We the undersigned call on every new candidate as well as incumbents running for elected office at every level of government to support the policies and principles reflected in the following list of demands:
#Support efforts to cut the military budget by 50% as a first step in reducing military spending, and reallocate government expenditures to fully fund social programs to realize individual and collective human rights in the areas of housing, education, health care, green jobs and public transportation;
#Oppose the militarization of the police and specifically the Department of Defense 1033 program that transfers millions of dollars' worth of military equipment to local police forces;
#Promote the closure of the more than 800 foreign military bases and the ending of U.S. participation in the white supremacist NATO military structure;
#Call for and work to close the U.S. African Command (AFRICOM) and the withdrawal of all U.S. military personnel from Africa;
#Demand that the Department of Justice document all instances of the use of lethal force by domestic police officers and agencies against non-white populations as demanded by various United Nations human rights treaty monitoring bodies;
#Commit to passing resolutions at every level of government that commit the U.S. to upholding international law and the United Nations Charter, and to opposing all military, economic (including sanctions and blockades that are acts of war) and political interventions in the internal affairs of sovereign nations regardless of the political party controlling the office of the presidency; and
#Sponsor legislation and/or resolutions at every level of government calling on the U.S. to support the United Nations resolutions on the complete global abolishment of nuclear weapons passed by 122 nations in July 2017.
I could largely agree with this list of demands, except that I wouldn't call NATO a "white supremacist" organization; however, I do believe that NATO should have gone out of existence after the Soviet Union, the nation-state that NATO was created to oppose, collapsed.
In regard to reducing the Pentagon budget, I refer the approach of Randall Forsberg, who created two closely-related models of military force structures to meet the security needs of a world without a peer military threat to the U.S., and then get down to that structure over a ten-year time period.
I could also quibble with the capability of the Justice Department to investigate "all" instances of use of lethal force, and whether we should close all of the more than 800 foreign military bases, as a few might survive a priority-based listing system.
Yet, overall, I believe this list of demands put into effect, would create a safer, better world.
ADDENDUMS:
*The Washington Post reported last month that a confidential review of Trump's decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification whether the delay was legal.
*The Post-ABC News poll released on December 16th, showed 71% want White House aides to testify in the Senate impeachment trial, and almost two-thirds of Republicans agree. 55% said the House proceedings were fair, versus 38% who said they were unfair.
*Vice President Mike Pence has classified his September 1st call to Ukraine President Zelensky. He has said he might lift the classification. Gordon Sondland has testified that Pence was aware of the withholding of military aid before the call to Zelensky.
Friday, December 27, 2019
Thursday, December 26, 2019
War Is the New Normal
Excerpts from an article in the December 9, 2019 issue of The "PeaceWorker." The author is William J. Astore, retired lieutenant colonel, who has taught at the Air Force Academy, the Naval Postgraduate School, and the Pennsylvania College of Technology. The article is entitled "American Exceptionalism Is Killing the Planet."
War is our new normal. America's default position on global affairs, and peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against the Taliban, ISIS "terror" most generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia or China, is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an unprecedented 800 or so military bases, when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection, when you divide the globe --the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms like CENTCOM, AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM). commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you spend more on your military than the next seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a nuclear arsenal ( to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion) already quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, (sic) what can you expect but a reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms, and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
Never-ending war weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In an age of gaping inequality, using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits a few at the expense of the many.
The delusional idea is that Americans are , by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore winnable. No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious conflicts, such as the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though they visibly aren't.
American society is almost completely isolated from war's deadly effects. We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding).
Unnecessary and sweeping secrecy prevents one from knowing and resisting what one can't essentially know about. Learning its lessons from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now classifies (in plain speak, covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows -- but because the American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it.
Long ago an unrepresentative Congress ceded to the presidency most of it's constitutional powers when it comes to making war. These duly elected representatives are largely captives of the military-industrial complex.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation, and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. When our globetrotting troops,when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas."
The U.S.military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system,only wants to grow more so,but what's welfare for the military bases isn't wellness for the planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its crew members, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely to survive, no less thrive.
In other words,in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource domination, even as those sources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses,its allure and temptations,it's time that we Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few enough of us experience "our" wars first-hand and that's precisely why some idealize their purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody,murderous mess, and those practitioners,when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship Earth.
War is our new normal. America's default position on global affairs, and peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against the Taliban, ISIS "terror" most generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia or China, is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an unprecedented 800 or so military bases, when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection, when you divide the globe --the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms like CENTCOM, AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM). commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you spend more on your military than the next seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a nuclear arsenal ( to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion) already quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, (sic) what can you expect but a reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms, and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
Never-ending war weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In an age of gaping inequality, using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits a few at the expense of the many.
The delusional idea is that Americans are , by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore winnable. No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious conflicts, such as the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though they visibly aren't.
American society is almost completely isolated from war's deadly effects. We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding).
Unnecessary and sweeping secrecy prevents one from knowing and resisting what one can't essentially know about. Learning its lessons from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now classifies (in plain speak, covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows -- but because the American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it.
Long ago an unrepresentative Congress ceded to the presidency most of it's constitutional powers when it comes to making war. These duly elected representatives are largely captives of the military-industrial complex.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation, and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. When our globetrotting troops,when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas."
The U.S.military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system,only wants to grow more so,but what's welfare for the military bases isn't wellness for the planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its crew members, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely to survive, no less thrive.
In other words,in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource domination, even as those sources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses,its allure and temptations,it's time that we Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few enough of us experience "our" wars first-hand and that's precisely why some idealize their purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody,murderous mess, and those practitioners,when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship Earth.
Monday, December 23, 2019
Green New Deal for Nuclear Weapons
The following is excerpted from the September 2019 issue of the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists." The article is entitled "We need a Green New Deal for nuclear weapons."
The Green New Deal is a progressive response to climate change, because it's a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem. It also has a coherent vision for its implementation that is equal parts optimistic and realistic. Meanwhile, the arms control community is largely trapped in damage-control mode, valiantly resisting President Trump's efforts to build dangerous new nuclear weans and withdraw from critical nuclear agreements. Environmentalists are playing offense, while the nuclear community is playing defense.
Most progressives would argue that the answer is global zero -- a nuclear-free world. However, that is a long-term solution. Just as the Green New Deal does not immediately see a fossil-fuel-free world, a progressive nuclear policy cannot immediately see a nuclear-free one.
This does not mean, however, that progressives should be satisfied with occasional and incremental nuclear policy tweaks. By applying core principles of the Green New Deal -- international cooperation, reductions, transparency, and justice -- to nuclear weapons, progressives can begin to craft a plan that seeks to ambitiously and coherently restructure U.S. nuclear policy.
The Green New Deal aims to make the United States "the international leader on climate change." In similar fashion, a progressive nuclear policy should seek to place the United States at the forefront of global disarmament efforts -- acting as an international leader in nuclear transparency, diplomacy, and reductions.
President Trump has foolishly undone earlier diplomatic successes by killing off successful arms control treaties --including the Iran nuclear deal and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which banned an entire missile class -- and threatening to terminate President Barack Obama's New START, the treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear arsenals. Nevertheless, a progressive nuclear policy should begin by emulating and expanding upon specific policies from not only the Obama era, but also from the Trump administration.
In a similar vein, the United States should immediately end its bellicose rhetoric toward Iran and attempt to pick up the shattered pieces of the Iran nuclear deal. These efforts might require targeted sanctions relief ad economic inducements to convince participating countries to return to the table in good faith.
With regard to other nuclear powers -- particularly Russia and China -- the Trump administration has embraced great-power competition and gung-ho militarist policies that will drag the world deeper into a renewed arms race. Instead, the United States should engage with Russia to reconstruct the INF Treaty, with both countries returning to compliance; immediately extend -- and try to expand -- New START; pursue arrangements to reduce military tension; draw up a long-term plan to include China and other nuclear-armed states in the arms-control process; and finally ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
The Green New Deal suggests that U.S. technological expertise can be leveraged to help other countries achieve Green New Deals of their own.This can be mirrored in the nuclear policy space. Just as the United States could become the leading exporter of renewable energy technology, it could also emulate the "just transition" envisioned in the Green New Deal,which seeks to smoothly reorient workers toward low-carbon jobs; in the nuclear context, such a transition could result in weapons manufacturers using their expertise for disarmament --placing an emphasis on warhead dismantlement and verification, rather than on production.
Reductions. Committing to ambitious climate change goals (net-zero carbon emissions by 2050) is a critical component of the Green New Deal,and one that should also be translated to the nuclear space. For both threats, progressives must take steps to physically reduce the causes and enablers of the crisis at hand -- for climate change,it's carbon emissions for nuclear weapons, it's the weapons themselves. Over the next decade, the United States will spend nearly $100,000 per minute on its nuclear forces -- that's a tremendous amount of money that could otherwise be spent on priorities like infrastructure, health care, education, and fighting climate change.
First on the chopping block should be Trump's new nukes: a planned nuclear sea-lunched cruise missile akin to the one retired by the Obama administration for its lack of military utility and a "low-yield" warhead (the name obscures the fact that it's still one-third the size of the Hiroshima bomb that killed more than 100,000 people). These "flexible" weapons could make a nuclear strike even more tempting for military planners, making future crises all the more dangerous.
The current plan to replace nearly every weapon in the U.S. nuclear arsenal was actually enshrined under the Obama administration. As experts from Global Zero have argued, the majority of these replacements are unnecessary and could be phased out under a new nuclear posture favoring minimum deterrence over war fighting.Under this new posture -- and ideally alongside reductions by other nuclear-armed states -- the United States should dramatically reduce its bomber and submarine forces,and completely scrap its intercontinental ballistic missiles,which are irrelevant in a post-Cold-War era and are largely maintained to appease missile manufacturers and members of Congress where the missiles are based. Additionally, the United States should vow never to use nuclear weapons first -- a position supported by the majority of Democrats.
The United States should also be prepared to make concessions regarding its ballistic missile defenses, which -- despite being rudimentary at best and useless at worst-- are key drivers of the arms race. This is because other countries, particularly Russia and China, fear that expanded U.S. defenses might one day render their nuclear arsenals useless.
The Green New Deal is a progressive response to climate change, because it's a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem. It also has a coherent vision for its implementation that is equal parts optimistic and realistic. Meanwhile, the arms control community is largely trapped in damage-control mode, valiantly resisting President Trump's efforts to build dangerous new nuclear weans and withdraw from critical nuclear agreements. Environmentalists are playing offense, while the nuclear community is playing defense.
Most progressives would argue that the answer is global zero -- a nuclear-free world. However, that is a long-term solution. Just as the Green New Deal does not immediately see a fossil-fuel-free world, a progressive nuclear policy cannot immediately see a nuclear-free one.
This does not mean, however, that progressives should be satisfied with occasional and incremental nuclear policy tweaks. By applying core principles of the Green New Deal -- international cooperation, reductions, transparency, and justice -- to nuclear weapons, progressives can begin to craft a plan that seeks to ambitiously and coherently restructure U.S. nuclear policy.
The Green New Deal aims to make the United States "the international leader on climate change." In similar fashion, a progressive nuclear policy should seek to place the United States at the forefront of global disarmament efforts -- acting as an international leader in nuclear transparency, diplomacy, and reductions.
President Trump has foolishly undone earlier diplomatic successes by killing off successful arms control treaties --including the Iran nuclear deal and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which banned an entire missile class -- and threatening to terminate President Barack Obama's New START, the treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear arsenals. Nevertheless, a progressive nuclear policy should begin by emulating and expanding upon specific policies from not only the Obama era, but also from the Trump administration.
In a similar vein, the United States should immediately end its bellicose rhetoric toward Iran and attempt to pick up the shattered pieces of the Iran nuclear deal. These efforts might require targeted sanctions relief ad economic inducements to convince participating countries to return to the table in good faith.
With regard to other nuclear powers -- particularly Russia and China -- the Trump administration has embraced great-power competition and gung-ho militarist policies that will drag the world deeper into a renewed arms race. Instead, the United States should engage with Russia to reconstruct the INF Treaty, with both countries returning to compliance; immediately extend -- and try to expand -- New START; pursue arrangements to reduce military tension; draw up a long-term plan to include China and other nuclear-armed states in the arms-control process; and finally ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
The Green New Deal suggests that U.S. technological expertise can be leveraged to help other countries achieve Green New Deals of their own.This can be mirrored in the nuclear policy space. Just as the United States could become the leading exporter of renewable energy technology, it could also emulate the "just transition" envisioned in the Green New Deal,which seeks to smoothly reorient workers toward low-carbon jobs; in the nuclear context, such a transition could result in weapons manufacturers using their expertise for disarmament --placing an emphasis on warhead dismantlement and verification, rather than on production.
Reductions. Committing to ambitious climate change goals (net-zero carbon emissions by 2050) is a critical component of the Green New Deal,and one that should also be translated to the nuclear space. For both threats, progressives must take steps to physically reduce the causes and enablers of the crisis at hand -- for climate change,it's carbon emissions for nuclear weapons, it's the weapons themselves. Over the next decade, the United States will spend nearly $100,000 per minute on its nuclear forces -- that's a tremendous amount of money that could otherwise be spent on priorities like infrastructure, health care, education, and fighting climate change.
First on the chopping block should be Trump's new nukes: a planned nuclear sea-lunched cruise missile akin to the one retired by the Obama administration for its lack of military utility and a "low-yield" warhead (the name obscures the fact that it's still one-third the size of the Hiroshima bomb that killed more than 100,000 people). These "flexible" weapons could make a nuclear strike even more tempting for military planners, making future crises all the more dangerous.
The current plan to replace nearly every weapon in the U.S. nuclear arsenal was actually enshrined under the Obama administration. As experts from Global Zero have argued, the majority of these replacements are unnecessary and could be phased out under a new nuclear posture favoring minimum deterrence over war fighting.Under this new posture -- and ideally alongside reductions by other nuclear-armed states -- the United States should dramatically reduce its bomber and submarine forces,and completely scrap its intercontinental ballistic missiles,which are irrelevant in a post-Cold-War era and are largely maintained to appease missile manufacturers and members of Congress where the missiles are based. Additionally, the United States should vow never to use nuclear weapons first -- a position supported by the majority of Democrats.
The United States should also be prepared to make concessions regarding its ballistic missile defenses, which -- despite being rudimentary at best and useless at worst-- are key drivers of the arms race. This is because other countries, particularly Russia and China, fear that expanded U.S. defenses might one day render their nuclear arsenals useless.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Trump: a Serial Abuser of Campaign Finance Law
There is a fear that finding President Trump not guilty of abuse of power in the U.S. Senate will cause him to revert to and possibly even expand on the abuses of power he has displayed in the past. In the area of campaign finance law, Trump has already displayed a pattern of illegal behavior.
Leaving aside the payment of "hush" money, in which either Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal could have derailed Donald Trump's presidential campaign in its latter stages by revealing their respective relationships with him, the pattern of violating campaign finance law began with Trump's televised appeal to the Russian government that if it is listening, please try to find Hillary Clinton's missing 30,000 emails, and the media would appreciate it. Trump's pattern of violating campaign finance law continued when he tried to justify the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, attended by three top campaign officials, that "everybody" would have taken the meeting; also, he described getting "dirt" on Hillary Clinton as legitimate "opo (opposition) research."
The pattern continued when in an Oval Office interview with George Stephanopolos, President Trump said that if he had information that a foreign entity had negative information about a political rival, he would take a call and then decide if he would report the call to the FBI or some other governmental entity. Knowing Trump's practice of seeking advantage of a political opponent by any means necessary, if one foreign entity had a dump truck load of dirt, and another had only a thimble's full, which call would Trump be most likely to report? Hint: it would not be the dump truck load of dirt.
Finally, coming to Trump's public request to China to investigate the Bidens because Hunter Biden served on the board of a Chinese company, and the demand made to Ukraine to link investigations to a White House visit, and the release of military aid/security assistance to the 2016 presidential election, these are further indications of Trump's lack of respect for campaign finance law. This linkage is bribery under 18 U.S.C. 201 (b), a quid pro quo as referenced in that statute, and a violation of campaign finance law by exchanging an action of a foreign entity, investigations of the Bidens and Ukraine's possible meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, with a "thing of value," dirtying up a potential 2020 election political opponent, Joe Biden.
Leaving aside the payment of "hush" money, in which either Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal could have derailed Donald Trump's presidential campaign in its latter stages by revealing their respective relationships with him, the pattern of violating campaign finance law began with Trump's televised appeal to the Russian government that if it is listening, please try to find Hillary Clinton's missing 30,000 emails, and the media would appreciate it. Trump's pattern of violating campaign finance law continued when he tried to justify the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, attended by three top campaign officials, that "everybody" would have taken the meeting; also, he described getting "dirt" on Hillary Clinton as legitimate "opo (opposition) research."
The pattern continued when in an Oval Office interview with George Stephanopolos, President Trump said that if he had information that a foreign entity had negative information about a political rival, he would take a call and then decide if he would report the call to the FBI or some other governmental entity. Knowing Trump's practice of seeking advantage of a political opponent by any means necessary, if one foreign entity had a dump truck load of dirt, and another had only a thimble's full, which call would Trump be most likely to report? Hint: it would not be the dump truck load of dirt.
Finally, coming to Trump's public request to China to investigate the Bidens because Hunter Biden served on the board of a Chinese company, and the demand made to Ukraine to link investigations to a White House visit, and the release of military aid/security assistance to the 2016 presidential election, these are further indications of Trump's lack of respect for campaign finance law. This linkage is bribery under 18 U.S.C. 201 (b), a quid pro quo as referenced in that statute, and a violation of campaign finance law by exchanging an action of a foreign entity, investigations of the Bidens and Ukraine's possible meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, with a "thing of value," dirtying up a potential 2020 election political opponent, Joe Biden.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
GOP False Statements in the Impeachment Hearings
Ranking minority member Davin Nunes's opening statement in the hearing on Marie Yovanovitch, ousted ambassador to Ukraine, was what he called the complete transcript of the April 21 call between President Trump and Ukraine's President Zelensky. Nunes's reading consisted entirely of congratulations for the election victories of the two leaders and invitations to visit one another. Nunes's reading contrasted sharply with the White House readout of the April 21 call, which said that the two leaders discussed "implementing reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption." The only reasonable explanation for the differing versions is that the White House wanted to impart substance to the April 21 call, and the rough transcript that Nunes read avoided a future problem of deception when the full transcript saw the light of day. It is the case that in both the April 21 and July 25 calls, the word "corruption" was not mentioned.
Throughout the Yovanovitch hearings, the Republicans used 55 days as the length of time the military aid was withheld. This corresponds to July 12, when the Office of Management and Budget acknowledged the directive from Trump to freeze the aid, although no reason had been given for the freeze; however, the White House had originally announced the release date as February 28, Thus, instead of withholding the aid for under two months, it was actually withheld for about six and a half months before the actual release date of September 11.
President Trump had contended that top officials in the Ukraine government had been saying that Yovanovitch was a bad ambassador, so it came as a surprise how Zelensky reacted when Trump said the following in the July 25 call:"[Yovanovitch was] bad news and the people she was dealing with were bad news, and I just wanted to let you know that." Zelensky replied: "It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%." Zelensky knows that Trump can elevate his standing in the world, so he doesn't want to get on his bad side by contradicting him, but no one in his government was bringing him bad news about Yovanovitch.
A major talking point by Republican lawmakers, other party officials, and Trump surrogates, is that Ukraine officials didn't feel pressured about the aid not arriving, and maybe not even knowing about the freeze. Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant of defense, the point person on the military aid, testified that the Ukraine officials she was in contact with, raised serious concerns about the freeze. In the exchange of text messages in August and September, Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelensky, sent on August 8, an article headlined "Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront Russia." The article was sent to Kurt Volker, U.S. special envoy to Ukraine. It also strains credulity to argue that Ukraine officials -- and the Ukraine public, for that matter -- felt no concern during the 194 days between the scheduled day of aid release on February 28, and the actual September 11 release.
Rep, Devin Nunes (R-CA) and others, perhaps) contend that President Obama sent little more than "blankets" to Ukraine. Obama and Congress provided $600 million in security assistance, according to a 2107 Congressional Research Records Service report. A 2015 Defense Department news release said that Obama had pledged 230 Humvees, along with unarmed aerial vehicles, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, and medical supplies to Ukraine. He also signed into law the Defense-managed Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and between fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $850 million. The fiscal year 2019 portion is what Trump blocked. It is certainly proper to argue that Barack Obama didn't do enough to assist Ukraine. It is not proper to claim he did virtually nothing.
Finally, President Trump had blocked the shipment of Javelins, anti-tank missiles, to Ukraine for "a week or two" in 2017,when the Ukraine judicial system was mulling over criminal charges against Paul Manafort for his unwelcome involvement in Ukraine governmental matters.
Throughout the Yovanovitch hearings, the Republicans used 55 days as the length of time the military aid was withheld. This corresponds to July 12, when the Office of Management and Budget acknowledged the directive from Trump to freeze the aid, although no reason had been given for the freeze; however, the White House had originally announced the release date as February 28, Thus, instead of withholding the aid for under two months, it was actually withheld for about six and a half months before the actual release date of September 11.
President Trump had contended that top officials in the Ukraine government had been saying that Yovanovitch was a bad ambassador, so it came as a surprise how Zelensky reacted when Trump said the following in the July 25 call:"[Yovanovitch was] bad news and the people she was dealing with were bad news, and I just wanted to let you know that." Zelensky replied: "It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%." Zelensky knows that Trump can elevate his standing in the world, so he doesn't want to get on his bad side by contradicting him, but no one in his government was bringing him bad news about Yovanovitch.
A major talking point by Republican lawmakers, other party officials, and Trump surrogates, is that Ukraine officials didn't feel pressured about the aid not arriving, and maybe not even knowing about the freeze. Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant of defense, the point person on the military aid, testified that the Ukraine officials she was in contact with, raised serious concerns about the freeze. In the exchange of text messages in August and September, Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelensky, sent on August 8, an article headlined "Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront Russia." The article was sent to Kurt Volker, U.S. special envoy to Ukraine. It also strains credulity to argue that Ukraine officials -- and the Ukraine public, for that matter -- felt no concern during the 194 days between the scheduled day of aid release on February 28, and the actual September 11 release.
Rep, Devin Nunes (R-CA) and others, perhaps) contend that President Obama sent little more than "blankets" to Ukraine. Obama and Congress provided $600 million in security assistance, according to a 2107 Congressional Research Records Service report. A 2015 Defense Department news release said that Obama had pledged 230 Humvees, along with unarmed aerial vehicles, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, and medical supplies to Ukraine. He also signed into law the Defense-managed Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and between fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $850 million. The fiscal year 2019 portion is what Trump blocked. It is certainly proper to argue that Barack Obama didn't do enough to assist Ukraine. It is not proper to claim he did virtually nothing.
Finally, President Trump had blocked the shipment of Javelins, anti-tank missiles, to Ukraine for "a week or two" in 2017,when the Ukraine judicial system was mulling over criminal charges against Paul Manafort for his unwelcome involvement in Ukraine governmental matters.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Catching Up on Trump's Lies
President Trump had Russian Foreign Minister Sergi Lavrov in the Oval Office on the same day that the Articles of Impeachment were unveiled in Congress. It is unclear as to who invited Lavrov to the Oval Office, as the White House announced the visit only a day before he came, and Russia had previously made known the visit was coming. Nonetheless the optics were bad, as Lavrov and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. were in the Oval Office shorty after James Comey was fired as the FBI director. It was in that earlier meeting that Trump said the firing of Comey "lifted a cloud" from himself.
Trump has said that he warned Lavrov not to interfere in the 2020 U.S. election; however, when Lavrov was asked by a reporter if Trump made the warning, he answered that elections were not discussed. Of course, Lavrov could be lying, but Trump has a much stronger demonstrated penchant for lying.
When Trump made his visit to be with U.S troops in Afghanistan, he said that talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government would resume soon. Both the Taliban and the Afghan government denied that talks were imminent. Trump also falsely described the prior negotiations as being between the Afghan government and the Taliban,when the government had previously been left out, at least until an agreement had been reached.
After the conclusion of the meeting of NATO leaders, Trump said he got the NATO countries there to pony up another $530 billion in their defense budgets. No such meeting to increase defense budgets had been held; also, the leaders have legislatures that must approve any increases in defense spending. The goal for NATO countries to commit 2 percent of their GDPs to defense spending was set years ago, and remains the goal.
President Trump has described world leaders as laughing behind their backs at former president Barack Obama. Even if that were true, Trump received similar televised treatment by four world leaders scoffing at him. England's Boris Johnson, France's Emmanuel Macron, Canada's Justin Trudeau, and the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, were in a group, when Johnson asked Macron "Is that why you were late?" Macron had been challenged by Trump earlier in the day. Trudeau chimed in with "He [Trump] was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference off the top. You just watched his teams' jaws drop to the floor." The four then dissolved in laughter.
Earlier in the day, Trump had asked Macron if he would like to receive some "ISIS fighters." Macron replied: "Let's get serious."
Trump has said that he warned Lavrov not to interfere in the 2020 U.S. election; however, when Lavrov was asked by a reporter if Trump made the warning, he answered that elections were not discussed. Of course, Lavrov could be lying, but Trump has a much stronger demonstrated penchant for lying.
When Trump made his visit to be with U.S troops in Afghanistan, he said that talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government would resume soon. Both the Taliban and the Afghan government denied that talks were imminent. Trump also falsely described the prior negotiations as being between the Afghan government and the Taliban,when the government had previously been left out, at least until an agreement had been reached.
After the conclusion of the meeting of NATO leaders, Trump said he got the NATO countries there to pony up another $530 billion in their defense budgets. No such meeting to increase defense budgets had been held; also, the leaders have legislatures that must approve any increases in defense spending. The goal for NATO countries to commit 2 percent of their GDPs to defense spending was set years ago, and remains the goal.
President Trump has described world leaders as laughing behind their backs at former president Barack Obama. Even if that were true, Trump received similar televised treatment by four world leaders scoffing at him. England's Boris Johnson, France's Emmanuel Macron, Canada's Justin Trudeau, and the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, were in a group, when Johnson asked Macron "Is that why you were late?" Macron had been challenged by Trump earlier in the day. Trudeau chimed in with "He [Trump] was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference off the top. You just watched his teams' jaws drop to the floor." The four then dissolved in laughter.
Earlier in the day, Trump had asked Macron if he would like to receive some "ISIS fighters." Macron replied: "Let's get serious."
Friday, December 13, 2019
Data From Americans for Tax Fairness
Donald Trump and the GOP said their $2 trillion in tax cuts would pay for themselves. Instead, they're ballooning the national debt and using that as an excuse to try and make deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, education and more.
In a new chartbook (https://americansfortaxfairness.org/goptaxscamanniversary2/) by Americans for Tax Fairness titled "Trump-GOP Cuts Failing Workers and the Economy," we take a look at eight key promises (ahem, LIES) made by Donald Trump and congressional Republicans that were used to scam the American people and ram their tax breaks through Congress.
In 2017, we were told repeatedly that the giant, unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would increase jobs, pay for themselves, give every family a big raise and really hurt rich people like Donald Trump. The evidence says otherwise.
REALITY: The richest 1% are getting an average tax cut that's 75 times more than the average tax cut of the bottom 80% -- $50,000 vs. $645.
REALITY: Donald Trump and his family will benefit personally by millions of dollars from five features of the tax scam: lower top income tax rates; the deep corporate tax cuts; a weakened estate tax; a tax cut mostly benefiting wealthy business owners like Trump; and real estate loopholes the tax law opened.
REALITY: Median family income rose just $514 in 2018 and the annual growth rate in workers' wages has increased just 0.3% since the tax scam became law. Both of these are well below the increases that occurred during President Obama's last two years in office.
REALITY: Almost half of the benefits of this supposed "small" business tax cut are going to the tiny sliver of businesses with over $1 million in annual income. Less than a quarter is going to firms with income of $200,000 or less.
REALITY: Economic growth (GDP) since the tax law was enacted has been in line with the Obama years and hasn't come close to the 4%, 5% or 6% promised by Trump and the GOP. The Federal Reserve (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/fed-ups-it-gdp-recast-forecast-for-2019-slightly-to-2 point-2percent.html) predicts growth of 2.2% for the full year of 2019.
REALITY: The total cost of the tax cuts is estimated at $1.9 trillion (https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-10/55743-CBO-effects-of-public-law-115-97-on-revenues.pdf), according to the Congressional Budget Office which will be added to the national debt and is being used by Trump and congressional Republicans to try and make deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and more.
REALITY: Monthly job growth has averaged 195,000 in the two years since the tax cuts were enacted. Job growth in the last two years of the Obama administration averaged 210,000 a month.
REALITY: Instead of investing in more jobs and higher wages,capital investments are falling into negative territory in 2019. Corporations have used their tax savings for stock buybacks, which primarily benefit executives and other wealthy shareholders. Corporations bought back a record $800 billion-plus of their own shares in 2018, over the $519 billion in stock buybacks in 2017.
In a new chartbook (https://americansfortaxfairness.org/goptaxscamanniversary2/) by Americans for Tax Fairness titled "Trump-GOP Cuts Failing Workers and the Economy," we take a look at eight key promises (ahem, LIES) made by Donald Trump and congressional Republicans that were used to scam the American people and ram their tax breaks through Congress.
In 2017, we were told repeatedly that the giant, unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would increase jobs, pay for themselves, give every family a big raise and really hurt rich people like Donald Trump. The evidence says otherwise.
REALITY: The richest 1% are getting an average tax cut that's 75 times more than the average tax cut of the bottom 80% -- $50,000 vs. $645.
REALITY: Donald Trump and his family will benefit personally by millions of dollars from five features of the tax scam: lower top income tax rates; the deep corporate tax cuts; a weakened estate tax; a tax cut mostly benefiting wealthy business owners like Trump; and real estate loopholes the tax law opened.
REALITY: Median family income rose just $514 in 2018 and the annual growth rate in workers' wages has increased just 0.3% since the tax scam became law. Both of these are well below the increases that occurred during President Obama's last two years in office.
REALITY: Almost half of the benefits of this supposed "small" business tax cut are going to the tiny sliver of businesses with over $1 million in annual income. Less than a quarter is going to firms with income of $200,000 or less.
REALITY: Economic growth (GDP) since the tax law was enacted has been in line with the Obama years and hasn't come close to the 4%, 5% or 6% promised by Trump and the GOP. The Federal Reserve (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/fed-ups-it-gdp-recast-forecast-for-2019-slightly-to-2 point-2percent.html) predicts growth of 2.2% for the full year of 2019.
REALITY: The total cost of the tax cuts is estimated at $1.9 trillion (https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-10/55743-CBO-effects-of-public-law-115-97-on-revenues.pdf), according to the Congressional Budget Office which will be added to the national debt and is being used by Trump and congressional Republicans to try and make deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and more.
REALITY: Monthly job growth has averaged 195,000 in the two years since the tax cuts were enacted. Job growth in the last two years of the Obama administration averaged 210,000 a month.
REALITY: Instead of investing in more jobs and higher wages,capital investments are falling into negative territory in 2019. Corporations have used their tax savings for stock buybacks, which primarily benefit executives and other wealthy shareholders. Corporations bought back a record $800 billion-plus of their own shares in 2018, over the $519 billion in stock buybacks in 2017.
Monday, December 9, 2019
Recent News by the Numbers
I. Minor Cost Increases Create Protests
20c -Per day use fee for calls on instant messaging apps proposed by the Lebanese government --which prompted 2 million protesters to march in October.
4c - Subway fare hike, in US currency, that sparked a million protesters to fill the streets of Santiago, Chile, on October 25.
25% - Gasoline price increase in Ecuador after the government repealed fuel subsidies, leading thousands of demonstrators to demand the move be reversed, along with other IMF-imposed austerity measures.
500 - Police officers redeployed to prevent fare evasion in the New York City subway on November 1, more than 1,000 protesters marched to call for an end to police brutality and for spending taxpayer funds on more beneficial social programs. (Source: Teddy Ostrow, The Nation, November 25, 2019.)
II. Voter Purges
17M - US voters purged from states' voter rolls from 2016 to 2018.
15 - States with more-restrictive voter ID laws than they had in 2010.
12 - States that have made it harder to register to vote since 2010.
4 - States that made it more difficult for students to vote since 2010.
1,500 - Twitter accounts suspended for postings intentionally misleading election-related content, such as the wrong day of the 2018 midterms.
235K - Number of voters that Ohio planned to purge from its rolls this year.
20% - Percentage of that number who were active voters who would have been erroneously prevented from voting. (Source: Alice Markham-Cantor, The Nation, November 11/18, 2019.)
III. Fleeing and Resettled Refugees
37K - Daily number of people forced to flee their homes because of persecution and violence.
70.8M - Number of forcibly displaced people world-wide, according to the United Nations.
26M - Number of refugees world-wide, according to the UN.
0.4% - Percentage of refugees resettled by the UN.
36% - Percentage registered by the UN's High Commissioner for refugees who come from Syria or Afghanistan.
207K - Number of refugees settled in the United States in 1980.
0 - Number settled in the US in October -- the first time the country hasn't taken in a single refugee since monthly records were started nearly 30 years ago. (Source: Mary Akdemir, December 2/9, 2019.)
ADDENDUMS:
*Attorney General William Barr has accused the Democrats of a "war" against a "duly elected government" at a conference of the Federalist Society.
*At a rally, Trump acted out a orgasm directed at Lisa Page, a FBI agent, who carried out an email romantic exchange with another FBI agent, both critical of Trump. He acted out: "I love you, Peter. Oh! God! How I love you!"
*At the G-7 meeting, Trump told French President Emmanuel Macron that he could send him some "ISIS fighters" if he wanted them. Macron: "Let's be serious."
*The Second Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Deuteche Bank and Capital One must comply with an order to turn over a broad range of financial records. They ordered "prompt compliance."
*Trump called Macron's comment that NATO is experiencing "brain death," "very nasty."
20c -Per day use fee for calls on instant messaging apps proposed by the Lebanese government --which prompted 2 million protesters to march in October.
4c - Subway fare hike, in US currency, that sparked a million protesters to fill the streets of Santiago, Chile, on October 25.
25% - Gasoline price increase in Ecuador after the government repealed fuel subsidies, leading thousands of demonstrators to demand the move be reversed, along with other IMF-imposed austerity measures.
500 - Police officers redeployed to prevent fare evasion in the New York City subway on November 1, more than 1,000 protesters marched to call for an end to police brutality and for spending taxpayer funds on more beneficial social programs. (Source: Teddy Ostrow, The Nation, November 25, 2019.)
II. Voter Purges
17M - US voters purged from states' voter rolls from 2016 to 2018.
15 - States with more-restrictive voter ID laws than they had in 2010.
12 - States that have made it harder to register to vote since 2010.
4 - States that made it more difficult for students to vote since 2010.
1,500 - Twitter accounts suspended for postings intentionally misleading election-related content, such as the wrong day of the 2018 midterms.
235K - Number of voters that Ohio planned to purge from its rolls this year.
20% - Percentage of that number who were active voters who would have been erroneously prevented from voting. (Source: Alice Markham-Cantor, The Nation, November 11/18, 2019.)
III. Fleeing and Resettled Refugees
37K - Daily number of people forced to flee their homes because of persecution and violence.
70.8M - Number of forcibly displaced people world-wide, according to the United Nations.
26M - Number of refugees world-wide, according to the UN.
0.4% - Percentage of refugees resettled by the UN.
36% - Percentage registered by the UN's High Commissioner for refugees who come from Syria or Afghanistan.
207K - Number of refugees settled in the United States in 1980.
0 - Number settled in the US in October -- the first time the country hasn't taken in a single refugee since monthly records were started nearly 30 years ago. (Source: Mary Akdemir, December 2/9, 2019.)
ADDENDUMS:
*Attorney General William Barr has accused the Democrats of a "war" against a "duly elected government" at a conference of the Federalist Society.
*At a rally, Trump acted out a orgasm directed at Lisa Page, a FBI agent, who carried out an email romantic exchange with another FBI agent, both critical of Trump. He acted out: "I love you, Peter. Oh! God! How I love you!"
*At the G-7 meeting, Trump told French President Emmanuel Macron that he could send him some "ISIS fighters" if he wanted them. Macron: "Let's be serious."
*The Second Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Deuteche Bank and Capital One must comply with an order to turn over a broad range of financial records. They ordered "prompt compliance."
*Trump called Macron's comment that NATO is experiencing "brain death," "very nasty."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)