Are Our Votes Meaningless?

Things Are Worse Than We Thought

If this is the mindset in Washington, well, it explains everything.

Barack, You Took an Oath of Office

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out his list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

In case Barack hasn't been paying attention, the Bush administration has violated the Constitution, domestic law, international law and Geneva Conventions. In a just world, this administration would have been impeached at the onset of this war in March of 2003 for intentionally deceiving the congress, the American public and the United Nations. Since that illegal act, worthy of having the administration tried for war crimes, the administration has admitted to illegally spying on Americans. Their activities have been a direct violation of the FISA Act which carries a five year prison sentence. And we haven't even begun to talk about how they've used and advocated for torture.

I wonder if Barack was paying attention when he took his Oath of Office. The Oath goes as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If he was paying attention, he should be willing to live up to the Oath he swore to. Article II - Section IV gives the congress the power to do the following.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Without a doubt, this administration is guilty of the acts that are worthy of impeachment. So yes Mr. Obama, please do vote the bums out, by urging the congress to do so through impeachment. Just as you swore to do. Thank you.

Was Kurt Right?

"There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

Was he right? Or do we just pick the nut cases?

Robert Scheer Tells It How It Is

Spitzer’s Shame Is Wall Street’s Gain
By Robert Scheer

Tell me again: Why should we get all worked up over the revelation that the New York governor paid for sex? Will it bring back to life the eight U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq that same day in a war that makes no sense and has cost this nation trillions in future debt? Will it save those millions of homes that hardworking folks all over the country are losing because of financial industry shenanigans that Eliot Spitzer, as much as anyone, attempted to halt? Perhaps it provides some insight into why oil has risen to $108 a barrel, benefiting most of all the oil sheiks whom our taxpayer-supported military has kept in power?

Sure, the guy, by his own admission, is quite pathetic in all those small, squirrelly ways that have messed up the lives of other grand public figures before him, but why is an all-too-human sin, amply predicted in early Scripture, getting all this incredible media play as some sort of shocking event? The answer is that, while having precious little to do with serious corruption in public life, it does have a great deal to do with stoking flagging newspaper sales and television ratings.

The sad truth is that reporting on major corruption, say, the rationalizations of a president who has authorized torture, doesn’t cut it as a marketing bonanza. Just days before this grand exposé, the president vetoed a bill banning torture, and instead of being greeted with horrified disgust, the president’s deep denigration of this nation’s presumed ideals was met with a vast public yawn. Torture, unlike paid sex, doesn’t have legs as a news story.

Sex sells, and frankly it would seem far more exploitative for the news media to pimp this tale to the public than anything that VIP escort service did with the pitiable governor. His behavior was not really any more wretched than messing around with a young and vulnerable White House intern who didn’t even get paid for her efforts, yet Bill Clinton survived that one, whereas Spitzer was presumed dead on the arrival of this “news.” The New York Times, which editorially has supported the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, whose vast White House experience clearly did not include corralling her husband, now editorializes contemptuously about Spitzer’s betrayal of the public trust as well as about his exploitation of his “ashen-faced” wife, who, like Hillary, stood by her man.

The media consensus from the opening salvo was that Spitzer must resign and he will be thrown to the dogs, which is unfortunate because, like Clinton, he has done much valuable work in the public interest, and the outrage over this personal dereliction, tawdry in the extreme, is excessive. I certainly never wanted Clinton to resign, let alone be impeached, but why is Spitzer’s paying for sex more disgraceful than ripping it off? Yes, Spitzer allegedly broke a law that shouldn’t be on the books, and his resignation in disgrace is inevitable, but it bothers me that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney remain in office despite having violated enormously more serious laws.

Frankly, I don’t care what any of these politicians do in their personal lives as long as the practice is consensual, and the thousands of dollars that exchanged hands in this case would provide a presumption that the lady in question was indeed a willing partner in this commercial transaction. True, Spitzer is an outrageous hypocrite for having prosecuted others caught in what should not be considered criminal behavior, but since when is hypocrisy on the part of a politician, particularly as to sex, so shocking?

I wouldn’t have written this column had I not read The Wall Street Journal’s Page 1 news story headlined “Wall Street Cheers as Its Nemesis Plunges Into Crisis.” The article begins with the crowing statement “It’s Schadenfreude time on Wall Street” and goes on to quote those whom Spitzer went after over what should be considered the criminal greed that has predominated on Wall Street. It was Spitzer, as much as anyone, who sounded the alarm on the subprime mortgage crisis, the obscene payouts to CEOs who defrauded their shareholders and the other financial scandals that have brought the U.S. economy to its knees.

The best rule of thumb these days is that ordinary Americans should be mightily depressed over any news that Wall Street hustlers cheer, for they have been exposed as a dangerous pack of scoundrels quite willing to rob decent, hardworking people of their homes. And of course no one on Wall Street ever paid for sex.

House Dems Propose New Surveillance Legislation

Under the new legislation, retroactive immunity would not be granted but the companies would be able to argue their cases in court and present classified evidence to a judge during a closed proceeding without the presence of the plaintiffs.

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said that without immunity for telephone companies, the Democrats surveillance bill will be "dead on arrival."

He went on to say, "Today's proposal is further evidence that House Democrats are not only out of touch with the needs of the American people, but also with Senate Democrats, the White House and our intelligence community," he said in a written statement. "Their careless disregard for the concerns of our intelligence community simply proves the point that Democrats are weak on national security."

And as we've all learned in our constitutional history class while growing up, when you don't let telecommunications companies violate your civil rights by spying on your phone calls, the terrorists win.

House Majority Leader Hoyer said their will be a vote on the bill Thursday.

William Fallon Steps Down

Do you remember when military officials who were opposed to invading Iraq were resigning over the invasion and occupation of the country? Eric Shinseki should ring a bell who resigned in June of 2003, shortly after the occupation began. He testified prior to the invasion that it would take several hundred thousand troops to successfully occupy post-war Iraq. Anything less would result in the country falling to sectarian war he claimed. The administration said he was "wildly off the mark" and went ahead with their invasion without weighing the testimony he had made before congress.

In an article in Esquire Magazine which was released last week entitled, The Man Between War and Peace, William Fallon was described as the one person on this planet who has the power to stop a war with Iran. Fallon has been a critic of the administration and has made public statement saying that they're buildup for a war with Iran is reckless.

Today it is William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, who announced his resignation which will become official after March 31st, 2008. It is without doubt that Fallon has been pressured into this decision.

In his resignation, Fallon had the following to say, "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region and although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there."

This is not good news for the American people. What the ramifications of losing a man who was capable of and willing to stop a war with Iran by a war-crazed administration is yet to be seen.

New York GOP Lawmakers Threaten to Impeach Spitzer

New York's Republican Party is giving Elliot Spitzer 48 hours to resign or they are going to begin the process for impeachment hearings. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for the Democratic Party which is currently in idle on the impeachment gear for Bush, Cheney and the rest of the criminal administration.

Lets put all the facts on the table. Elliot Spitzer is a potential client of a prostitution service and may have violated federal laws by carrying out his illegal activities across state lines - it is not confirmed. George Bush has admitted to violating the FISA Act, a crime which carries up to a five year jail sentence. Further, this administration knowingly used false and misleading data to lie to the American public and the United Nations in an effort to invade a nation.

Within 24 hours, the Republican Party is facing their Democratic opponent with impeachment. Nearly five years later, the Democratic Party is idle.

Support Shirley Golub

Shirley Golub needs your support. Shirley is running for the 8th District of California for the United States Congress - the seat which is currently held by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi has been a roadblock to justice since she became House Speaker in January of 2007. It has been her who has pushed and promoted the policy of refraining from impeachment hearings for the Bush administration. Further, she has been an accomplice in the illegal spying program and the continued occupation of Iraq. Nancy Pelosi needs to be removed from her seat for failing her constituency and the American public.

Shirley Golub is the ideal replacement. Shirley embodies the same political instincts that are seen in Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Robert Wexler, Bernie Sanders and the late Paul Wellstone. Visit her campaign website for further information. Be sure to view the issues she is campaigning on.

While Elliot Faces Resignation, Bush & Co. Will Continue to Infringe on Our Civil Liberties

Elliot Spitzer has been identified as Client 9 of the Emperor's Club V.I.P. prostitution ring. He was identified as Client 9 through a federal wiretap. Whether he is a victim of this administration's illegal spy program is something we'll likely never know. What we do know is that this administration wants to be able to wiretap "potential terrorists" without authorization from any outside party and that they have been doing so since they took office - even prior to 9/11/01. What we also know is that presidential administrations of the past have used wiretaps as a tool against their political enemies. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he too claimed were national security reasons.

Elliot Spitzer is indeed an enemy of the Republican Party and Corporate America. Not only is he a Democrat, he is the Governor and previously the Attorney General of New York who has made a name for himself by taking up civil actions and criminal prosecutions relating to corporate white-collar crime, securities fraud, internet fraud, and environmental protection. Wikipedia provides a list of cases Spitzer has taken up in the course of his career while serving the state of New York.

Elliot Spitzer was a rising star in the Democratic Party. Many Democrats believed he was the future of the party and very well may serve as their presidential nominee in elections to come. Today that possibility ended. Elliot Spitzer with his wife at his side apologized to the public. In his statement he showed shame and left the podium with what is certain to be a tarnished legacy. We've all seen the ramifications of a sex scandal on the political stage before.

While what Governor Spitzer has been accused of and owned up to is not morally right, it is not a scandal which impacts his constituency. It is a matter which is between he and his family. It pales in comparison to political scandals of the past such as those that have occurred between Jack Abramoff and the Republican Party. Further, it is hardly relevant when compared with the likes of lying a nation into an illegal war, or ousting a CIA agent as political payback or infringing on the Constitution and our civil liberties.

And by no surprise should it be that what has happened to Elliot Spitzer may very well be a consequence of this illegal spy program. We were given protections to our civil liberties by the founders of this country to protect us from potential acts such as what we have seen occur today. The Democratic Party is about to cave into the White House's newly drafted legislation which expands the spy program and grants the companies which have helped facilitate it to date immunity from prosecution.

We cannot let this happen as a people. We must urge our Representatives and Senators not to let this legislation pass. Should this legislation pass, the integrity of our political process and our entire nation is in jeopardy. What we're seeing is the foundation being constructed for a police state.

Thank You Again Ralph Nader

Thank You Ralph Nader

George Called It a Slowdown

WASHINGTON (AP) — Employers slashed 63,000 jobs in February, the most in five years and the starkest sign yet that the country is heading dangerously toward recession or is in one already.

The Labor Department's report, released Friday, also indicated that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.8 percent as hundreds of thousands of people — perhaps discouraged by their prospects — left the civilian labor force. The jobless rate was 4.9 percent in January.

Job losses were widespread, with hefty cuts coming from construction, manufacturing, retailing, financial services and a variety of professional and business services. Those losses swamped gains elsewhere, including education and health care, leisure and hospitality and the government.

Related MSNBC Story

EconomyInCrisis.org is a website you should routinely visit for daily stories pertaining to the United States economy. The website also tracks pertinent data such as who is funding our debt, what nations are buying our assets and industries and what percentage of our total consumption is spent on foreign goods.

Randi Rhodes Is No Goddess of Radio

Funny? Not really.
Informative? Rarely.
Entertaining? Hardly.
Annoying? Frequently.
Embarrassing to liberals? Certainly.
Makes you want to turn off your radio? Within seconds.

When this lady isn't telling the same bad joke over and over, she is busy ranting about issues which are hardly relevant to the American public. For the past two months she has spent her on air hours shouting down Hillary's campaign all the meanwhile giving Barack's a complete pass. She'd rather talk about how Hillary's dirty campaign tactics are destroying the Democratic party rather than what is really unraveling the party - the corporatist infestation.

In Barack and Hillary we have two corporatists who are abandoning core Democratic values in favor of Wall Street dollars. They've both voted in favor of legislation which infringes on our civil liberties. They've both voted to fund this war which appears to be nothing more than a corporate profiteering venture at this point. They both support a health care policy which benefits the insurance companies, health maintenance organizations and pharmaceutical giants. Neither are willing to hold this administration accountable for their atrocities against the Constitution or our civil liberties. Neither are willing to hold this administration accountable for lying us into an illegal war. Both are in violation of the Charter of the United Nations. Neither have stellar environmental records. Neither are the presidential candidate we deserve much less should be giving a pass to.

Randi has been touting Barack Obama as an excellent candidate since his campaign has caught fire within a delusional American public. If I were to meet with Randi, my questions to her would be as follows. Have you not been voicing outrage towards this war since its inception? Have you not been voicing your disgust with this administration's repeated violations of the Constitution and our civil liberties? Have you not been ashamed of this administration's environmental record? Have you not routinely pointed out the fraudulent behaviors of each and every member of this criminal administration? I believe you have. If I am correct - Why haven't you scrutinized these Democratic presidential candidates in the same fashion? After all, they have voted in favor of the White House's legislation which you have repelled time and time again.

While giving Barack a pass and shouting down Hillary, a candidate who nearly shares an identical voting record with the man - she has been trashing Ralph Nader and his supporters - just as she did in 2004.

Ralph Nader stands for values which the Democratic Party used to represent. Ralph Nader stands for the values most Americans cherish. Ralph Nader stands for the values and ideals Randi routinely puts forth on her own radio show. Yet somehow she hates this man. Her, like many other flawed thinkers on the left accuse Ralph of all the wrongdoing that has occurred in this country since Bush and his crony filled administration took office.

Randi needs to be honest with herself and her listeners. The Democratic Party has abandoned the liberal left. Since 2001, the Democratic Party has largely been accomplices of the Bush administration. In turn, the Democratic Party should not be entitled to each and every liberal American's vote. Those of us who are voting with our conscience are rightfully abandoning the party. Had the Democratic Party propelled a candidate like Dennis Kucinich to the forefront of the nomination, candidates such as Nader would not have entered the race. Nader is running simply to give liberals - not faux liberals - a voice.

If Randi truly was a goddess of radio, she would promote progressive candidates - not lumber on about those which represent a party that is slowly surrendering to Wall Street, just as the Republicans did in years past. The stigmata of party decay in terms of loyalty to its constituents is glaringly evident. Standing tall while in denial does not solve the problem - it perpetuates it. Randi, if you're reading this, do Ralph a favor and apologize. Blatantly criticizing him and his candidacy on the grounds that it may compromise the election for the Democratic Party couldn't be any further from godly - especially while supporting a candidate who doesn't even measure up on the issues you've shown extreme concern regarding.

House Dems to Grant Immunity to Telecoms

The Democratic Party is preparing to fail the American people yet again according to Glenn Greenwald, writer for Salon and documentary filmmaker. In his recent interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, he reports that the Democrats are prepared to vote in favor of the legislation which was written by the White House and Jay Rockefeller.

According to Greenwald, the ramifications of the legislation passing would be as follows:

"Well, it’ll mean that all of the lawsuits that exist now against the telecommunications company that the customers have been winning in court, on the grounds that what the telecoms did was illegal, will all be—disappear. They’ll just go away forever. And because Congress hasn’t investigated what the President has done, and because the media has been virtually inactive in doing so, that’ll mean that the last hope for finding out how the Bush administration spied on us for all those years will be just completely abolished, and we’ll lose the ability to find out what our government did for all those years in breaking the law and in spying on us. That’s the real reason the White House wants this bill, and that’s what the Congress is about to do, is to hand the President the ability to conceal that behavior for years and years and years."

In addition, this legislation which is set to be approved by House Democrats will allow domestic surveillance to occur without warrants being issued by the FISA courts.

It is unfortunate to see that the Democratic Party has caved into Bush's rhetoric. This past Monday Bush had the following to say. "There’s a lot of legal complexities on the FISA renewal debate, but the real issue comes down to this: to defend the country, we need to be able to monitor communications of terrorists quickly and be able to do it effectively. And we can’t do it without the cooperation of private companies. Now, unfortunately, some of the private companies have been sued for billions of dollars, because they are believed to have helped defend America after the attacks on 9/11.

Now, the question is, should these lawsuits be allowed to proceed, or should any company that may have helped save American lives be thanked for performing a patriotic service? Should those who stepped forward to say we’re going to help defend America have to go to the courthouse to defend themselves, or should the Congress and the President say thank you for doing your patriotic duty? I believe we ought to say thank you."

We elected Democrats in favor of Republicans in 2006 for two reasons. To end the war. To hold the administration accountable. They have done neither. Instead, they have acted as accomplices to this administration's wrongdoing, just as the Republicans had prior to the Democratic majority takeover.

Have you had enough? I have. I'll be writing my representative and telling them that not only will I not support them should this legislation pass, I will not be voting for a Democrat in the presidential election come this November.

Congratulations Dennis

Dennis secured his position as the Democratic nominee for 10th Congressional District of Ohio in yesterdays' primary. He was able to hold off Joe Cimperman who was running a heavily funded slander campaign against the incumbent congressman. The final tally for percentage of votes collected was as follows:

Dennis Kucinich 55
Joe Cimperman 29
Barbara Anne Ferris 5
Tom O’Grady 4
Rosemary Palmer 1

This was a victory for not only the 10th District of Ohio but for the United States as a whole. Dennis Kucinich is one of America's few brave congressmen who is willing to stand up to corporate interests and fight for our civil rights and the preservation of the constitution.

Congratulations Dennis.

Steer Clear of Brattleboro and Marlboro George

The towns Brattleboro and Marlboro of Vermont voted in favor of a measure yesterday which directs local police enforcement to arrest George W. Bush and Richard Cheney if they should enter the confines of their towns. Click for full story.

Roughly 12,000 people live in Brattleboro, located on the Connecticut River in the state's southeastern corner. Nearby Marlboro has a population of roughly 1,000.

I think I've found two towns where sanity is firmly in place. Thank you Brattlebro and Marlboro for this political statement which will go largely unreported in the mainstream media.

Why?

This evening I received an email from my senator, Patty Murray. Below in bold is the message which was entailed. As of right now the only explanation I have to offer does not add up. Our government has been reckless with the military contracts it has awarded thus far. Why would they award a military related contract to Airbus in a cost saving effort? Until I can find a better explanation to offer, I will let you ponder along with me.

Last Friday (2/29), I stood with the men and women of Boeing in Everett as the Air Force announced that it would be outsourcing a $40 billion contract to build aerial refueling tankers to the European company Airbus. Boeing workers were shocked, angry, and wanted answers – and so do I.

Awarding this critical military contract to Airbus, a company that is heavily subsidized by European governments, is a threat to our economic, military, and trade security. At a time when families are struggling and unemployment is rising at home, it is unacceptable that we are investing in European jobs instead of creating 44,000 new jobs here. At a time when we are engaged in two wars, we need to ask ourselves whether we should place war-fighting tools and technology in foreign hands. And as we continue to compete in a global market, we need to ask why we are giving $40 billion to a company that our government has brought a World Trade Organization (WTO) illegal subsidies case against.

Barack & Hillary, Look to France for a Health Care Plan

Many advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

The 3 Trillion Dollar War

Nobel laureate and former chief World Bank economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and co-author Linda Bilmes of Harvard University have written a new book which argues that the true budgeted cost of the war in Iraq by the government to date is approximately 1.5 trillion dollars. In addition, they attribute 1.5 trillion dollars in extra expenses to Americans for goods such as gasoline and food as a direct consequence of the war. Combined, the total economic burden for all Americans is approximately 3 trillion dollars, a figure that they say is conservative. That figure contrasts sharply with the original cost estimate of the war by Donald Rumsfeld and others within the administration who assured Americans that the war would cost approximately 50 billion dollars and would later pay for itself in Iraqi oil revenues.

The authors of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, recently did an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. Below is a portion of the transcript from the interview which discusses how the 3 trillion dollar figure was arrived at.

"The way you approach this problem is basically adding. You begin with the budgetary numbers. But what they claim as the cost of the Iraq war in the budget is not the full cost. There are the operational costs that everybody understands, but then there are costs hidden elsewhere in the defense budget. But then there are really some very big costs hidden elsewhere, like contractors that have been the subject of such concern. We pay their insurance through the Labor Department.

But the most important cost, budgetary cost, that we haven’t talked about publicly, that haven’t been talked about, are the costs of veterans—their disability, veterans’ health care—that will total hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decades. This war has had a huge number of injuries, and that will mount, the cost of caring for them, disability. 39 percent of the people fighting, the 1.6 million who have already fought, and if we continue, it will of course be more than that, are estimated will be—wind up with some form of disability.

Then you go beyond that budgetary cost to the cost of the economy. For instance, when somebody gets disabled, the disability pay is just a fraction of what the loss to their family, to the income that they could have otherwise earned. And then you go beyond that to the macroeconomic cost—the fact that the war has been associated with an increasing price of oil. We’re spending money on oil exports, Saudi Arabia, other oil-exporting countries. It’s money that’s not being spent here at home. There are a whole set of macroeconomic costs, which have depressed the economy. What’s happened is, to offset those costs, the Federal Reserve has flooded the economy with liquidity, looked the other way when you needed tighter regulation, and that’s what led to the housing bubble, the consumption boom. And we were living off of borrowed money. The war was totally financed by deficits. And eventually, a day of reckoning had to come, and now it’s come. "

Author Joseph Stiglitz recently sat down with the BBC for a short interview pertaining to the book. The video below shows that interview in full and provides more details about how cost estimates were arrived at in their 3 trillion dollar figure.



As a taxpayer and citizen of this country, this information is both depressing and disturbing. This administration has not been honest with the American people since the day they took office in January of 2001. It is to little surprise that they have been dishonest about the true cost of the war. While their tenure is coming to a close - the impact of their policies will linger for generations to come.

Our tax dollars will not be spent on the communities we live in, but will instead be spent on the interest of the debt that we've used to finance this war. In short, many of the beneficial possibilities to us as a nation have been stolen away from our future. Unborn babies who could be educated in an excellent public school system will have to forgo that possibility so that Japan, China and the oil exporters can have their debt repaid. Those who cannot afford health care and will die because of that reality will do so knowing that their government chose war over investing in their health. When the next bridge crumbles or the next mine implodes, the war and its economic consequences will be in large part responsible.

It is urgent that we withdraw from Iraq. Our presence is not welcome. Innocent people are dying daily because of our involvement in the region. And for what? The enrichment of private military contractors and oil exporters? What about the rest of us? Please write your elected officials. Tell them we want out, now.

We Won't See a Nader-Obama-Clinton Debate

Nader's platform is vast and targets the issues that truly effect Americans - specifically the ones Barack, Hillary and the Democratic Party have refused to address - apologies to Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

In a recent article with CounterPunch News Magazine, Ralph detailed a series of questions he would like to ask Barack and Hillary if he were to appear in a debate with either of them.

Following are the questions he proposed in the article.

"Senator Clinton, you represent New York, which includes the large banking, brokerage and investment firms colloquially called Wall Street. Eliot Spitzer became governor of your state largely on his widely reported reputation for prosecuting corporate crooks who fleeced investors, pensioners and workers of hundreds of billions of dollars. He often remarked that the federal criminal laws were too weak and the Securities and Exchange Commission was too lenient.

"As the Senator from New York, what specifically have you done to advance a strong crackdown on corporate crime with tougher laws and larger enforcement budgets? And, specifically, what do you intend to do as President?"

"Senator Obama, you have often spoken about your health insurance plan as a way to reduce costs. Yet you do not discuss three major cost reduction opportunities. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, estimates that ten per cent of the entire health expenditures in this country go down the drain due to computerized billing fraud and abuse. This year, that amounts to $220 billion.

"Under a single payer plan, administrative expenses would be cut by about two-thirds. That would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings. And the Harvard School of Public Health study estimates about 80,000 people die every year from medical malpractice in hospitals, estimating costs years ago of $60 billion a year. These are large savings in a $2.2 trillion a year health care industry.

"Do you agree and, if so, why have you ignored proposing practical actions in these areas?"

"Senator Clinton, you have long urged more money for children's programs. One way to make this possible is to end or diminish the complex system of corporate welfare-subsidies, handouts, giveaways and bailouts of business corporations. These amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year, directly and through tax loopholes. Why have you not moved against such spending so that some of the money may go to help needy children? And specifically, what would you do as President to develop standards curtailing runaway corporate welfare programs pushed by corporate lobbyists?"

If you're not willing to vote for Ralph but you agree with his political ambitions, be sure to write Barack and Hillary and demand that they address these issues. They are critical to us as a people and are paramount in fixing the problems that we face as a nation.