Standing Up So We Can Stand Down?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

A major part of whatever is the definition du jour of “success” in Afghanistan depends on the increased ability of the Afghan national security forces to shoulder more and more of the load, the so-called “they stand up so we can stand down” policy.

At a recent meeting in Kabul:

“A joint panel of officials from Afghanistan, the U.N. and troop-contributing nations approved plans to train more than 100,000 more security forces by the end of next year…[T]he Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board agreed to increase the size of the Afghan National Army from the current figure of about 97,000 to 171,600 by the end of next year, officials said. The Afghan National Police will be boosted from about 94,000 today to 134,000.

The board set a long-term goal of expanding the Afghan security force to 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police within five years if conditions require.”

They stand up so we can stand down. The standing up part might be a problem.

“When British trainers administered random drugs tests to 25 Afghan police recruits at a base in southern Helmand province, most of them failed…”So far we’ve found three tested positive for amphetamines and also opiates, approximately 15 for the use of hashish,” British Army Captain Pete Alexander, a police instructor, told Reuters, looking over the results of the 25 tests.”

Not only can they stand up, but will they stand up?:

“…a fourth of the officers quit every year, making the Afghan government’s lofty goals of substantially building up the police force even harder to achieve.”

So how long should it take to achieve this lofty goal, President Karzai?

“With regard to training and equipping the Afghan security forces, five to 10 years will be enough,” Karzai said. “With regard to sustaining them until Afghanistan is financially able to provide for our forces, the time will be extended to 10 to 15 years.”

And the end is not in sight.

Snowstorm Shuts Down Capitol Hill

Tags

, ,

Neither rain, nor snow, nor…..wait a minute, that doesn’t apply to Congress.

“The House suspended votes for the rest of the week because of the impending snowstorm while the Senate may cancel votes on Wednesday.
 
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that after consulting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) it became clear that Tuesday’s approaching snowstorm was preventing too many members from returning to Washington.

… The Senate is scheduled to be in recess next week to observe President’s Day…The House also will keep to its scheduled recess next week, meaning the next House vote will be the following week.”
 

The hardest working Congress money can buy.

Specter: Miranda? Wasn’t She the Actress Who Wore the Crazy Hats?

Tags

, ,

One would think that a former prosecutor and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee would have some rudimentary knowledge of the American criminal justice system. One would think so, but one would be wrong:

“The suspect accused of trying to blow up a flight on Christmas Day should not have been read his Miranda rights, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said Tuesday…”I do not believe he should have been read his rights,” Specter said during an appearance on MSNBC. “I think the most important thing is to find out what information he has to prevent future terrorist acts.

“The most important thing is to get what information he has,” Specter said. “More important than conviction.”

And apparently in Specter’s mind, more important than whether or not that information is factual.

“Specter said that while it would be preferable to try suspects like Abdulmutallab in regular criminal court, if confessions are made inadmissible in those courts, then defendants should be tried in military tribunals.”

Pick a court, any court. Whichever one allows coerced confessions and illegally obtained evidence. There are certainly courts like that to be found, Sen. Specter—in China, Cuba, and Iran. Evidently you prefer their system of justice to ours.

“It’s a Great Time To Be a Banker”

Tags

, , , , ,

The latest scheme to make the Wall Street fat cats even fatter (with our money, of course), courtesy of their friends at the Federal Reserve:

“During the financial crisis, it [the Fed]  bought hundreds of billions of dollars of real-estate loans and securities from banks to reduce mortgage rates and ease the pressure on bank balance sheets.  This, in turn, pumped hundreds of billions of new dollars into the economy, which has helped the banks–and bankers–to make a killing over the past year.

The banks are, however, lending to the federal government [the current 30-year T-bill rate is about 4.5%] which needs to fund record deficits by borrowing more than $1 trillion a year.  Banks are also collecting interest–currently 0.25% a year–on the $1 trillion or so of “excess reserves” that they aren’t lending to anyone.”

…The idea behind giving the banks cheap money was that the banks would lend it to consumers and businesses.  Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened: Since the start of the crisis, bank lending has fallen off a cliff.

(“Excess reserves” are the amount above the percentage of their assets that banks are required to keep at the Federal Reserve.)

“The Fed’s exit plan will call for increasing this interest rate, to encourage the banks to keep more money in excess reserves instead of lending it into the economy and thus expanding the money supply.

It’s a great time to be a banker.

…Of course, in the process of increasing interest paid on reserves, the Fed will be paying banks even more not to lend.  In the process, it will be giving banks yet another way to take nearly free money from the taxpayer and give it back to the government at a higher rate–and then pocket the difference.

Kudos to the Senate for confirming Ben Bernanke to another 4-year term as chairman of the Fed. Wall Street is very appreciative, as I’m sure will be reflected in future (ahem) “campaign contributions.”

“More Empires Have Fallen Because of Reckless Finances Than Invasion”

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

From Eric Margoils’ Wars Sending US Into Ruin, at Common Dreams:

“More empires have fallen because of reckless finances than invasion.”

Speaking of empires:

“There are 750 U.S. military bases in 50 nations and 255,000 service members stationed abroad, 116,000 in Europe, nearly 100,000 in Japan and South Korea.

The Pentagon now accounts for half of total world military spending…China and Russia combined spend only a paltry 10% of what the U.S. spends on defense.”

And now for the reckless finances:

“Obama’s total military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan; 225,000 military “contractors” (mercenaries and workers); and veterans’ costs. Add $75 billion…for 16 intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees.

Like Bush, Obama is paying for America’s wars through supplemental authorizations — putting them on the nation’s already maxed-out credit card. Future generations will be stuck with the bill.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama’s Afghan “surge” of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion – more than Germany’s total defense budget.

Military spending gobbles up 19% of federal spending and at least 44% of tax revenues. During the Bush administration, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – funded by borrowing – cost each American family more than $25,000.

Margolis concludes:

“Increasing numbers of Americans are rightly outraged and fearful of runaway deficits. Most do not understand their political leaders are also spending their nation into ruin through unnecessary foreign wars and a vainglorious attempt to control much of the globe – what neocons call “full spectrum dominance.”

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” James Madison—1795.

The Rubin Influence Runs Deep in the Obama Administration

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is one the lone voices in Washington D.C. calling for meaningful financial reform, and calling out the White House for its lack of leadership on that issue:

“To hear Sen. Maria Cantwell talk, another economic bubble is building as Wall Street banks — backed by taxpayer bailouts — continue to play the high-risk derivatives markets rather than extend credit to struggling businesses on Main Street.

Cantwell says that Congress and the Obama administration are just watching it happen. The Washington state Democrat is among the most outspoken members of the Senate when it comes to calling for tough new regulations to rein in Wall Street.”

Not just “watching it happen,” Sen. Cantwell. There are no innocent bystanders among the president and his team of economic advisers–enablers and co-conspirators are more accurate terms. More on that later. Back to Sen. Cantwell:

“She’s not looking to pick a fight with the White House, the Federal Reserve or powerful congressional committee chairmen. She was, however, one of 30 senators to vote against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke to a second term as Fed chairman; she temporarily blocked the appointment of the White House nominee to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and she’s been highly critical of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, the top White House economic adviser.”

Geithner and Summers–see enablers and co-conspirators. But to see the whole picture in focus, it takes a few steps backwards get the proper perspective.

In 1985, following Ronald Reagan’s landslide defeat of Walter Mondale in ‘84, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)  was formed with the aim of moving the Democratic party away from its “liberal” leanings toward a more “centrist” (read corporate-friendly) position. Bill Clinton chaired the DLC from 1990-1991 before running for, and being elected, president in 1992 as a so-called “New Democrat.”

President Clinton’s director of the newly-created National Economic Council from 1993 to 1995, and his Treasury Secretary from 1995-1999, was Robert Rubin, who spent 26 years at Goldman Sachs prior to joining the Clinton administration.

Matt Taibbi in Obama’s Big Sellout:

“As Treasury secretary under Clinton, Rubin was the driving force behind two monstrous deregulatory actions that would be primary causes of last year’s financial crisis: the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.. and the deregulation of the derivatives market.”

Fast forward to April 2006 and the founding of a DLC offshoot, The Alexander Hamilton Project, whose first director was….Robert Rubin. Back to Taibbi:

“There are four main ways to be connected to Bob Rubin: through Goldman Sachs, the Clinton administration, Citigroup and, finally, the Hamilton Project, a think tank Rubin spearheaded under the auspices of the Brookings Institute to promote his philosophy of balanced budgets, free trade and financial deregulation.”

At the founding meeting of the Hamilton Project, one of the featured speakers, and the only United States senator in attendance, was the junior senator from the state of Illinois, Barack Obama.”

Now take a look at President Obama’s economic team:

“At Treasury, there is Geithner, who worked under Rubin in the Clinton years. Serving as Geithner’s “counselor” — a made-up post not subject to Senate confirmation — is Lewis Alexander, the former chief economist of Citigroup, who advised Citi back in 2007 that the upcoming housing crash was nothing to worry about. Two other top Geithner “counselors” — Gene Sperling and Lael Brainard — worked under Rubin at the National Economic Council, the key group that coordinates all economic policymaking for the White House.

As director of the NEC, meanwhile, Obama installed economic czar Larry Summers, who had served as Rubin’s protégé at Treasury. Just below Summers is Jason Furman, who worked for Rubin in the Clinton White House and was one of the first directors of Rubin’s Hamilton Project.

And as head of the powerful Office of Management and Budget, Obama named Peter Orszag, who served as the first director of Rubin’s Hamilton Project.”

…to serve alongside Furman at the NEC [Obama hired] management consultant Diana Farrell, who worked under Rubin at Goldman Sachs. In 2003, Farrell was the author of an infamous paper in which she argued that sending American jobs overseas might be “as beneficial to the U.S. as to the destination country, probably more so.”

…Over at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is supposed to regulate derivatives trading, Obama appointed Gary Gensler, a former Goldman banker who worked under Rubin in the Clinton White House. Gensler had been instrumental in helping to pass the infamous Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which prevented regulation of derivative instruments like CDOs and credit-default swaps that played such a big role in cratering the economy last year.

Now, considering that tangled web, do you think we’re going to get lip service or meaningful, substantive reform of Wall Street? My money says lots of talk, very little, if any, action.

Paulson and Greenspan on Meet the Press

Tags

, , , , ,

Remember when Tim Russert was the host and Meet the Press was a serious news show? Those days are no more. Now the host is David Gregory and the best Meet the Press can do is look to two of the architects of the financial meltdown for their opinion on how the recovery is going.

As Crooks and Liars put it:

“Oh yes, who better to bring in than Hank Paulson and Alan Greenspan to ask how we get the economy and the job market turned around in the United States? I know I always want to hear from the people who helped take a wrecking ball to something for advice on how to put it back together.”

Three things I did learn from Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey Paulson and Greenspan yesterday:

1. The worst of the recession is yet to come.
2. Housing prices are headed lower.
3. Unemployment is going up.

How do I know this? Paulson and Greenspan predicted the opposite. Holding true to form, both also predicted the Colts would win the Super Bowl.

Sneak preview: Next Sunday on Meet the Press, the captain of the Titanic discusses how to avoid icebergs, and Tiger Woods gives advice on marital fidelity.

Wall Street Warns Democrats: Regulation = No Campaign Contributions

Tags

, , , , , , ,

It seems that the arrogant, greedy, Wall Street fat cats who receive obscene bonuses in spite of being responsible for the financial crisis, don’t like being told they are arrogant, greedy, Wall Street fat cats who receive obscene bonuses in spite of being responsible for the financial crisis. And if it doesn’t stop, they’re going to take their bribes campaign contributions to the nearest Republican:

“…this year [JPMorgan] Chase’s political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts.

Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.”

The shift reflects the hard political edge to the industry’s campaign to thwart Mr. Obama’s proposals for tighter financial regulations.

Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like [Chase CEO Jamie] Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda.

Take a deep breath and calm down, banksters. Your corporate brothers in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries can confirm for you that the regulation rhetoric from the Democrats is just that, rhetoric. As William Shakespeare put it, “Sound and fury, signifying nothing.”