked to sacrifice for the future of this country. The combined wealth of the men and women on the Forbes 400 list is $1.37 trillion. By some estimates, there are at least another 1,500 billionaires in the United States. Something tells me that anyone with a billion dollars could safely part with 25 percent of his or her wealth--without being forced to sell any boats, planes, vacation homes, or art. As of 2009, there were 980,000 families with a net worth exceeding $5 million (not including their primary residence). Would a one-time donation of 5 percent really be too much to ask to rescue our society from the maw of history?
Some readers will point out that I am free to donate to the treasury even now. But such solitary sacrifice would be utterly ineffectual, and I am no more eager than anyone else is to fill the pork barrels of corrupt politicians. However, if Gates and Buffett created a mechanism that bypassed the current dysfunction of government, earmarking the money for unambiguously worthy projects, I suspect that there are millions of people like myself who would not hesitate to invest in the future of America.
Imagine that Gates and Buffett raised a trillion dollars this way: what should we spend it on? The first thing to acknowledge is that almost any use of this money would be better than just letting it sit. Mindlessly repairing every bridge, tunnel, runway, harbor, reservoir, and recreation area in the United States would be an improvement over what are currently doing. However, here are the two areas of investment that strike me as most promising:
Education: It is difficult to think of anything more important than providing the best education possible for our children. They will develop the next technologies, medical cures, and global industries, while mitigating their unintended effects, or they will fail to do these things and consign us all to oblivion. The future of this country will be entirely shaped by boys and girls who are just now learning to think. What are we teaching them? Are we equipping them to create a world worth living in? It doesn't seem so. Our public school system is an international disgrace. Even the most advantaged children in the United States do not learn as much as children in other countries do. Yes, the inefficiencies in our current system could be remedied, and must be, and these savings can then be put to good use--but there is no question that a true breakthrough in education will require an immense investment of further resources. Here's an expensive place to start: make college free for anyone who can't afford it.
Clean Energy: As Thomas Friedman and many others have pointed out, our dependence on nonrenewable sources of energy is not only bad for our economy and the environment, it is obliges us to subsidize both sides of the clash of civilizations. Much of the money we spend on oil is used to export the lunatic ideology of conservative Islam--building mosques and madrassas by the tens of thousands, recruiting jihadists, and funding terrorist atrocities. We should have devoted ourselves to a clean-energy Manhattan Project thirty years ago. Success on this front would still yield enormous wealth in this country, while simultaneously bankrupting the Middle Eastern states that only pretend to be our allies. Our failure to rise to this challenge already counts as one of the greatest instances of masochistic stupidity in human history. Why prolong it?
I am aware that a proposal of this kind is bound to seem quixotic. But what's to stop the wealthiest Americans from sponsoring a 21st Century Renaissance? What politician would object to our immediately spending a trillion dollars on improvements in education and energy security? Perhaps there are even better targets for this money. Let Gates and Buffett convene a team of brilliant people to lay out the priorities. But again, we should remember that they could scarcely fail to improve our situation. Simply repaving our roads, the dilapidation of which causes $54 billion in damage to our cars every year, would be better than doing nothing.
Sam Harris is a neuroscientist.
In 2010, Glenn Beck repeatedly made up facts on Fox News show -- a barrage of lies that would force any credible news outlet to fire him. Media Matters counts down 15 of the most notable fibs that Beck told this year on Fox News, culminating with the biggest lie of all.Besides being a serial liar and character assassin Beck seems to be a coward. he is pants wetting afraid to have a public debate on the issues without relying on lies and urban myths as a crutch. Beck is part of a long tradition of conservative America hating cowards like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
No. 15 The Fed Hoards Its Profits
Beck Complains That "Nobody" Is Looking To Recover The Fed's Profits. During a January interview with Sarah Palin, Beck discussed the Federal Reserve's 2009 profits, and claimed, "Exxon had their record profit a couple of years ago. It was $45 billion. The Fed just had record profit, over $50 billion. No one's having hearings on the Fed. Nobody is looking for a windfall profit tax on the Fed. We can't even open the Fed's books." [Fox News, Glenn Beck,1/13/10, via Nexis]
REALITY: The Fed "Returns Its Profits To The Treasury." The Washington Post reported that the Federal Reserve "will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009 ... the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury." The Post added that these profits "are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy -- though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms." [The Washington Post, 1/12/10]
No. 14 Tax Dollars Funded An Art Exhibit Actually Paid For By Private Donors
BECK: "And Then You Have The Tax Dollars Funding This Wonderful Art Display. It's Christmas At The Smithsonian." Beck said of an exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, which is titled "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture":
Perfect storm. Eroding values. Hard work, sacrifice, thrift, honor, truth, God. As a nation born out of faith in God, how's that going today, huh? Twenty-five percent of those under 30 years of age describe their religion as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular. Now, as you get older, it goes down. Thirty to 40 years old, only 19 percent. Ages 40 to 50, 15 percent. If you're over 60, less than 10 percent say that.
And then you have the tax dollars funding this wonderful art display. It's Christmas at the Smithsonian. Here's this wonderful -- oh, look, it's Jesus with ants on him. They describe it as the first major exhibition to focus on the sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.
What? You got to be kidding me, right? What does this have to do with the birth of the baby Jesus, and why is he now covered in ants? Whose values are these? And you wonder why there's the breakdown of the family. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/30/10]
REALITY: Smithsonian "Receives Public Funds" But "Does Not Use That Money For Exhibitions." The Washington Post reported:
The exhibition, which opened Oct. 30, was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show. The show, which cost $750,000, was also underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues.
[...]
As part of the Smithsonian, the gallery receives public funds. Overall, the Smithsonian gets about 70 percent of its annual budget from the federal government, but it does not use that money for exhibitions. [The Washington Post, 11/30/10]
No. 13 Obama Did Not Make Oil Spill "Our Priority"
BECK: Obama Did Not Prioritize The Oil Spill. Beck falsely claimed that Obama did not prioritize ending the oil spill in the Gulf:
BECK: What are we doing now with the spill? If this were really about the spill, we would first work on, what? Stopping this!
Before talking about energy and taxes and cap and trade or solar panels or saying, "Don't tell me that we can't fundamentally transform the country into solar panels and green energy." You would stop the oil spill. You would get a tourniquet. This should be our priority. But it's not. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/17/10]
REALITY: Obama Said "Make No Mistake: We Will Fight This Spill With Everything We've Got For As Long As It Takes." During an address from the Oval Office prior to Beck's claim, Obama stated: "But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy." [Remarks By The President To The Nation On The BP Oil Spill, WhiteHouse.gov, 6/15/10]
REALITY: Obama Had Called The Spill "My Top Priority." During an earlier press conference, Obama said: "Those who think that we were either slow on our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred." He also said, " But here's the broad point: There has never been a point during this crisis in which this administration, up and down up the line, in all these agencies, hasn't, number one, understood this was my top priority -- getting this stopped and then mitigating the damage; and number two, understanding that if BP wasn't doing what our best options were, we were fully empowered and instruct them, to tell them to do something different." [Remarks By The President On The Gulf Oil Spill, WhiteHouse.gov, 5/27/10]
No. 12 U.S. Sending "Another Trillion Dollars, Your Tax Dollars" Over To Europe
BECK: "Now We Find Out Through The Fed That We Are Going To Do Almost Another Trillion Dollars, Your Tax Dollars, Over To Europe." Discussing efforts by the International Monetary Fund to stabilize European economies, Beck said:
BECK: We also told you that the IMF would bail out Europe. Here we were on this program, oh, I don't know how many months ago. Watch.
BECK [video clip]: We're not only bailing ourselves out, Fannie and Freddie, but now we're trying to bail out Europe as well. The European Union, along with the IMF, is giving $1 trillion to Greece -- $1 trillion. The U.S. contributes 17 percent of the IMF funds.
BECK: OK. So, we told you that, and nobody really paid attention. Now we find out, through the Fed, that we are going to do almost another trillion dollars, your tax dollars, over to Europe.
We also found out that we have sent $3.3 trillion in our bailout, a lot of it went over to Europe, went over to France, went to Germany, Spain, et cetera, et cetera. And we're sending more. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 12/2/10]
REALITY: The WSJ Reported, "The U.S. Isn't Discussing A Larger International Monetary Fund Contribution To The European Rescue Package." The Wall Street Journal reported:
The U.S. isn't discussing a larger International Monetary Fund contribution to the European rescue package, a U.S. official said Wednesday.
European Commission officials have been discussing whether to increase the EUR750 billion rescue package as a way to handle possible sovereign debt problems in Spain and other countries. A bigger fund would likely include a larger financial contribution from the IMF, which now is committed to spending as much as EUR250 billion on euro-zone rescue loans.
(This story and related background material will be available on The Wall Street Journal Web site, WSJ.com.)
U.S. Undersecretary of Treasury Lael Brainard is now in Germany discussing the Europe's plans to contain the euro zone's sovereign debt woes. A U.S. official said those talks don't now include a larger IMF contribution. [The Wall Street Journal, 12/1/10]
REALITY: AP Reported That A U.S. Official "Said That An Addition To The IMF Support Package Was Not Something That Was Being Discussed Currently." The Associated Press reported:
A U.S. official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity because discussions were still ongoing, said that an addition to the IMF support package was not something that was being discussed currently.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner did dispatch Treasury Undersecretary Lael Brainard, Treasury's top official on international matters, for talks with European officials. Brainard had meetings in Madrid with economic officials on Wednesday and was scheduled to be in Berlin on Thursday and Paris on Friday.
The U.S. "can't afford to let Europe implode," said David Gilmore of Foreign Exchange Analytics. But the reported statement by the U.S. official does not necessarily mean that the U.S. has already agreed to a deal allowing the IMF to contribute more money or that it will pony up more money for Europe itself.
Investors were relieved by the implication that the EU and the IMF might be assembling a larger bailout fund, Gilmore said, because of the threat of there not being enough funds for Spain, should it need a rescue.
A spokesman for the EU's monetary affairs chief Olli Rehn said he had not heard of talks about extending the EFSF fund. [Associated Press, 12/1/10]
No. 11 Beck Time Travels To 1995 To Show George Soros "Didn't Mince Words" In 2004
BECK: In 2004, Soros Called The Election "Not A Normal Election," And Said That "In Periods Of Regime Change, Normal Rules Do Not Apply." Accusing financier and philanthropist George Soros of setting up a "shadow party" to interfere in the 2004 elections, Beck cited David Horowitz and Richard Poe's The Shadow Party and said:
BECK: A shadow party is not a political party, it is a -- at least not in a tangible sense. It works outside the normal electoral system. In 2000, Soros funded one-third of the shadow conventions. Do you even remember these? They were run by Arianna Huffington, the president's favorite source of news. And one of the lead organizers next to her was Jim Wallis, one of the guys who is campaigning against this program, surprise, surprise.
The idea was to parallel the Democratic and Republican conventions -- the shadow convention. Huffington said at the time, the message of the shadow conventions was, quote, "Not left or right, and the answers to these issues are not going to be found in the old ideas of the past. Clearly, the Great Society solution of top-down programs has failed." Top-down programs. "Instead, the answers could be found in the raw power," quoting, "of government appropriations." Wow.
But it was the next election cycle that truly launched the shadow party. In 2004, when Soros didn't mince words, he stated, quote, "This is not a normal election. These are not normal times." And, quote, "I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. And in periods of regime change, normal rules do not apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances."
By the 2004 election cycle, Soros' shadow party had shaped the Democratic message. Under Soros, the guidance of the shadow-party infrastructure had assumed the coherent shape by early 2004. They were seven extensively independent nonprofit groups, which included MoveOn.org that would help the Democrats. Really? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/09/10, emphasis added]
REALITY: Soros Said "I Do Not Accept The Rules Imposed By Others" And "In Periods Of Regime Change, Normal Rules Do Not Apply" In 1995 - Not 2004. Those comments are actually from the 1995 book Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve:
KRISZTINA KOENEN (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung): You have been accused of playing by your own rules and changing the rules when it suits you.
SOROS: I plead guilty. I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.
Look at the tremendous changes I have gone through on a personal level. Consider my career as a philanthropist. In the beginning, I avoided any personal involvement. I sought to remain anonymous and shunned publicity. Later, when the revolution gathered momentum, I accepted the fact I was deeply involved. After 1989, I actively sought to gain a hearing for my views. That alone was a major change. At the same time, I continued to abstain from doing business in Eastern Europe. Now, I have given that up to. The reversal from my starting point, when I dissociated myself from my philanthropy, is complete. I accept everything that I do, whether as an investor or as a benefactor as an integral part of my existence. And I am very happy about it because in a sense my whole life has been one long effort to integrate various facets of my existence.
There is a remarkable parallel in the evolution of my attitude toward philanthropy and my attitude toward making money. At first, I didn't want to identify myself with my business career. I felt there was more to me than making money. I kept my private life strictly separate from my business. Then I went through a rough patch in 1962, when I was practically wiped out, and it affected me deeply. I had some psychosomatic symptoms, like vertigo. It made me realize that making money is an essential part of existence. Now I am completing the process by doing away with the artificial separation between my activities as investor and as philanthropist.
The internal barriers have crumbled and I am all of one piece. It gives me a great sense of fulfillment. I realize that I cut a larger-than-life figure and I feel ambivalent about that. On one hand, I find it gratifying, but on the other, the sheer magnitude of my activities, both in business and in philanthropy, makes me uneasy. I must admit that I wanted it that way and I probably could not feel all of a piece if I weren't larger than life. It makes me somewhat abnormal and that is the source of malaise. Still, it is better to have abnormal accomplishments than to harbor abnormal ambitions. For the first 50 years of my life, I felt as if I had a guilty secret now it is out in the open and I am proud of what I have accomplished. [Soros on Soros, Pages 145-146, emphasis added]
No. 10 "Every Single American Who Invests" Earns More Than $250,000 Per Year
BECK: President Obama Proposed To Increase The Capital Gains Tax On "Every Single American Who Invests." Beck falsely said that Obama "sought to raise the capital gains tax, which affects every single American who invests, which -- I know that sounds like the big Wall Street fat cats, but if you have a 401(k), that would be you." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 4/7/10]
REALITY: Obama Proposed Capital Gains Increase Only On "Upper-Income" Earners. The White House budget for fiscal year 2011 called for reinstating the 20 percent capital gains tax rate only on families with income greater than $250,000 and on individuals with income greater than $200,000. [Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011]
What's the going rate for getting a former vice president off the hook in a major criminal case that involves charges of government corruption and raises concerns about violent wrongdoing and even murder?Numbers are from citations in the article. It must be nice to be the beneficiary of such an incredible amount of unearned wealth. This is the kind of socialism conservatives practice. They worship at the altar of corporate collectivism. The alter we are all supposed to worship at. Between their lobbyist-corporate-think tank they form a circle of power which control the means of production and all the capital of course - we the people are supposed to be great to be their highly in debt wage slaves.
If you're Dick Cheney, it's roughly $250 million [1].
That's the amount that Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR Inc. are reported, by Nigerian officials and international observers, to have paid to get the government of the African country to drop bribery charges against the former corporate CEO and other Halliburton employees and operatives.
Top Nigerian lawyers and newspapers are objecting, and rightly so.
The charges against Cheney and his colleagues go far beyond the usual corporate corruption.
I've been following them for the better part of a decade.
In the biography I wrote about then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney—Dick: The Man Who Is President [2], published in 2004 by New Press—I devoted a good deal of space to the former Halliburton CEO's business engagements in Nigeria.
The section on the dirty dealings in that country by Halliburton [3] during the time when Cheney served as that company’s CEO in the 1990s, argued that: “One of the ugliest stories of Halliburton’s globe-trotting comes out of Nigeria, the oil and gas–rich West African country where the brutal dictatorship of Sani Abacha garnered a good deal of attention for jailing and executing environmentalists—including playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa—who were displeased by its willingness to allow the government’s international oil industry partners to dislocate communities and despoil vast stretches of the countryside. Abacha looked like someone with whom Halliburton could do business. The price that Halliburton and its partners in an international consortium had to pay was high—they are alleged to have paid a $180 million bribe to the Abacha government—but it was a pittance compared with the potential payout. The liquefied natural gas plant they planned to build was valued at as much as $6 billion. Things went swimmingly until the Abacha dictatorship began to crumble and details of its dealings with companies such as Halliburton leaked out.”
By early 2004, in the midst of Cheney’s tenure as the most powerful vice president in American history, French investigators were talking about calling the former CEO to testify regarding his alleged awareness of wrongdoing in Nigeria.
Around the same time, the new government of Nigeria opened an inquiry.
Things move slowly when it comes to corporate crime investigations.
But the Nigerian inquiry finally reached a critical stage this year—for Cheney and for the global quest for corporate accountability.
"We are filing charges against Cheney," Femi Babafemi [4], a spokesperson for Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), announced this fall.
Godwin Obla, prosecuting counsel for the commission, announced in late November that Nigerian officials would bring significant charges against Cheney and officials from five foreign companies (including Halliburton) in relation to the bribery scandal.
Business Week [5], which reported that: “An arrest warrant for Cheney ‘will be issued and transmitted through Interpol,” the world’s biggest international police organization...”
That was no idle threat.
At the time of the announcement, Nigeria had already arrested roughly two dozen officials with Halliburton and its partner companies—Technip SA, Europe’s second-largest oilfield- services provider; Eni SpA, Italy’s biggest oil company; and Saipem Construction Co., a unit of Eni—in connection with alleged illegal payments to Nigerian officials, according to Business Week.
But Cheney and his compatriots did not appear to be interested in clearing their names in a court of law.
After weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiating by Halliburton representatives with the Nigerians—a process that reportedly saw former President George H.W, Bush and former Secretary of State James Baker make calls on Cheney's behalf—the charges against Cheney have been dropped.
Why? Did new evidence of Cheney's innocence come to light?
No.
According to the Associated Press [6], "Nigeria's anti-corruption watchdog, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, said the charges were dropped on Friday after Halliburton agreed to pay fines up to $250 million over allegations it paid millions of dollars [7]in bribe to Nigerian officials."
Rumors are swirling that the United States is preparing to indict Wikileaks leader Julian Assange for conspiring to violate the Espionage Act of 1917. The modern version of that act states among many, many other things that: “Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States” causes the disclosure or publication of this material, could be subject to massive criminal penalties. It also states that: “If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions … each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.” (18 U.S. Code, Chapter 37, Section 793.)
I view the Espionage Act of 1917 as a lifelong nemesis. My parents were charged, tried and ultimately executed after being indicted for Conspiracy to Commit Espionage under that act.
The 1917 Act has a notorious history. It originally served to squelch opposition to World War I. It criminalized criticism of the war effort, and sent hundreds of dissenters to jail just for voicing their opinions. It transformed dissent into treason.
Many who attacked the law noted that the framers of the Constitution had specifically limited what constituted treason by writing it into the Constituton: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort” (Article III, section 3). The framers felt this narrow definition was necessary to prevent treason from becoming what some called “the weapon of a political faction.” Furthermore, in their discussions at the Constitutional Convention they agreed that spoken opposition was protected by the First Amendment and could never be considered treason.
It appears obvious that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional because it does exactly what the Constitution prohibits. It is, in other words, an effort to make an end run around the Treason Clause of the Constitution. Not surprisingly, however, as we’ve seen in times of political stress, the Supreme Court upheld its validity in a 5-4 decision. Although later decisions seemed to criticize and limit its scope, the Espionage Act of 1917 has never been declared unconstitutional. To this day, with a few notable exceptions that include my parents’ case, it has been a dormant sword of Damocles, awaiting the right political moment and an authoritarian Supreme Court to spring to life and slash at dissenters.
It is no accident that Julian Assange may face a “conspiracy” charge just as my parents did. All that is required of the prosecution to prove a conspiracy is to present evidence that two or more people got together and took one act in furtherance of an illegal plan. It could be a phone call or a conversation.
In my parents’ case the only evidence presented against my mother was David and Ruth Greenglasses’ testimony that she was present at a critical espionage meeting and typed up David’s handwritten description of a sketch. Although this testimony has since been shown to be false, even if it were true, it would mean that the government of the United States executed someone for typing.
But the reach of “conspiracy” is even more insidious. It means that ANYONE with whom my parents could have discussed their actions and politics could have been swept up and had similar charges brought against them if someone testified that those conversations included plans to commit espionage. Thus, the case against my parents was rightly seen by many in their political community of rank and file Communist Party Members as a threat to them all.
Viewing the Wikileaks situation through this lens, it becomes apparent why the government would seek to charge Assange with conspiracy. Not only Assange, but anyone involved in the Wikileaks community could be swept up in a dragnet. Just as in my parents’ case, the prosecutors could seek to bully some involved into ratting out others, in return for more favorable treatment. This divide and conquer approach would turn individuals against each other, sow the seeds of distrust within the broader community, and intimidate others into quiescence.