CE Week #17: “Israel should finish the job”

by Cal Thomas
January 6th

Hamas, a group designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, is made of the Nazis of modern times. Israel is right to pound military targets inside Gaza, but Israel brought much of the violence on itself by giving up land it had to know would be used to rain down death on its civilians. That is always the pattern.

Why is anyone surprised that after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the vacuum created was quickly filled by Hamas, whose sole purpose is the destruction of the “Zionist entity,” as it likes to call Israel, and the killing of as many Jews as possible? The fiction, which is greater than a belief in Santa Claus, is that Israel, or the United States, or anyone else, can do anything that will deter Hamas from its objective. What did anyone expect when Israel pulled out of Gaza? The establishment of a Disney theme park, perhaps?

Jews are vermin and less than human, Hamas says. Oh, wait. Wasn’t the same said of the Jews by the Nazis? The only difference is that today’s killers don’t speak German.

The year 2008 marked the 60th anniversary of Israel’s re-establishment in its ancient homeland. It also marked the 60th anniversary of the first violent response to the formation of the State of Israel. The violence hasn’t stopped despite the efforts of diplomats and politicians.

The incoming Obama administration has announced it will make a Middle East peace agreement a high priority. It might as well announce plans to defy gravity. Peace can only come once Israel’s enemies are defeated. No “infidel” diplomat is going to stop Palestinian schools from teaching a new generation to hate the Jews and to regard all of Israel as occupied Arab land.

Hamas and its terrorist cousins know how to play the public relations game. Most recently we saw it in Lebanon with Hezbollah. The terrorists operate within civilian areas so that when Israel strikes and unintentionally kills civilians, the bodies are paraded before Western media. In some cases, to embellish the drama, bodies have been planted in rubble, along with a child’s toy.

Most of the big media don’t focus on the occasional rocket attacks inside Israel, only on Israel’s attempts to stop them. So much of Western thinking continues along the delusional line that only “adjustments” by Israel have a chance of bringing peace by diminishing the passions of her enemies. If that were so, given all of Israel’s concessions, shouldn’t those passions have diminished by now and serious negotiations begun?

Instead, the more Israel concedes, the more violence it gets. At some point you might think people would say, “This isn’t working” and try another approach, such as striking back in a manner that would not simply stop the present threat, but convince Hamas and the others that there is no benefit in their continued aggression.

Iran is behind Hamas, supplying it with rockets, some of which are made in Russia, and with other weapons. The goal of the Obama administration ought not to be “peace,” per se. Peace is like happiness: a byproduct of something else. Israel’s goal should be peace through strength. The U.S. should commit to building up Israel, militarily and diplomatically, as a deterrent to Israel’s enemies, many of whom also hate and wish to destroy America.

Israel already has given up too much. Every concession has been met with more war. It is time to finish the job. No more delays; no more cease-fires or truces, which merely allow Hamas now (and Hezbollah before) to dig new tunnels and smuggle in reinforcements and more weapons with which they kill more Israeli civilians.

Total victory or death should be Israel’s slogan and goal. It is the slogan and goal of Israel’s enemies. Is there an Arabic equivalent of “Sieg Heil”?

Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Published in: on January 6, 2009 at 9:42 am Comments (0)

CE Week #17: “Obama Pitches Stimulus Plan”

GOP Asked to Help Design Bill; $300 Billion in Tax Cuts Sought

By Paul Kane, Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 6, 2009; A01

President-elect Barack Obama arrived on Capitol Hill yesterday and immediately set to work reassuring skeptical Republicans about his massive economic stimulus package — part of a campaign that earned him praise for seeking their input but questions from those averse to hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending.

Pitching a plan that is expected to include $300 billion in tax cuts, Obama pledged to consult Republican leaders, who until yesterday had been left out of negotiations between the president-elect’s advisers and congressional Democratic staff.

“The monopoly on good ideas does not belong to a single party. If it’s a good idea, we will consider it,” Obama told House and Senate leaders at an hour-long closed-door meeting, according to one attendee.

Obama, making his pitch two weeks before taking office, won generally favorable reviews from GOP leaders, particularly because of his decision to increase the tax-cut ratio to 40 percent of the overall package.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters they were convinced that Obama was sincere in his invitation to let Republicans help craft the nearly $800 billion package to create jobs and lift the nation out of recession. But they also expressed concerns about the size of the package, as well as particular elements under discussion between Obama and Democratic lawmakers.

“I remain concerned about wasteful spending that might be attached to the tax relief. Simply put, we should not bury future generations under mountains of debt,” Boehner said.

Boehner suggested the legislation would likely be signed into law by mid-February, but the president-elect said yesterday that he would like the House and Senate to present him with a bill by the end of January or beginning of February.

“The economy is very sick,” Obama said. “The situation is getting worse. . . . We have to act and act now to break the momentum of this recession.”

As described by his advisers, Obama is proposing a package of tax cuts to benefit families and businesses. Like the overall spending proposal, the tax cuts would be designed to put cash in people’s pockets over the next two years and kick-start the economy.

Working families would be eligible for a tax credit worth up to $1,000. Individuals would be eligible for a $500 credit.

Businesses would get an extension of expired tax breaks from the 2008 stimulus package signed by President Bush, including a “bonus depreciation” break that allows businesses to write off more of their purchases more quickly and an increase in small-business expensing limits. Businesses could apply current losses to taxes paid back as far as five years ago, reaping an immediate cash windfall. And they would receive a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create or preserve.

Key details of the stimulus proposal remain unresolved. For instance, upper-income individuals would not be eligible for the income tax credit, but the income threshold for phasing out the benefit has not been set. Obama officials said it would likely be about $200,000 a year, the range set during the campaign.

Obama officials said they tried to keep the package ideologically neutral, rejecting an option supported by many progressives to make people who are not working eligible for a “refundable” tax credit. And they passed up conservative provisions such as estate tax relief and capital gains tax cuts that disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals.

After a lunchtime session with his economic advisers, Obama rejected suggestions that the tax cuts were designed to win over GOP votes. “The notion that me wanting to include relief for working families in this plan is somehow a political ploy, when this was a centerpiece of my plan for the last two years doesn’t make too much sense,” he told reporters.

Some prominent Republicans expressed reservations about the tax proposals’ specifics. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), a member of the Senate Republican leadership team, said he hadn’t studied the list of proposed cuts, but that he favored reducing corporate and capital gains taxes, and providing more generous small-business incentives. And, he said, “These changes should be permanent, rather than just temporary.”

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the senior Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, said he would prefer a tax package that is “inclusive rather than exclusive” and that offers relief to “as many as taxpayers as possible.” One option, according to a senior Grassley aide, would be to include a $75 billion provision to prevent the alternative minimum tax from applying to millions of additional families.

It is also not clear that tax cuts are the most effective way to win GOP votes. Two key Republican moderates in the Senate — Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine — have not focused on tax breaks as the best solution to the economic crisis.

In a letter to Obama last month, Collins outlined her stimulus priorities as transportation construction projects, energy-efficiency investments and a temporary increase in Medicaid assistance to states. In conversations with Obama and his Treasury secretary-designate Timothy F. Geithner, Snowe has urged the inclusion of unemployment assistance, mortgage relief for strapped homeowners and programs to ease the credit crunch facing small businesses.

“With more than 10.3 million people currently out of work, Congress must swiftly enact economic recovery legislation that will create jobs, assist the unemployed and reduce the devastating rate of home foreclosures,” Snowe said.

Obama bounced across the Capitol yesterday to take part in three meetings, beginning with a one-on-one meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the morning and a sit-down in the early afternoon with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). The final meeting was with the bipartisan leadership from both chambers.

Democrats described the atmosphere as markedly different than the confrontational tone of recent battles with the Bush White House, in part because the new administration is run by former senators.

“They understand the Senate, they understand the Capitol. It wasn’t as if someone new was coming to town,” Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip and close Obama ally, said afterward.

Some Republicans, while saying they were pleased by Obama’s attempt to open dialogue, questioned whether the spending side of the plan would be transparent enough. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, pledged to put details of the spending plan online, including the creation of a monitoring system for the progress on some of the projects, according to one attendee.

Some independent analysts joined GOP aides in questioning Obama’s tax credit for job creation, saying it’s unclear how such a provision would be crafted.

“When somebody lays off 10,000 people but hires back 1,000, should they get a tax credit? That doesn’t really seem fair,” said Leonard Burman, a director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. “The problem with these things is defining what qualifies.”

Meanwhile, some Republicans and moderate Democrats are pushing Obama to commit to addressing the nation’s long-term budget problems even as his stimulus package pushes the government deeper into debt. With congressional budget analysts expected to announce later this week that this year’s deficit is likely to soar well over $1 trillion, a commitment to reducing future deficits is critical, said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

“At some point here, you have to pivot and face up to these long-term problems,” said Conrad, who along with Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) is proposing a commission to re-examine the expensive entitlement programs Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Published in: on at 8:28 am Comments (0)

CE Week #17: “Panetta Is Chosen as C.I.A. Chief, in a Surprise Step”

January 6, 2009

By MARK MAZZETTI and CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON — Leon E. Panetta, a former congressman and White House chief of staff, has been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to head the Central Intelligence Agency. The choice, disclosed Monday by Democratic officials, immediately revealed divisions in the party as two senior lawmakers questioned why Mr. Obama would nominate a candidate with limited experience in intelligence matters.

The job was the last unfilled major post for Mr. Obama, who has criticized the agency for using interrogation methods he characterized as torture. Democratic officials said Mr. Obama had selected Mr. Panetta for his managerial skills, his bipartisan standing, and the foreign policy and budget experience he gained under President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Panetta has himself been a sharp critic of the agency’s interrogation practices. Some Democrats expressed strong support for the choice, with Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, describing him as “one of the finest public servants I have ever served with and dealt with since he left the White House.”

But Mr. Panetta, 70, was also widely described as a surprising and unusual choice to head the C.I.A., an agency that has been notoriously unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders.

News of the decision was disclosed by Democratic officials who insisted on anonymity, and neither Mr. Obama nor his transition office has commented publicly about it.

Among the lawmakers who expressed skepticism about the choice was Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ms. Feinstein, who would oversee any confirmation hearing for Mr. Panetta, issued a statement that signaled clear disapproval and said she had not been notified about the choice.

“My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,” she said.

A second top Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the departing chairman of the Intelligence Committee, shares Ms. Feinstein’s concerns, Democratic Congressional aides said.

Ms. Feinstein’s Republican counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said he would be “looking hard at Panetta’s intelligence expertise and qualifications.”

It was not clear whether the skepticism would become an obstacle to the nomination of Mr. Panetta, who would succeed Michael V. Hayden, a retired Air Force general with decades of intelligence experience.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, called Mr. Panetta a “strong choice” who “has the skills to usher in a new era of accountability at the nation’s premier intelligence agency.”

The choice of Mr. Panetta comes nearly two weeks after Mr. Obama had otherwise wrapped up his major personnel moves. It appears to reflect the difficulty Mr. Obama has encountered in finding a candidate who is capable of taking charge of the agency but is not tied to the interrogation and detention program run by the C.I.A. under President Bush.

Aides have said that Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. director with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amid criticism over his alleged role in the formation of the agency’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

As President Clinton’s chief of staff for two and a half years, Mr. Panetta regularly attended daily intelligence briefings in the Oval Office, and he has a reputation in Washington as a skilled manager and power broker with a strong background in budget issues. But he has little direct intelligence experience, and did not serve on the House Intelligence Committee during his 16 years in Congress.

In disclosing the selection, Democratic officials said Mr. Panetta’s gravitas and ties to Mr. Obama would give the C.I.A. a powerful voice within the administration, particularly in bureaucratic jockeying with the Pentagon, which has a much bigger budget and more bureaucratic clout.

If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Panetta would take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior leaders of Al Qaeda around the world. He would also become the oldest director in the agency’s history, as well as the second politician and former lawmaker in recent years to take it over. Porter J. Goss, the former Republican congressman from Florida, ran the C.I.A from 2004 to 2006, though Mr. Goss was himself a former C.I.A. operative and the longtime chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Among the outsiders who ran into trouble in the past after being installed as C.I.A. director were Stansfield M. Turner, a retired Navy admiral selected by President Jimmy Carter, and John M. Deutch, a physicist and former deputy defense secretary who was chosen by Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Deutch, now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said there would have been good reasons for Mr. Obama to select a C.I.A. veteran to lead the agency. But Mr. Deutch also cited the examples of John McCone in the Kennedy administration and George Bush in the Nixon administration as cases in which outsiders became “two of the agency’s most successful directors.”

Mr. Deutch said that Mr. Panetta and Dennis Blair, a retired admiral who has been selected by Mr. Obama to become director of national intelligence, were an “absolutely brilliant team.” He called Mr. Panetta a “talented and experienced manager of government and a widely respected person with Congress.”

An early test in Mr. Panetta’s tenure at the C.I.A. would be to determine the future of the agency’s detention and interrogation program.

“Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values,” he wrote in The Washington Monthly last year. “But that is a false compromise.” He also wrote: “We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.”

Some human rights groups praised the choice. Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First, said it was important that the new C.I.A. director be someone “who recognizes that torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive.”

But some intelligence experts called the selection underwhelming, given the important role the C.I.A. plays in disrupting terrorist attacks against the United States.

“It’s a puzzling choice and a high-risk choice,” said Amy Zegart, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written extensively on intelligence matters.

“The best way to change intelligence policies from the Bush administration responsibly is to pick someone intimately familiar with them,” Ms. Zegart said. “This is intelligence, not tax or transportation policy. You can’t hit the ground running by reading briefing books and asking smart questions.”

As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta would report to Mr. Blair. Neither choice has yet been announced.

The C.I.A. has settled down from years of turmoil after the Sept. 11 attacks and fallout from flawed intelligence assessments about Iraq’s unconventional weapons programs. But the agency’s role among the constellation of spy agencies operating under the director of national intelligence remains ill-defined.

Mr. Panetta, a native of Monterey, Calif., served eight terms in the House before becoming the chief budget adviser to Mr. Clinton in 1993 and taking over as Mr. Clinton’s chief of staff from July 1994 to January 1997.

Lee H. Hamilton, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, of which Mr. Panetta was a member, said Mr. Panetta’s good relationship with Mr. Obama could translate into influence within the broader intelligence community.

Mr. Hamilton said Mr. Panetta could make up for a lack of direct intelligence experience by picking a strong group of aides at the agency.

“You have to look at the team,” he said. “You clearly will want intelligence professionals at the highest levels of the C.I.A.”

Published in: on at 8:20 am Comments (0)

CE Week #17: “Israel must be willing to talk first”

By Chris Jordan
January 6, 2009

If the United States and Israel hope to ever truly come up with a successful strategy for fighting extreme militarism and threats to their security, they need bigger imaginations.

Pretend just for a minute that you are a mainstream Palestinian person living in Gaza. You, like 66 percent of your fellow Palestinians, support some sort of peace process with Israel. You are fairly moderate and generally prefer peace to violence, but in 2006 you voted for Hamas in the elections. You didn’t necessarily agree with Hamas’s more radical rhetoric, but at the same time you found the status quo unacceptable. You voted for change.

Now in 2008, you are under attack. Israel has launched air strikes that make you afraid to go outside. Then their troops invade. You may not like how things have gone under Hamas’s rule, but at least they are there vowing to fight back against Israeli attacks.

It is baffling that Israel is unable to use its imagination to put itself inside the shoes of Palestinians and understand how Israeli actions are driving Palestinians toward supporting Hamas.

Hamas is a political entity. After winning the elections in 2002, it still faces threats to its power from other political factions. Its periodic rocket attacks could not possibly destroy Israel, but were intended to annoy and provoke; Israel has fallen right into the trap and has taken the bait. Why would Hamas provoke Israel?  Because Hamas knows that if Israel responds with military force, threatens Palestinians, and kills civilians, it will further radicalize Muslim opinion worldwide against the Israelis and strengthen Hamas’s position domestically with the Palestinian people.

The Israelis would do much better for themselves, strategically, to take a different approach. In the past, Hamas has indicated its willingness to negotiate with Israel. The Israeli government should take them up on this offer and make a good faith effort to talk and compromise. If Hamas engages Israel honestly, then perhaps some sort of agreement will materialize. If not, it will be clear to moderate Muslims and the Palestinian people that Hamas is standing in the way of peace, and not the Israelis. Ultimately, Hamas must answer to the Palestinian people, and obstructing peaceful negotiation when it is the will of the people is not a good political strategy.

By choosing to attack instead of talk, Israel is losing the battle for hearts and minds across the world. The anti-Israeli sentiment that follows breeds tolerance for extremism and an environment that anti-Semitic militants ultimately thrive on. Losing the masses is a mistake the United States made in Iraq, a mistake it made in Afghanistan and a mistake Israel is making with Muslims and mainstream Palestinians.

Clearly neither Hamas nor Israel has much moral high ground to stand on right now. Hamas provoked Israel with rocket attacks, and is operating in densely populated areas to intentionally drive up the number of civilians killed by Israeli bombs. Despite the fact that these latest Hamas attacks didn’t result in any deaths, Israeli retaliations resulted in the death of more than 400 Palestinians, and 60 civilians. I can understand both why Israel did what it did and the criticisms of its actions.

The question we should be asking ourselves is what can America do to bring peace and stability? Vast majorities of the populations in every major Muslim country have a negative view of the United States, and a lot of that ill will is a result of our policy, which has basically been to sit on the sidelines and condemn Hamas at every opportunity.

Israel is a strong ally, and America should not abandon her. At the same time, we need a change. We need a policy that takes the high ground and Israel needs one that won’t draw the fire of the Muslim world, and that’s in its strategic interest. America should press Israel to seek peace, not war. The only chance Israel has to undercut extremism is through reaching out with their voices, not their bombers.

Reach columnist Chris Jordan at opinion@dailyuw.com.  Chris is a MSHS graduate and former AP GO PO Student.

Published in: on at 8:05 am Comments (0)

CE Week #17: “The Bigger Middle East War”

BY BARRY RUBIN

Monday, January 5th 2009, 4:00 AM

The war in Gaza is the first chapter of a new era in the Middle East. The Arab-Israeli conflict is far from the region’s dominant dispute. The Arab-Islamist conflict now overwhelms it - by a large margin.

Increasingly, Arab regimes know Hamas isn’t their friend and, though they won’t say so publicly, don’t see Israel as an enemy. No wonder: Israel is politically stable and economically prosperous. It doesn’t threaten to take over their countries, overthrow their regimes and stand them in front of a firing squad.

Radical Islamism, Iran-style, does.

That’s right. Arab nations’ prime 21st century enemy is Iran and its allies: Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iraqi terrorists. After destroying their own countries, they want to do the same to everyone else.

Up on the Lebanese border, where I just visited, things are quiet. Hezbollah talks big about its 2006 “victory” but knows how hard Israel hit it then. It’s not looking for trouble with the Jewish state now.

At the same time, Egypt condemns Hamas and urges Israel to smash the radical Islamist group. Lebanese friends tell me they fear that unless Israel and the West stop the Islamists, their country will be taken over in this new year.

The editor of the important Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, himself a Saudi, warns that Iran and Hamas - effectively at war with Egypt and Saudi Arabia - are the real threat to Arab security.

And the meeting of Arab states last week, instead of producing a condemnation of Israel or America, did nothing.

What was the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war’s big lesson? That unless Israel wins a clear victory, Islamists will be more aggressive. It’s the same thing the U.S. surge in Iraq demonstrates: pulling punches on terrorists doesn’t make them love you or be peaceable.

Of course, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is far from over: It will probably continue for decades. But that’s precisely the point. It’s an Israel-Palestinian battle, smaller and less strategically significant than this other half-century-long conflict, which involves the whole region.

This is also a conflict among Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, is still full of radicals but has worked recently to stop terrorist attacks against Israel and to create a stable society. The PA can’t and won’t make full peace with Israel, but the two sides do cooperate in reducing violence.

In contrast, Hamas wants permanent war on Israel, constant terrorism, and openly preaches genocide.

This is what the Obama administration must understand. The Arab-Israeli conflict is relatively unimportant today in regional terms. It is overwhelmed by a dangerous mix of other nations and issues: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon (on the verge of an Iran-Syria takeover), Islamism, terrorism and oil.

Barack Obama must understand that Iran and radical Islamists are out to destroy U.S. interests in the Middle East, expand their own influence and escalate anti-Americanism to murderous proportions around the globe.

Moderate Arabs - and the nations in which they have the most influence - live in constant fear of that happening. America can allay those fears - if it follows a policy mixing intelligence and toughness.

Rather than obsessing over the Arab-Israeli conflict, as many want Obama to do, job one for the new administration in the Mideast should be uniting America’s Arab friends alongside Israel against their common enemies: the fanatical Islamists.

A broad moderate Arab coalition, strengthened to resist the likes of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, will not only put the region on far more solid footing. It will help the Israeli-Palestinian mess take care of itself.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. He is author of “The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East.”

Published in: on January 5, 2009 at 9:24 am Comments (0)

CE Week #17: “Commerce Pick Richardson Withdraws, Citing N.M. Probe”

By Michael D. Shear and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 5, 2009

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to be commerce secretary, withdrew from consideration yesterday, citing an ongoing federal “pay-to-play” investigation involving one of his political donors as a significant obstacle to his confirmation.

Richardson, 61, who competed unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, becomes the first political casualty in Obama’s Cabinet, and his withdrawal marked the first visible crack in what had been one of the smoothest presidential transitions in modern history.

The former energy secretary and U.N. ambassador under President Bill Clinton was positioned to become the highest-profile Hispanic in Obama’s administration. But Richardson made it clear yesterday that he thought confirmation was far from a sure thing, even with Democrats firmly in control of the Senate.

“Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done,” Richardson said in a statement.

The New Mexico investigation, which began last summer, focuses on whether Richardson’s office urged a state agency to hire a California firm as a result of generous contributions from the company and its president to political action committees established by the governor.

Richardson insisted that he and his staff “have acted properly in all matters” and predicted that the investigation would exonerate him. But he said the probe could take weeks or months, potentially holding up his Senate approval. Instead, Richardson said he will remain “in the job I love as governor of New Mexico.”

He called Obama on Friday to advise him of his plans, and the president-elect accepted the decision “with deep regret,” according to a statement issued yesterday. Aides said no one in Obama’s transition pressured Richardson to drop out.

No clear replacement for Richardson at the Commerce Department emerged yesterday, but sources close to the transition said Obama would move quickly to find one.

A grand jury in Albuquerque is looking into whether CDR Financial Products received a contract with the New Mexico Finance Authority because of pressure from Richardson or other state employees. CDR made $1.48 million advising the authority on interest-rate swaps and refinancing of funds related to $1.6 billion in transportation bonds, state officials confirmed.

The Beverly Hills-based firm and its president, David Rubin, together gave $100,000 to Sí Se Puede and Moving America Forward, both PACs started by Richardson, shortly before winning the lucrative state contract, records show.

The federal probe heated up considerably last month, just around the time Obama announced Richardson as his choice for commerce secretary, according to sources familiar with the investigation. New subpoenas were issued, and testimony was scheduled from officials at J.P. Morgan Chase who worked for the state with CDR and from the director of Richardson’s political action committees.

CDR’s selection drew FBI interest because the firm did not make an initial list of the most qualified bidders. The bidding was reopened for review, and a state committee headed by one of Richardson’s former top aides later helped select CDR.

A legal source familiar with the investigation said yesterday that FBI agents, working on the Senate’s behalf and conducting a background check of Richardson for the Commerce job, conveyed to Obama’s transition team the seriousness and significance of the Albuquerque grand jury probe.

The agents are said to have communicated that the governor’s top aides — and even Richardson’s actions — were under scrutiny. At least two sources familiar with the investigation said some evidence raises concern about the propriety of the Richardson administration’s interactions with a donor.

Obama aides declined to comment on any conversations the transition team may have had with the FBI about the investigation.

The inquiry springs from a long-running nationwide investigation by the Justice Department into “pay-to-play” practices in local government bond markets. Federal investigators are questioning whether financial firms have lavished politicians with money and gifts in exchange for high fees on work advising municipal and local governments on investments.

In mid-December, Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said the governor was “aware of questions surrounding some financial transactions at the New Mexico Finance Authority” and expected state officials to cooperate fully.

CDR’s attorney, Richard Beckler, declined several weeks ago to elaborate on the investigation, but he told a Washington Post reporter Dec. 15 that the company “has always tried to abide by these byzantine campaign finance regulations and is cooperating fully with this investigation.”

The suddenness of Richardson’s withdrawal renewed questions about the Obama team’s vetting procedures. The New Mexico investigation had been publicized since the summer, yet aides to the president-elect said yesterday that they were not aware of the matter when Richardson was nominated. Richardson advisers insisted that the governor had relayed information about the investigation to transition officials before his name was announced.

“I think our vetters have done a good job,” incoming Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs said last night, crediting the “impressive . . . totality of our Cabinet picks.”

A senior transition aide said yesterday that Richardson had assured the team that he would emerge unscathed by the investigation and that there was no reason to think otherwise. “But it became clear that confirmation hearings would have to be delayed until the investigation was complete and that would take six weeks or, perhaps, longer. Governor Richardson concluded that this was too long, and he decided to withdraw,” the aide said.

Gallegos, the Richardson spokesman, said yesterday that the governor considered asking Obama to delay sending his name to Capitol Hill until the case was concluded.

“He was hopeful that his name would be cleared and it would be wrapped up before his confirmation,” Gallegos said. Over the weekend, when it became clear that would not happen, Richardson decided to withdraw, Gallegos said.

Obama praised Richardson yesterday and said that he looked forward to having the governor serve his administration in some capacity.

Staff writer Chris Cillizza contributed to this report.

Published in: on at 9:19 am Comments (0)

CE Week #17: “Fighting Off Depression”

January 5, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist

By PAUL KRUGMAN

“If we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” declared President-elect Barack Obama in his latest weekly address, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” If you ask me, he was understating the case.

The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren’t lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.

So will we “act swiftly and boldly” enough to stop that from happening? We’ll soon find out.

We weren’t supposed to find ourselves in this situation. For many years most economists believed that preventing another Great Depression would be easy. In 2003, Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago, in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, declared that the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”

Milton Friedman, in particular, persuaded many economists that the Federal Reserve could have stopped the Depression in its tracks simply by providing banks with more liquidity, which would have prevented a sharp fall in the money supply. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, famously apologized to Friedman on his institution’s behalf: “You’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

It turns out, however, that preventing depressions isn’t that easy after all. Under Mr. Bernanke’s leadership, the Fed has been supplying liquidity like an engine crew trying to put out a five-alarm fire, and the money supply has been rising rapidly. Yet credit remains scarce, and the economy is still in free fall.

Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment. The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Mr. Obama’s plans to rescue the economy.

But these plans may turn out to be a hard sell.

News reports say that Democrats hope to pass an economic plan with broad bipartisan support. Good luck with that.

In reality, the political posturing has already started, with Republican leaders setting up roadblocks to stimulus legislation while posing as the champions of careful Congressional deliberation — which is pretty rich considering their party’s behavior over the past eight years.

More broadly, after decades of declaring that government is the problem, not the solution, not to mention reviling both Keynesian economics and the New Deal, most Republicans aren’t going to accept the need for a big-spending, F.D.R.-type solution to the economic crisis.

The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts.

This is a problem with which Keynes was familiar: giving money away, he pointed out, tends to be met with fewer objections than plans for public investment “which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict ‘business’ principles.” What gets lost in such discussions is the key argument for economic stimulus — namely, that under current conditions, a surge in public spending would employ Americans who would otherwise be unemployed and money that would otherwise be sitting idle, and put both to work producing something useful.

All of this leaves me concerned about the prospects for the Obama plan. I’m sure that Congress will pass a stimulus plan, but I worry that the plan may be delayed and/or downsized. And Mr. Obama is right: We really do need swift, bold action.

Here’s my nightmare scenario: It takes Congress months to pass a stimulus plan, and the legislation that actually emerges is too cautious. As a result, the economy plunges for most of 2009, and when the plan finally starts to kick in, it’s only enough to slow the descent, not stop it. Meanwhile, deflation is setting in, while businesses and consumers start to base their spending plans on the expectation of a permanently depressed economy — well, you can see where this is going.

So this is our moment of truth. Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent Great Depression II?

Published in: on at 9:17 am Comments (0)

Winter Break WK #3: “Blago: ‘I am required to make this appointment’”


By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Mike Allen
December 30, 2008 03:38 PM EST

Setting up a clash with Senate Democrats, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich announced Tuesday that he would appoint former state attorney general and comptroller Roland Burris to fill out President-elect Obama’s term in the U.S. Senate.

Saying Illinois should not be “deprived” of the representation of two senators, Blagojevich introduced Burris as “someone with unquestioned integrity.” The governor defended his decision to make the appointment as part of his gubernatorial responsibility to fill Senate vacancies.

“I would like to ask everyone to do one last thing: Don’t allow the allegations against me to taint this good and honest man,” Blagojevich said at a 3 p.m. press conference.

The move was met with a rebuke from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who said the Democratic caucus would refuse the appointment from a governor who stands accused of selling the position to the highest bidder.

“Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus,” Reid said in a statement.

In addition, Jesse White, the Illinois secretary of state, said he will not certify Burris as the replacement for Obama’s seat.

For his part, Burris said it’s inconceivable that the state of Illinois should start the new Congress “shorthanded,” with just one senator.

Burris also said he has “no relationship” to charges that Blagojevich tried to sell Obama’s Senate seat for personal gain and said of the governor, “In this legal process, you’re innocent until you’re proven guilty.”

Blagojevich’s lawyer had said earlier that the governor did not plan to defy the Senate leaders and impose an Obama successor on them.

See Also

Reid (D-Nev.) has said that Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn should make the appointment, and the Senate Democratic caucus signed a letter supporting that option.

Reid said in a letter to the governor: “Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.”

Blagojevich’s lawyer, Ed Genson, had told a news conference Dec. 17 that the governor did not plan to try to make the appointment. “Harry Reid said that they’re not going to accept anybody, so why would he do that?” Genson said.

Burris, 71, told reporters earlier this month that he only wanted to serve the remaining two years of the Senate term and would not run for reelection.

Burris was the first African American to be elected to statewide office in Illinois, serving as comptroller from 1983 to 1991 and as attorney general from 1991 to 1995.

He also ran against Blagojevich for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2002 – winning the support of much of Illinois African-American political establishment, including then-state Sen. Barack Obama.

Another complication in the selection is that Burris is a registered lobbyist in Illinois and Washington, D.C. His Chicago-based firm, Burris & Lebed, is registered in Springfield to represent clients ranging from Comcast to the Illinois Funeral Directors Association. In 2007, the firm was also registered to represent the Illinois Association of Mortgage Bankers. The firm is registered in both Springfield and Washington to represent MicroSun Technologies, an Illinois-based maker of battery and power supplies.

Burris’ lobbying partner is Fred Lebed, a veteran Democratic political operative who once served as executive director of the Cook County party and has also held a number of state government posts.

Blagojevich has been under pressure to resign from office, or at least relinquish his gubernatorial authority to fill Senate vacancies. He has remained in office, however, as he fights a federal corruption investigation and a legislative effort to impeach him.

The two-term governor has denied any wrongdoing.

It’s unclear whether Reid has the power to block Burris’ appointment. Senate leaders discussed the impending announcement on a conference call Tuesday afternoon.

John Fortier, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a Politico Ideas piece this month that the Senate doesn’t have the power to reject the appointment.

“The Senate would have little recourse but to seat Blagojevich, as he meets the minimum constitutional qualifications for office,” Fortier wrote of the possibility that the governor might appoint himself. “But after seating Blagojevich, the Senate could then expel him by a two-thirds vote. The seat would be vacant again, and the new governor could make an appointment. Or by then, the Legislature might have changed the law to do away with appointments, in which case the seat would sit vacant until a special election was held.

The office of the Senate historian referred questions Tuesday to the Senate counsel, saying it is a legal matter.

Published in: on December 30, 2008 at 12:50 pm Comments (18)

Winter Break WK #3: “Cost of gasoline has gone a long way”

Adjusted for inflation, it’s at lowest since ’57
Dan Hansen / Staff writer
Tags: Burger King Economy gas prices

Call it the “Whopper Index.”

During Whopper Wednesdays at the Burger King on Argonne Road, customers can get a burger for $1.69.

But the real bargain is at the Holiday station across the street, where gasoline now costs less than a Whopper – any day of the week.

In fact, sitting at $1.49 a gallon for a couple of weeks – a price that can be beat at some stations in Spokane and all over Coeur d’Alene – gas is cheaper than a lot of things: lattes, milk, bread, fishing worms, Sunday newspapers, a Senate seat in Illinois, a new stadium for the Huskies.

This scenario, it turns out, was months in the making. It may be helpful to review what was happening in July.

To set the stage: Sen. Phil Gramm was dismissing economic concerns as a mere “mental recession,” and no one was using the word “bailout” in the same sentence with “General Motors.” The economy was just beginning to eclipse the Iraq war as a campaign issue.

And about the time people were deciding where to spend July Fourth, gasoline topped $4 a gallon (it would eventually hit a national average of $4.11). Sens. John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed that it was time for a “holiday” from the federal gas tax so Americans could spend that 18.4 cents on other necessities.

Five months later, we know the recession is more than a state of mind. Unemployment has soared. People are trying to remember what their grandparents said about surviving the Great Depression. State governments face layoffs, tuition increases and reductions in services.

But lose those long faces, because gas is down to a national average of $1.56 a gallon. That’s the lowest price since February 2004, according to the federal Energy Information Administration, whose graph charting gas prices is shaped a lot like the Matterhorn. Based on data going back to 1990, prices have never fallen so rapidly.

Adjusted for inflation, gas is cheaper than it was in 1957, when it sold for 30 cents at the pump (the equivalent of $2.27 today). Then, as now, it was cheaper than a Whopper, which was introduced that year at 37 cents.

In 1957, a motorist could buy 3.33 gallons of gasoline for the federal minimum wage of $1. Today, a minimum-wage worker could buy 4.2 gallons on an hour’s salary.

Of course, such bargains don’t mean much if you don’t get a paycheck, like the 6.7 percent of Americans who are out of work. That’s more than twice the unemployment rate of 1957.

“I couldn’t go on vacation last summer because of the high cost of gas,” said Jerry Whitehead, 64, who was at the Holiday recently, filling up his Ford Ranger. “Now that it’s low, jobs are going away and you’re afraid to leave.”

The question is how long the gas-station limbo will last. The CEO of Gulf Oil told reporters this month that he wouldn’t be surprised to see gas under a buck early next year. If that happens, it will be the first time since the Clinton administration (March 1999, to be precise).

But it’s probably wise to remember what the “experts” were saying in July. Whitehead hasn’t forgotten.

“They were saying we’d be paying $7, $8 by now,” he recalled.

One thing’s clear from looking at the Energy Information Administration Web site: Gas won’t stay low. Sometimes it takes a few years, but since at least 1990, whenever the cost of filling up has gone down, it’s always climbed to a new record high.

Kind of like when Burger King dropped the price of a Whopper to 99 cents in 2003. Pretty soon it was back to $2.39, except on Whopper Wednesdays.

Published in: on December 28, 2008 at 8:00 am Comments (31)

Winter Break WK #3: “GOP blinded by love”

by Joel Stein

I don’t love America. That’s what conservatives are always saying about liberals like me. Their love, they insist, is truer, deeper and more complete. Then liberals, like all people who are accused of not loving something, stammer, get defensive and try to have sex with America even though America will then accuse us of wanting it for its body and not its soul. When America gets like that, there’s no winning.

But I’ve come to believe conservatives are right. They do love America more. Sure, we liberals claim that our love is deeper because we seek to improve the United States by pointing out its flaws. But calling your wife fat isn’t love. True love is the blind belief that your child is the smartest, cutest, most charming person in the world, one you would gladly die for. I’m more in “like” with my country.

Fox News’ Sean Hannity loves this country so much, he did an entire episode of “Hannity’s America” titled “The Greatest Nation on Earth.” In that one hour he said, several times, “the U.S. is the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth.” One of the surest signs of love is it makes you talk stupid.

Conservatives feel personally blessed to have been born in the only country worth living in. I, on the other hand, just feel lucky to have grown up in a wealthy democracy. If it had been Australia, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Italy, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Israel or one of those Scandinavian countries with more relaxed attitudes toward sex, that would have been fine with me too.

When a Democrat loses the presidential race, real lefties talk a lot about moving to Canada. When Republicans lose, they don’t do that. Although, to be fair, they don’t have a lot of nearby conservative options. Not even Hannity is a committed enough conservative to yell, “If Obama wins, I’m moving to Singapore.”

This doesn’t mean I’m not fascinated by American history, impressed by our Constitution or don’t appreciate our optimism and entrepreneurial spirit. In fact, I love everything Hannity listed on his TV special other than Madonna. But there are plenty of things I don’t like about America: our foreign policy, our religious fundamentalism, our provincialism, our intellectual laziness, our acceptance of sweat suits in public.

When I ran the idea that liberals don’t love America as much as conservatives by talk-show host Glenn Beck, who will move from CNN Headline News to Fox News next month, he totally agreed with me, which is precisely why I called him. “It’s absolutely true, deep love. As a parent loves a child,” he said. “But I think liberals laugh that off, the way the rest of the country laughs off the love Texans have for their state. Texans don’t think, `Oklahoma, you (stink).’ Well, yes they do – but they don’t think other states (stink). They just have a love for the republic of Texas. … I don’t have disdain for other countries. Well, except for France.”

I asked Beck why Democrats rarely share his overwhelming sense of American exceptionalism and Francophobia. “I think it’s because in the late 1800s up until the 1930s, the progressive movement started to think the European ideals are pretty good, that it’s one big world,” he said. “Well, it’s not. If you look at all the countries like people, there are differences between people. And I happen to like this person the best.” When I look at the countries like people, I love Sweden the best.

I accused Beck of loving America just out of birthplace convenience, which is kind of like loving the girl who happens to sit in front of you in homeroom. “If I were born in Great Britain and read about Britain and America, I’d love the values and principles and the men who founded this country,” he said. “I love that we crossed these mountains and didn’t know what was on the other side. I love that the Pilgrims didn’t want to come here, but they came here because they felt prompted to by God. There’s always been a spirit of adventure and awe in this land. And I don’t think any other country has that.” Beck, it seemed, loves America the same way little boys love camping.

Despite Beck’s rationalization, I still think conservatives love America for the same tribalistic reasons people love whatever groups they belong to. These are the people who are sure Christianity is the only right religion, that America is the best country, that the Republicans have the only good candidates, that gays have cooties.

I wish I felt such certainty. Sure, it makes life less interesting and nuanced, and absolute conviction can lead to dangerous extremism, but I suspect it makes people happier. I’ll never experience the joy of Hannity-level patriotism. I’m the type who always wonders if some other idea or place or system is better and I’m missing out. And, as I figured out shortly after meeting my wife, that is no way to love.

Joel Stein is a columnist for The Los Angeles Times. His e-mail address is jstein@latimescolumnists.com.

Published in: on December 27, 2008 at 10:21 am Comments (26)

Winter Break WK #3: “India, Pakistan saber rattling raises war fear”

By Saeed Shah and Jonathan S. Landay / McClatchy

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan is moving some troops away from its border with Afghanistan, Pakistani officials said on Friday, sparking renewed fears that last month’s terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, could trigger a fourth war between the two countries, both of which are now armed with nuclear weapons.

Media reports in both countries, most unconfirmed and some false or exaggerated, have fueled rising war hysteria in India and Pakistan, and U.S. officials and independent analysts worry that any signs of preparation for war could trigger a conflict that neither country wants and that neither can afford.

The Bush administration has been trying to calm the situation, but U.S. officials worry that Pakistan’s weak civilian government can’t meet India’s demands for a crackdown on Islamic militant groups without sparking a backlash from the country’s powerful army and the directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, which have ties to some militant groups.

“We hope that both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times,” said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Stephen Cohen, a South Asia expert with the Washington-based, center-left policy research organization the Brookings Institution who returned on Monday from a visit to India, said the coalition government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh doesn’t want a confrontation, but is under considerable public pressure to retaliate against Pakistan for the Mumbai attacks.

“There is nothing (the Singh government) can do except make threatening noises toward Pakistan,” he said. “Both countries are rattling their sabers. These are two weak governments that are clearly trying to get the Americans nervous so they put pressure on the other country (to back down).”

He called the current atmosphere “a precursor to a crisis” that could erupt because of the high possibility of a misstep on either side.

“We are in a period of touch-and-go,” he said.

For U.S. and NATO troops battling the Taliban and al-Qaida, however, any Pakistani withdrawal from the frontier with Afghanistan could be disastrous. Pakistan has some 100,000 troops stationed along the Afghan border, and their departure would give the Taliban and other groups refuge and free rein in an area that sits astride America’s supply lines into Afghanistan.

It wasn’t clear Friday, however, how extensive the Pakistani move away from the Afghan border is.

A Pakistani defense official, who couldn’t be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, “Troops, in snowbound areas and places where operational commitments were less (in the west), have been pulled back.”

The official, however, denied reports that the soldiers had been redeployed to the Indian border, and he declined to say how many troops were involved. Media reports, quoting witnesses, spoke of long convoys of trucks carrying troops, passing through towns in western Pakistan, traveling eastward, but another security official, who lacked the authorization to speak and couldn’t be named, said that there’d been “no untoward troop movement.”

The objective and magnitude of the Pakistani troop movements are unclear, said a U.S. official, who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

He said, however, that Pakistan usually pulls troops out of mountainous northwestern areas bordering Afghanistan during the winter, when operations against militants allied with al-Qaida usually wind down.

Indian Prime Minister Singh met with his military chiefs on Friday, and there also have been unconfirmed reports in recent days that India has moved troops to Rajasthan, a region that borders Pakistan. Pakistan fears that India might launch an invasion from Rajasthan into Sindh province, aiming to sever the northern and southern halves of Pakistan.

Hasan Askari Rizvi, a military expert based in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore, said that India might be calculating that a move into Sindh wouldn’t trigger a nuclear response from Pakistan, unlike an invasion of Punjab province, the country’s heartland.

“Pakistan and India are at some distance from war, but when troops start moving, any misperception, or any miscalculation, can be dangerous,” Rizvi said.

Pakistan has canceled leave for all its soldiers, and India has told its citizens not to travel to Pakistan. Since the Mumbai attacks, there have been at least four air incursions into Pakistan by Indian fighter jets. Pakistani officials publicly acknowledged two cross-border flights, but dismissed them as inadvertent.

Published in: on at 10:13 am Comments (10)

Winter Break WK #3: “From Pax Americana to slacker Americans”

Take it from a Brit: Losing the No. 1 world superpower spot won’t be that bad. Really.

By Chris Ayres

December 27, 2008

There has been much talk in the media about America’s threatened superpower status — a result of its near-fatal exposure to the Kryptonite of subprime mortgages, among other factors — and how the country will inevitably find itself going the way of that other once-undefeated political juggernaut, the dear old British Empire.

To which I say: Lucky America!

I mean, yeah, it’s going to sting a bit. Losing any big, sexy-sounding job title will inevitably deliver a blow to your self-esteem. Yet it can also be liberating.

Do Tehranis and Muscovites blame Britain for the culture of mindless self-gratification that brought down the global economy? Of course not. They blame America — even though Britain is arguably the more guilty party, what with its foreign-debt-to-GDP ratio standing at an unconscionable (and, really, quite embarrassing) 490%, as opposed to the United States’ puritanical 89% (according to the 2007 “purchasing power parity” GDP and external debt figures supplied by the CIA World Factbook).

The fact is that when you’re No. 1, you always get blamed for everything. When you’re No. 3, or No. 5 — or No. 135 — you can put your hands in your pockets and whistle tunelessly with a “Who, me?” look on your face, and no one ever asks any questions.

Take Slovakia. Five years ago, Slovakia invaded Iraq. Admittedly, it did this with the help of a few other countries. But still, does Slovakia ever get the blame for all the trouble that has gone down over there since then?

Nope.

Imagine, for a moment, the relief of being simply too unimportant to be held responsible for any event of consequence. Imagine Barack Obama being roused by the proverbial “red phone” at 11 a.m. — the leaders of low-ranking countries can presumably nap until late morning — to be informed of a terrible rumpus in deepest Nmbubu-Oobu, and his only responsibility is to write a stern news release calling on Belgium to act. And when it all goes horribly wrong — as it inevitably will — all he has to do is tut disapprovingly and mutter something about those arrogant Flems in Bruges.

Being British, I speak from some experience when it comes to lost superpowerdom. I was born in northern England in the mid-1970s — a time when my grandparents still believed that Britain was the mightiest nation on Earth, even though the prime minister, Harold Wilson, was being warned that the country was facing “wholesale domestic liquidation” unless it could secure an emergency, Third World-style bailout from the International Monetary Fund.

In Britain in those days — as in America now — people bought consumer products based on patriotism. The misery! I later fell victim to this nonsense myself: My first car was an antique 1974 MGB, the electronics supplied by the pride of postwar British manufacturing, Lucas Industries. When I bought the MGB, I sincerely believed that British sports cars were the finest in the world. Then the wiring loom under the steering wheel short-circuited when I was halfway down Caledonia Road in North London and I had to jump out with my trousers literally on fire.

My next car was Japanese.

Today, of course, there are pretty much no truly British cars. And who cares? We live in an era of globalization. The Indians might own the company that makes Jaguars, but I probably have money in a pension fund somewhere that owns stock in that very same Indian company. So, in a small way, the British are still in the car business — with the added benefit that a modern Jag probably won’t cause a trouser fire.

And even if you own a “foreign” car these days, chances are that at least a few bits and pieces of it have been sourced from your homeland. That’s the way it should be: Countries that are good at one thing should concentrate on it, and countries that are bad at that same thing should stop doing it.  [See Law of Comparative Advantage - Kautzman]

Besides, abandoning consumer patriotism is as liberating as no longer being blamed for everything. It’s especially liberating when shopping for an automobile. Farewell, beige Ford Taurus! Hello, gunmetal-gray BMW M3!

Not all domestic industries suffer when a nation goes into an irreversible decline, of course. Others suddenly find themselves booming. The beleaguered American newspaper industry, for example, might very well be able to profit immensely by simply dispatching its most snide and ironically detached correspondents to the new capitals of world power, from which they will be able to report with maximum condescension about the hilarious earnestness of the locals. Mark my words: Demoralized Americans won’t be able to get enough of these reports, and thus will buy multiple newspapers every morning while traveling to work on buses and trains, having abandoned their cars when the U.S. government stopped qualifying for its bulk oil discount from the Saudis.

Not that working 8-to-7 six days a week will seem so important when you’re no longer ruling the world. If Britain’s experience is anything to go by, Americans will soon find more satisfaction by trying to break pointless world records — crossing Greenland on a pogo stick, using only one arm, while dressed in native Bolivian costume, for example — or writing absurdist comedy, or recovering from apocalyptic, three-gin-and-tonic lunchtime hangovers.

Oh yes, you’re in for a treat.

Chris Ayres is Los Angeles correspondent for the Times of London and the author of “Death by Leisure: A Cautionary Tale” (Grove Press, February 2009).

Published in: on at 10:06 am Comments (6)

Winter Break WK #3: “Israeli Strikes on Gaza Kill Nearly 200″

DECEMBER 27, 2008, 12:14 P.M. ET

Israeli defense officials confirmed their aircraft attacked Hamas security compounds across the Gaza Strip Saturday, making good on threats of a significant military response to recent rocket attacks launched into Israel by the Islamic militant group that controls the territory.

View Slideshow

[SB123039547114337259]

Associated Press

Palestinian firefighters work at the site of a security compound used by the Islamic group Hamas after an Israeli missile strike in the Gaza Strip.

The exact extent of the raids weren’t immediately clear, but a Gaza Health Ministry official said least 192 people were killed and 270 wounded.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel would expand the operation if necessary. “There is a time for calm and there is a time for fighting, and now is the time for fighting,” he told a news conference. He would not comment when asked if a ground offensive was planned.

Whether the attack devolves into a prolonged military conflict between the two sides depends in part on Hamas’ response.

Israeli media reported retaliatory attacks from Gaza, with rockets falling in the Israeli cities of Netivot and the city of Ashkelon, just a few hours after the Israeli air attacks. The attacks killed one Israeli man and wounded four people, according to rescue services.

The stakes for both sides are significant. Israeli officials are heading into a general election in February, and in recent days both sides of the Israeli political spectrum have demanded strong action against the Hamas attacks.

But Israel also earlier this year initiated a flurry of diplomatic maneuvers with most of its biggest irritants along its borders: It sealed a ceasefire with Hamas, which expired last week. It is engaging in indirect peace talks with Syria, mediated by Turkey. And it participated in a significant prisoner exchange with the Shiite political and militant group Hezbollah, funded by Iran, which won new power in Lebanon earlier this year.

A significant military confrontation with Hamas would also further endanger broad, U.S.-broker peace talks between Israel and Palestinian leaders.

For Hamas, the attack threatens to greatly reduce its command and control capabilities in Gaza. It seized the territory last year, essentially splitting off from the more moderate Palestinian Authority headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In the months since the seizure, it has consolidated its political and military power base in the enclave.

Israel has enforced a crushing blockage of Gaza for months. Israel has called the move crucial for self defense against Hamas attacks, but critics have said it threatens a humanitarian crisis

The Israeli attacks Saturday caused widespread panic and confusion in Gaza, according to an Associated Press report early Saturday from Gaza. Initial reports suggest casualty figures could be high. In one Hamas compound, bodies of more than a dozen uniformed security officers were seen lying on the ground, according to the AP.

Israel’s defense force in the early afternoon confirmed an aerial assault Saturday, saying it was targeting Hamas security compounds. There was no sign of an Israeli ground offensive, which would significantly up the stakes for both sides.

Since the expiration of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Hamas has launched dozens of rockets and mortars into Israel. Hamas said the attacks were in response to an Israeli incursion into Gaza. Tensions appeared to ease significantly late Thursday when Israel said it would open the Gaza border to allow shipments of humanitarian aid.

In the West Bank, the Palestinian President Mr. Abbas said in a statement that he “condemns this aggression” and calls for restraint, the AP quoted an aide, Nabil Abu Rdeneh, as saying.

Gaza residents reported hearing two waves of explosions. In the first wave, there were at least 15 blasts. Many of Hamas security compounds are in residential areas, and the air strikes took place as children were leaving school. Plumes of black smoke rose over Gaza City, sirens wailed through the streets and women frantically looked for their children.

Israel has targeted Gaza in the past with both ground and aerial forces, but the simultaneous attacks Saturday were unusual for their number and ferocity.

In what appeared to be a warning to Hezbollah in Lebanon along Israel’s northern border, Israel fighter jets scrambled from the country’s northern air base.

Israeli towns near Gaza have been put on high alert, anticipating retaliation. Magen David Adom, Israel’s equivalent to the Red Cross, has also said it has put itself on high alert.

UPDATE

January 1, 2009

Israel Rejects Cease-Fire, but Offers Gaza Aid

By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM — Israel sought on Wednesday to fend off growing international pressure over civilian casualties from its military assault on Gaza, saying it would expedite and increase humanitarian aid and work with its allies to build a durable, long-term truce. But Israel would not agree to a proposed 48-hour cease-fire.

The government said it would push ahead with its air, sea and ultimately ground operation, which one senior military official described as “making Hamas lose their will or lose their weapons.”

A strike Thursday morning included the Parliament building among its targets, news agencies reported.

During the five days of combat, Israeli warplanes have been destroying buildings once considered off limits, including mosques and government and university compounds, with officials asserting that rocket launchers and ammunition were made, stored and even operated from there. They were also hitting the homes of militants, smuggler tunnels and even money exchange shops to choke off Hamas from its suppliers.

The military official said that Gaza was limited in size and cut off from the outside and that Israel could win if it stopped future supplies and destroyed enough of what Hamas had. He added, however, that targets were running short, and that a limited ground operation aimed at destroying remaining sites was likely once the wet weather cleared.

Meanwhile, overwhelmed hospital officials in Gaza said that of the more than 390 people killed by Israeli fighter planes since Saturday, 38 were children and 25 women. The United Nations, which has estimated the number of dead to be between 320 and 390, said 25 percent of those killed were civilians. Israel said that it was still checking the numbers.

In the Jabalya Refugee Camp north of Gaza City, hundreds lined up for hours in the rain for bread and other staples as F-16 jets menaced overhead. At one point, two rockets were launched from within the camp — among about 60 shot into Israel on Wednesday — and an Israeli missile then hit the launcher.

The rockets that have been sent some 20 miles into the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod and Beersheba in recent days are known as grads. They measure nine feet in length with warheads that weigh 30 to 40 pounds and were not manufactured in Gaza but were bought abroad and smuggled through tunnels from Egypt, Israeli officials said.

In Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, emergency personnel engaged in a brutal form of triage, allowing the worst cases to fade as they found themselves unable to cope.

A senior Israeli official said the country was seeking ways to increase humanitarian aid so that its military endeavor could continue without further pressure to stop. It permitted a dozen wounded and ill Gazans into Israel on Wednesday for treatment at hospitals here and allowed in some 100 trucks of food and medicine.

He also said that one limitation on the aid was that crossing points had come under attack by Hamas. A second, he said, is that donors are not bringing enough goods. Of the donations so far, some come from United Nations agencies, but most are from private donors.

Tens of thousands of Gazans have received recorded phone calls from the Israeli Army warning them that their houses have been marked as targets because they harbored either militants or weapons facilities like rocket workshops. Noncombatants were urged to clear out. Hundreds of thousands of leaflets gave the same message.

Israeli officials say their goals for a truce include a complete cessation of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza, a ban on armed men approaching the border with Israel, full Israeli control over the border crossings and a mechanism to ensure that Hamas is meeting its commitments.

The Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya, told Israel that there would be no talk of a truce until it ended its attack and all the crossings into Gaza from Israel as well as from Egypt were opened to full commercial traffic. He did not mention the rockets that Israel considers the central cause of its campaign.

On Thursday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was expected to fly to Paris to meet with Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and President Nicolas Sarkozy, who are seeking ways to promote a cease-fire.

From his ranch in Crawford, Tex., President Bush called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. A White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, said Mr. Olmert had “assured President Bush that Israel is taking appropriate steps to avoid civilian casualties” in Gaza. In addition, he said, the Israeli leader told Mr. Bush that Israel was “targeting only Hamas operatives and those affiliated with Hamas.”

They discussed prospects for a cease-fire — “what steps could lead to a cessation of violence,” Mr. Johndroe said — but did not “get into specific timetables.”

“It all begins with Hamas agreeing to stop firing rockets” into Israel, Mr. Johndroe added. “The onus is on Hamas.”

The White House praised the diplomatic efforts of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, but denounced Iran and Syria, saying they had supplied weapons to terrorist groups.

“Hamas is pretty well supplied by Iran and, to a certain extent, Syria,” Mr. Johndroe said. “Neither Iran nor Syria is playing a helpful role. They’re not playing a constructive role in this current crisis, which is pretty typical for their actions with regard to Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Israel’s Supreme Court told the government on Wednesday to allow foreign journalists limited access to Gaza, which had been closed to them since early November. The ruling, which urged the government to allow in a group of up to a dozen foreign journalists, came in response to a petition filed by the Foreign Press Association.

Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, based in the West Bank, appealed to the United Nations Security Council for a cease-fire. Mr. Abbas, whose troops were forcibly ejected from Gaza by Hamas 18 months ago, is in a delicate position of not wishing Hamas to triumph but not wishing Palestinians to suffer.

In a speech delivered on Wednesday, Mr. Abbas reiterated that Hamas was responsible for the Israeli invasion because it ended the cease-fire between it and Israel 12 days ago. But he called what Israel was doing “the bloodiest massacre and systemic destruction of all forms of life; it is an aggression that does not target Gaza only but the entire Palestinian people and their cause and future and their most basic human rights.”

In the West Bank, the Palestinian police and security forces have had their leaves canceled. Some men associated with Hamas have been detained, and strict rules have been established for demonstrations in support of Gaza to avoid their turning into support for Hamas. Slogans and flags are limited, and close contact with Israeli forces and checkpoints has been barred to prevent trouble.

In Cairo, Arab countries appeared deeply divided over how to respond to the latest escalation in fighting between Israel and Hamas, with sharply differing comments from foreign ministers at the opening of an emergency Arab League meeting.

Moderate Arab states generally allied with the United States blamed Palestinian disunity for the crisis and more radical states, some of whom did not attend, urged collective action to defend the Palestinians against Israel.

In the most striking comments, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, criticized the Palestinians for their inability to remain united behind President Abbas of Fatah — an implicit condemnation of Hamas, which took over Gaza entirely in 2007 in a brief but violent civil war with Fatah. Normally, during periods of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, Arab leaders condemn only Israel.

“This terrible massacre would not have happened if the Palestinian people were united behind one leadership, speaking in one voice,” Prince Saud said at the league meeting’s opening. “We are telling our Palestinian brothers that your Arab nation cannot extend a real helping hand if you don’t extend your own hands to each other with love.”

Reporting was contributed by Taghreed El-Khodary from Gaza; Steven Erlanger from Cairo; Mark Landler from Washington; Robert Pear from Crawford, Tex.; Alan Cowell from London; and Graham Bowley from New York.

Published in: on at 9:57 am Comments (1)

Winter Break WK #3: “Expansion of Clinics Shapes Bush Legacy”

December 26, 2008
By KEVIN SACK

NASHVILLE — Although the number of uninsured and the cost of coverage have ballooned under his watch, President Bush leaves office with a health care legacy in bricks and mortar: he has doubled federal financing for community health centers, enabling the creation or expansion of 1,297 clinics in medically underserved areas.

For those in poor urban neighborhoods and isolated rural areas, including Indian reservations, the clinics are often the only dependable providers of basic services like prenatal care, childhood immunizations, asthma treatments, cancer screenings and tests for sexually transmitted diseases.

As a crucial component of the health safety net, they are lauded as a cost-effective alternative to hospital emergency rooms, where the uninsured and underinsured often seek care.

Despite the clinics’ unprecedented growth, wide swaths of the country remain without access to affordable primary care. The recession has only magnified the need as hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance along with their jobs.

In response, Democrats on Capitol Hill are proposing even more significant increas