Scary: People Who Watch and Trust Fox News Will Surprise You

By Ilyse Hogue, The Guardian
Posted on March 14, 2011, Printed on March 17, 2011

In the 7 March issue of the Tribune, Mark Seddon reported on the threat that Glenn Beck, "as a sort of hired gauleiter on Fox News", poses to American democracy. The article hit the nail on the head when it comes to Beck's paranoiac propaganda. Seddon, however, misses the broader danger of the Murdoch-owned Fox News: the media outlet's audience is growing even as its programming veers away from broadcast journalism and shapes instead a rightwing political operation.

Consider the facts: more than twice as many Americans watch Fox News as watch CNN, the next most popular cable news channel, and almost five times as many as watch MSNBC. Fox's audience cuts across age, gender, race, education, and income level. The average Fox News viewer is a male between the ages of 30 to 49 -- far from most people's perception that mostly seniors watch Fox. So where Seddon pointed to a fabled minority audience of "not-so-bright … American citizens", Fox is instead popular among a wide swath of well-educated, contributing members of society. Fox's audience includes your neighbour, your cousin and the guy in front of you in line every morning at Starbucks.

This growing audience also puts significant faith in the credibility of the news delivered by Fox, even while trust in other major news outlets declines. Fox is among the most trusted news outlets in the US, despite countless demonstrable instances of their anchors and pundits spreading misinformation. This rise in influence is not an accident or a coincidence. It is the result of a sophisticated strategy to gain market dominance through an almost monopolistic aggregation of media platforms in individual markets, an aggressive strategy of cross-marketing between entertainment and news, and a systematic denigration by Fox News on air of all other outlets.

Fox's pre-eminent position has had an irrefutable and destructive impact on the state of political discourse in the United States. Since its inception, Fox News has performed as a political party, not as an objective journalistic outlet. Since President Obama took office, Fox has succeeded not only in spreading misinformation and lies, but also in entrenching those fictions so that its audience relates to them as irrefutable fact. One in four Americans believes "most or all" of what's said on Fox News, despite Fox's fabrication of everything from death panels to Climategate. (Coined by Sarah Palin, the term "death panels" -- an inaccurate claim that the healthcare reform bill would require end-of-life counseling -- was picked up by Fox to advance the provocative and false threat that the government would "tell grandma and grandpa… how and when to die". Climategate is Fox's name for the so-called scandal in which emails -- stolen and then distorted -- from the UK's Climate Research Unit suggested that "scientists are fudging data to make their case for global warming", when the "evidence isn't really there.")

Fox News' approach to these issues has, among other things, limited genuine debate about the merits of healthcare policy, forcing elected representatives to spend time insisting to their constituents that the president of the United States does not want to kill their grandmothers. The claims are so outrageous that they would be funny -- if they didn't have real impact on people's lives.

Not content to spread misinformation and singlemindedly pursue an extreme agenda, Fox decided in 2009 it would contribute explicitly to the rise of a social movement. Fox spent disproportionate airtime rallying people to join the Tea Party, the radical right group that was formed in the wake of the presidential election in 2008. Over ten days in April of 2009, Fox aired 107 ads for its coverage of Tea Party protests and, in that same time period, featured at least 20 segments on the upcoming protests. By contrast, in the recent legislative battle over collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, Fox called the protesting union supporters a "shrieking leftist mob".

By encouraging people to attend local rallies and providing incessant coverage of town halls around the healthcare bill, Fox lent structure and legitimacy to what might have otherwise been a brief episode of "tax day" anger. And as far as the 2010 midterms are concerned, both the Tea Party movement and Fox News deserve credit for the Republican sweep of the nation. What's sinister here is not the change of power -- the response of an unsatisfied American populace is, indeed, "vote another guy in" -- but the very deliberate manufacturing of that change by a force masquerading as a reputable news outlet.

The UK is currently faced with the prospect of full News Corp ownership of BSkyB. As political and opinion leaders think through what this would mean for their country, they should carefully consider not only Fox's worst instances of propagandising, but also the potential British audience for such misinformation. And, most likely, they need look no further than their flatmate. Seddon warns in Tribune that "America needs to wake up before people like Beck and his ilk has it by the throat." Let me end here with a counter-admonition: the UK needs to wake up before Murdoch and his corporation have the media -- and, by extension, British citizens -- even more in the palm of his hand than he already does.

Ilyse Hogue is the Senior Adviser at Media Matters for America.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/150251

Will Media Uncritically Repeat Sarah Palin's Economically Illiterate Take On Gas Prices?

March 16, 2011 11:30 am ET by Jocelyn Fong

In her latest Facebook post, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin claims that President Obama's "anti-drilling mentality" and "war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production" are to blame for the recent rise in gasoline prices. Media outlets that find Palin's Facebook postings newsworthy should note that this allegation has zero basis in economic fact.

I recently asked several economists and energy experts if there was any truth to the claim that the Obama administration's drilling policies are responsible for the recent surge in gas prices. Not a single expert I consulted said that the claim is valid, including those aligned with the oil industry. Here's a sample of the responses I received:

• "Absolutely No Merit To This Viewpoint Whatsoever." Chris Lafakis, economist at Moody's Analytics and expert in energy markets, said: "I received your question about whether or not federal drilling policies are responsible for the current rise in gas prices. There is absolutely no merit to this viewpoint whatsoever. Near-term fluctuations in
  gasoline prices are determined by two primary factors: crude oil prices and
  seasonality. Since the deepwater drilling delay applies only to exploration and
  production, it would take years, maybe a decade to get any amount of crude oil
  out of the ground and into our gas tanks. In the meantime, global crude oil
  supply is exactly the same as it would have been if the government were giving
  away permits like candy."
• "It's Not Credible To Blame The Obama
  Administration's Drilling Policies For Today's High Prices." Michael Canes,
  research fellow at the Logistics Management Institute and former chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute disagrees with Obama's drilling policies. Still, he said: "It's not credible to blame the Obama Administration's drilling policies for today's high prices because of the relative scales involved." He further stated that "world oil prices are determined in a market of around 85 million barrels per day of production and consumption, while the consequences of domestic drilling, particularly in the Gulf, likely would be more in the range of several hundred thousand to one million barrels per day, and most of that production would not occur for a number of years."
• "Gasoline Prices At The Pump Would Be
  Higher Either Way."
  Lou Crandall, chief economist of Wrightson ICAP LLC said:
  "Higher oil prices today are a global phenomenon, and the additional supply from increased drilling by the U.S. would not alter the global balance of supply and demand greatly.  Gasoline prices at the pump would be higher either way.  The only difference is that a somewhat larger share of the revenue would accrue to domestic interests (governmental and private) rather than to foreign suppliers."

Most Americans don't have the time to fact-check the talking points they're bombarded with so we look to the news media to get to the truth, rather than just repeat what politicians say. Let's hope they're up to the task. Early indications are not good.

UPDATE:

You won't believe who stepped up to fact-check Palin's claim that Obama's policies are to blame for the spike in gas prices. Fox News' very partisan financial analyst Stuart Varney explained this morning that "we would still have $4 gas no matter what we do in the Gulf because higher gas prices are the result of an expanding global economy and turmoil in the Middle East."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103160011

Wholesale prices spike on steep rise in food, oil

Wed Mar 16, 9:42 am ET

WASHINGTON – Higher energy costs and the steepest rise in food prices in nearly four decades drove wholesale prices up last month by the most in nearly two years. Excluding those categories, inflation was tame.

The Producer Price Index rose a seasonally adjusted 1.6 percent in February, the Labor Department said Wednesday. That's double the 0.8 percent rise from the previous month. Outside of food and energy costs, the core index ticked up 0.2 percent, less than January's 0.5 percent rise.

Food prices soared 3.9 percent last month, the biggest gain since November 1974. Most of that increase was due to a sharp rise in vegetable costs, which increased nearly 50 percent. That was the most in almost a year. Meat and dairy products also rose.

Energy prices rose 3.3 percent last month, led by a 3.7 percent increase in gasoline costs.

David Resler, an economist at Nomura Securities, said the jump in prices is likely temporary, echoing remarks made by the Federal Reserve on Tuesday. Much of the increase in food prices was due to winter freezes in Florida, Texas and other agricultural areas, Resler said. Turmoil in the Middle East is a major reason that motorists are facing higher gas prices.

"Both food and gasoline prices are going to stop rising so rapidly," Resler said.

But John Ryding, an economist at RDQ Economics, disagreed, noting that consumers will feel the impact for some time.

"We do not buy the Fed's reassurance that these pressures will be temporary and we believe the public, seeing these strong increases in food and energy ... will not be marking back down their inflation expectations," Ryding said.

Gas prices spiked in February and are even higher now. The national average price was $3.56 a gallon Tuesday, up 43 cents, or 13.7 percent, from a month earlier, according to the AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge. Rising demand for oil in fast-growing emerging economies such as China and India has pushed up prices in recent months. Unrest in Libya, Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries has also sent prices higher.

But economists expect the earthquake in Japan to lower oil prices for the next month or two, which should temper increases in wholesale prices in coming months. Japan is a big oil consumer, and its economy will suffer in the aftermath of the quake. But as the country begins to rebuild later this year, the cost of oil and other raw materials, such as steel and cement, could rise.

Oil prices fell sharply Tuesday as fears about Japan's nuclear crisis intensified. Oil dropped $4.01, or 4 percent, to settle at $97.18 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Prices rose 1 percent for apparel, the most in 21 years. Costs also increased for cars, jewelry, and consumer plastics.

There was little sign of inflationary pressures outside of food and energy. Core prices have increased 1.8 percent in the past 12 months.

Separately, the Commerce Department said Wednesday that home construction plunged to a seasonally adjusted 479,000 homes last month, down 22.5 percent from the previous month. It was lowest level since April 2009, and the second-lowest on records dating back more than a half-century.

The building pace is far below the 1.2 million units a year that economists consider healthy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110316/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

Pentagon tries to buy entire print run of US spy expose Operation Dark Heart

Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 13 September 2010 21.17 BST

Officials at the Pentagon are scrambling to buy the whole 10,000 print run of Operation Dark Heart – and then pulp them.

It's every author's dream – to write a book that's so sensationally popular it's impossible to find a copy in the shops, even as it keeps climbing up the bestseller lists.

And so it is for Anthony Shaffer, thanks to the Pentagon's desire to buy up all 10,000 copies of the first printing of his new book, Operation Dark Heart. And then pulp them.

The US defence department is scrambling to dispose of what threatens to be a highly embarrassing expose by the former intelligence officer of secret operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and of how the US military top brass missed the opportunity to win the war against the Taliban.

The department of defence is in talks with St Martin's Press to purchase the entire first print run on the grounds of national security.

The publisher is content to sell the books but the two sides are in a grinding dispute over what should appear in a censored version and when it should be released.

Now St Martin's Press says it will put the partly redacted manuscript on sale next week whether or not the defence department likes it – and there doesn't appear much the authorities can do.

The army had cleared the book by Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, about "black ops" in the Afghan war when he was based at Bagram in 2003, for publication after relatively minor changes.

But when the intelligence services and defence department officials saw it they were alarmed.

They said it contained highly classified material including the names of American intelligence agents and accounts of clandestine operations, and demanded the book be withdrawn on the grounds it "could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to national security".

The Pentagon is using Shaffer's status as a reserve officer to block him from speaking to the press, but a source close to the publication of the book said that some of the sensitive material had been removed but the defence department was still seeking to purge it of other information that is 20 years old or even in the public domain.

For that reason, there is suspicion that the defence department is less concerned with the nitty gritty of classified material than its broader story of intelligence forays in to Pakistan and his claim that top US military leaders blew an opportunity to win the war years ago.

Shaffer describes in the book how he was part of the "dark side of the force" that operates outside the usual constraints of the military system. He led a group that called themselves the Jedi Knights and specialised in "black ops" including "striking at the core of the Taliban" inside Pakistan. He says that US forces were gaining the upper hand until the military brass involved itself, curbing operations in Pakistan and permitting the Taliban to strengthen again.

Shaffer, who used the pseudonym Christopher Stryker, fell foul of his superiors several years ago after claiming that an intelligence programme he was working with identified Mohammed Atta as a terrorist threat to the US before he led the attacks on 9/11. He was later sacked by the DIA over alleged violations of rules and excessive expense claims.

Joseph Rinaldi of St Martin's Press said that it had offered to sell the first print run to the Pentagon but the details are still being worked out. The Pentagon may yet regret wading in at all. Its plan to pulp the book has provided the kind of publicity that advertising cannot buy and the redacted but still unpalatable version of Operation Dark Heart is charging up the best seller lists even before it is released.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/pentagon-afghanistan-spy-book-pulp

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Presses Administration For Clear Withdrawal Plan From Afghanistan

First Posted: 03/15/11 07:25 AM Updated: 03/15/11 07:25 AM

WASHINGTON -- While President Obama has said that U.S. combat forces will begin leaving Afghanistan in July 2011 and be fully out by 2014, the pace of that withdrawal is still up in the air. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is now pressing the administration for a clear redeployment plan so that the American public receives a degree of certainty regarding how much longer the war will last. Her announcement comes on the same day that Gen. David Petraeus will be testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which Gillibrand is a member.

Gillibrand is calling for passage of the Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States Combat Forces from Afghanistan Act, which would put Congress' backing behind the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces beginning on July 1. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and four other senators, would also require Obama to submit a plan to Congress by July 31 for the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces, including a completion day.

“America cannot afford an endless war in Afghanistan,” Gillibrand said. “After nearly a decade at war, with still no equal commitment from the Karzai government, and after all the lives we’ve sacrificed and the billions we’ve spent on this war, it’s time to start bringing our troops home. It’s time to put the future and security of Afghanistan in the hands of its own leaders, and focus America’s national security on the emerging and more imminent threats from al Qaeda in other regions.”

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, provided exclusively to The Huffington Post, Gillibrand also requests a Strategic Redeployment Agreement to establish a 2014 end date for combat operations, based on the model used for pull-out from Iraq.

"I am writing out of consideration for our changing national security challenges, my deep concern about the toll that the war in Afghanistan is taking on our troops and our country, and recognition of [the fact] that the Afghan and Pakistani governments are not taking steps critical to the war effort," she writes in the letter. "I believe a clear combat redeployment agreement would help our efforts in Afghanistan by reinforcing Afghan sovereignty and protecting both the readiness and the flexibility we need to meet the full array of global security challenges that confront our country."

She also raises doubts as to whether the United States is meeting the goals in its three core elements of strategy for Afghanistan that Petraeus has identified, which include "a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan." Gillibrand cites widespread corruption in Afghanistan, possible "serious domestic instability" and the safe havens for terrorists that remain along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

Gillibrand is not calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, as many critics of the war would like to see. But her plan would force the administration to lay out a concrete timeline, which it so far has not done, and officials would then be held accountable for upholding said timeline in the next few years.

Despite officials pointing to 2014 as the targeted end of combat operations, Gates has said that U.S. troops will most likely remain in Afghanistan beyond that date.

"I would say that if the Afghan people and the Afghan government are interested in an ongoing security relationship and some sort of an ongoing security presence -- with the permission of the Afghan government -- the United States, I think, is open to the possibility of having some presence here in terms of training and assistance, perhaps making use of facilities made available to us by the Afghan government for those purposes," said Gates on a recent trip to Afghanistan.

Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), who also recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan, said that military commanders there told him they expect U.S. troops to be in the country for another 8-10 years.

On Monday, Obama sat down with Gates and Petraeus in a meeting that was closed to reporters and discussed the plan to begin withdrawal in July. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is expected to make an announcement on March 21 regarding the transition of leading security operations to Afghan forces.

A recent poll by Rasmussen found that a majority of likely voters want the U.S. government to set a timetable to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan within one year. Within that group, 31 percent want troops to come home immediately. In September 2010, just 43 percent of likely voters wanted a one-year timeline.

American taxpayers have spent $336 billion to fund the war and another $11 billion for assistance in Afghanistan, with approximately $124 billion more expected to be approved by Congress.

Gillibrand's full letter to Clinton and Gates:

Dear Secretaries Clinton and Gates,

It is my strong view that it is time to negotiate a Strategic Redeployment Agreement with Afghanistan that would mandate a date certain for the withdrawal of all United States combat forces no later than 2014. I am writing out of consideration for our changing national security challenges, my deep concern about the toll that the war in Afghanistan is taking on our troops and our country, and recognition of [the fact] that the Afghan and Pakistani governments are not taking steps critical to the war effort. I believe a clear combat redeployment agreement would help our efforts in Afghanistan by reinforcing Afghan sovereignty and protecting both the readiness and the flexibility we need to meet the full array of global security challenges that confront our country.

I have great confidence in the ability of our troops and the strategic focus of our commanders. The surge in Afghanistan has accomplished some substantial military gains. However, as the President has said, in laying out the strategy for Afghanistan, there are “three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.” Despite our civilian assistance, corruption in Afghanistan remains rife. As the near-collapse of Kabul Bank has demonstrated, corruption undermines Afghanistan’s stability and the support of its people for their government. Without a strong, stable, and effective Afghan government, we risk serious domestic instability that opens the door to a return to control by the Taliban and related organizations of major parts of the country despite a U.S. military commitment. As for Pakistan, while I applaud the sacrifices Pakistan’s military has made in fighting some insurgent groups, al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, and others continue to enjoy safe havens inside Pakistan, near the Pakistani-Afghan border, allowing them to resupply and direct the war in Afghanistan. Insufficient dedication from Kabul and Islamabad undermines our military investment in Afghanistan.

I am also concerned that the drain on our resources in Afghanistan may deteriorate our flexibility to address other global threats. In the past few months, upheavals in the Middle East have posed new challenges for our government as a whole, including the military. Yet, our flexibility of response appears to be compromised in part by our ongoing military involvement in two other Muslim majority countries. Top U.S. intelligence officials have said that Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula is a greater national security challenge than bin Laden. And al Qaeda’s reach appears to be increasingly global – spreading ideology and seeking recruits via the Internet and other methods - not limited to specific contests like the one in Afghanistan. U.S. strategy for countering terrorism needs to be far more nimble, innovative, and global than the troop-heavy counter-insurgency.

What I am suggesting is not to spell out every stage of U.S. troop redeployment from Afghanistan – specific redeployment decisions should be up to commanders on the ground and avoid giving the enemy a potential propaganda tool. Nor should we change the protection for our troops and flexibility for our mission that has been agreed in the U.S.-Afghanistan diplomatic notes exchange and the ISAF-Afghanistan Military Technical Agreement. I do not believe that a withdrawal agreement must necessarily limit our training or counter-terrorism missions, or protection for our civilian development programs. It is critical, however, that we provide for a date certain for withdrawal of our combat forces, in order to give certainty to the American people; to ensure maximum flexibility in responding to other contingencies; and to publicly endorse the Afghan Government’s assumption of lead responsibility as planned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/gillibrand-afghanistan_n_835739.html?view=print

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Afghan war isn’t worth fighting

By Scott Wilson and Jon Cohen, Tuesday, March 15, 12:20 AM

Nearly two-thirds of Americans now say the war in Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting, the highest proportion yet opposed to the conflict, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The finding signals a growing challenge for President Obama as he decides how quickly to pull U.S. forces from the country beginning this summer. After nearly a decade of conflict, political opposition to the battle breaks sharply along partisan lines, with only 19 percent of Democratic respondents and half of Republicans surveyed saying the war continues to be worth fighting.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say Obama should withdraw a “substantial number” of combat troops from Afghanistan this summer, the deadline he set to begin pulling out some forces. Only 39 percent of respondents, however, say they expect him to withdraw large numbers.

The Post-ABC News poll results come as Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, prepares to testify before Congress on Tuesday about the course of the war. He is expected to face tough questioning about a conflict that is increasingly unpopular among a broad cross section of Americans.

Petraeus will tell Congress that “things are progressing very well,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Monday. But because of battlefield gains made by U.S. and coalition forces since last year, Morrell told MSNBC, “it’s going to be heavy and intensive in terms of fighting” once the winter cold passes.

The poll began asking only in 2007 whether the Afghan war is worth fighting, but support has almost certainly never been as low as it is in the most recent survey.

The growing opposition pre­sents Obama with a difficult political challenge ahead of his 2012 reelection effort, especially in his pursuit of independent voters.

Since Democrats took a beating in last year’s midterm elections, Obama has appealed to independents with a middle-of-the-road approach to George W. Bush-era tax cuts and budget negotiations with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. He called a news conference last week to express concern about rising gasoline prices, an economically pressing issue for many independent voters.

But his approach to the Afghan war has not won over the independents or liberal Democrats who propelled his campaign two years ago, and the most recent Post-ABC News poll reinforces the importance of Republicans as the chief constituency supporting his strategy. The results suggest that the war will be an awkward issue for the president as he looks for ways to end it. Nearly 1,500 U.S. troops have died since the fighting began in 2001.

During his 2008 campaign, Obama promised to withdraw American forces from the Iraq war, which he opposed, and devote more resources to the flagging effort in Afghanistan, which he has called an essential front in combating Islamist terrorism targeting the United States.

After a months-long strategy review in the fall of 2009, he announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan — taking the total to more than 100,000 — and a July 2011 deadline for the start of their withdrawal.

The number of respondents to the Post-ABC News poll who say the war is not worth fighting has risen from 44 percent in late 2009 to 64 percent in the survey conducted last week.

Two-thirds of independents hold that position, according to the poll, and nearly 80 percent said Obama should withdraw a “substantial number” of troops from Afghanistan this summer. Barely more than a quarter of independents say the war is worth its costs, and for the first time a majority feel “strongly” that it is not.

Obama, who met with Pe­traeus on Monday at the White House, has said he will determine the pace of the withdrawal by assessing conditions on the ground.

At the same time, U.S. and NATO forces have come under sharp criticism from the Afghan government. Over the weekend, after a NATO bombing killed nine children, Afghan President Hamid Karzai demanded that international troops “stop their operations in our land,” a more pointed call than previous ones he has made following such deadly NATO mistakes.

The telephone poll was conducted March 10 to 13 among a random national sample of 1,005 adults. Results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

The survey also asked respondents to assess Obama’s performance in managing the political changes sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa. Overall, 45 percent of respondents approve of his handling of the situation, and 44 percent disapprove.

In Libya, where Moammar Gaddafi is battling a rebel force seeking to end his 41-year rule, Obama is under increasing pressure to implement a no-fly zone over the country to prevent the Libyan leader from taking back lost territory and to protect civilians from government reprisals.

Nearly six in 10 Americans say they would support U.S. participation in a no-fly zone over Libya, the poll found, despite recent warnings from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that doing so would be a “major operation.”

But the survey found that American support dips under 50 percent when it comes to unilateral U.S. action, as Democrats and independents peel away.

When told that such a mission would entail U.S. warplanes bombing Libyan antiaircraft positions and “continuous patrols,” about a quarter of those initially advocating U.S. participation turn into opponents.

After a meeting Monday with Danish Prime Minister Lars Loek­ke Rasmussen, Obama said, “We will be continuing to coordinate closely both through NATO as well as the United Nations and other international fora to look at every single option that’s available to us in bringing about a better outcome for the Libyan people.”

In general, Americans do not think thatthe changes in the Middle East and North Africa will prove beneficial to U.S. economic and security interests.

More than seven in 10 respondents said demonstrators are interested in building new governments, although not necessarily democratic ones. Almost half of those surveyed view the turmoil as undermining the United States’ ability to fight terrorist groups in the region.

wilsons@washpost.com

cohenj@washpost.com

Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/poll-nearly-two-thirds-of-americans-say-afghan-war-isnt-worth-fighting/2011/03/14/ABRbeEW_print.html

All in a Month’s Work- Crashing BofA, Drawing Beck’s Ire & Shaming Corporate Tax Dodgers

Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 08:00 AM EDT

Open your wallet. Take out a dollar bill, and feel it between your fingers. That thin piece of paper is more than Bank of America, Citigroup, Verizon and Boeing all paid in income taxes last year, combined.

Read on below the fold if you know that's just plain wrong, and if it makes you downright angry.

One month ago to the date, I was intrigued by an article my dad emailed to me with the subject line, “This looks right up your alley.”  That article was “How to Build a Progressive Tea Party” by Johann Hari, describing the rising UK Uncut movement that holds tax dodgers’ feet to the fire across the pond.  The implication was that we should do the same in the United States.

Little did my dad know that just 2 weeks later, we would hold events in 50 cities around the country with 2,000+ activists hitting Bank of America storefronts to protest the fact that they made $4.4 Billion in profits while paying $0 in taxes. We took to the streets to tell the people directly that if this one corporation alone paid their fair share, we could ‘uncut’ $1.7 Billion in early childhood education (Head Start & Title I).  Activists came, direct actions were held, and we persuaded the people.

The message is magnetic and it spreads like populist wildfire.  Everyone agrees.  We win.

Our message is a simple one- before you fire one more teacher, before you take one more police officer off the streets, before you close down one more fire station, before you sacrifice one more decent public servant upon the altar of deficit reduction, our political leaders have an obligation to make sure corporations are paying their fair share in taxes like the rest of us.

Right now, we're missing out on up to $100 billion per year in corporate tax revenue because of offshore tax haven abuse- that's $1 trillion each decade. Bank of America alone uses 115 tropical tax havens to hide their profits. Instead of Congress cutting higher education to the tune of $100 Billion this year (Pell Grants) or cutting low-income heating assistance for poor families, Congress could simply pass legislation that makes offshore tax havens illegal (see: Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act).

At the first BofA investors' conference in 3 years, US Uncut NYC found a way inside and called out a roomful of millionaire and billionaire hedge fund managers and bank executives to their faces. Glenn Beck has twice set aside time on his show to call us Marxists/Communists/Socialists who want to "end capitalism as we know it."  All we are saying, Mr. Beck, is that “we pay our taxes, why don’t they?”  Where’s the comrade in that, psychopath?

The media has begun calling us the ‘progressive tea party’.  Well, that’s handy for the attention span of the 24-hour news cycle, but let’s be clear about a few things.  First, we have no billionaires funding our movement, nor a bank account for that matter (your money’s no good here, only your capacity for action).  This ain’t Astroturf funded by oil executives busing us around the country along with a major cable news network providing free national publicity – this is grassroots pure and simple – by the people, for the people, and of the people (the way it should be).  Lastly, US Uncut is focused on action, and like the tea party, we prefer direct action in full view of the public instead of clicktivism and online petitions (you know who you are).  This is truly a people-powered movement, its showing no sign of slowing down, and we shall be heard.

US Uncut's message isn't one that endorses any specific candidates for office, or any major political party- we are a united group of citizens who believe its wrong to make the other 98% of us foot the bill for the greediest 2%. We're fighting for teachers, for police officers, firefighters, libraries, students, the unemployed, and everyone who has been victimized by corporate greed and a complicit government's manufactured budget crisis.

Our next global day of action is Saturday, March 26th. Uncut movements in France, Netherlands, Sudan, Canada, Mexico, Australia and Switzerland will be joining UK Uncut and US Uncut as we take to the streets to fight the most egregious corporate tax dodgers. Can we all shake off the chains of complicity and stand in solidarity for one cause, worldwide?

Wouldn't it be great if our legislators and the talking heads on TV all stopped their chatter about "spreading the pain around" and "shared sacrifice," and instead filled the airwaves with populist language that appeals to the rest of us? Perhaps another month from now, liberal and conservative pundits will capitalize on middle-class anger and use language like, "they caused this crisis- make them pay for it" or "this isn't a spending problem, its a revenue problem."

Wouldn't it be great if the geriatric rednecks sitting in red, white & blue lawn chairs while holding "STOP THE SPENDING, SUPER SECRET TERRORIST MUSLIM OBAMA" signs were replaced in the media? In another month's time, we might see scads of slightly younger folks along with ‘soccer moms’ and disabled veterans all standing together, waving flags, and holding signs like "CHOP FROM THE TOP – BANK OF AMERICA IS BAD FOR AMERICA!"

What if the progressive message of corporate accountability dominated the media coverage on Tax Day this year, instead of Fox News tea party rallies at the national mall? What if 10,000 people descended on Washington, D.C. on April 18th for a rally focused on egregious corporate tax dodgers and how their greed directly hurts We the People? What if these progressives presented a one-page bill to Congress that made it illegal to hide profits overseas, demanded action, and dared them to pass it?

This is our time to change the debate for once. This is our time to put aside our nitpicking and our petty ideological differences to stand together and demand our leaders act on this grave injustice that impacts us all.  This is our time for direct and meaningful action.

Instead of banks rewarding themselves with bonuses that could solve every state budget crisis and lower the unemployment rate by 4 percentage points, what if banks were all collectively forced to pay billions back to Uncle Sam for all those years of tax dodging? If we all stood together, united in this one cause and refused to relent until our leaders gave in and corporations finally paid up, we would quickly triumph.

Aren't you tired of wondering why the President we worked so hard to elect hasn't led a movement to drive a stake through the heart of the US Chamber of Commerce? Aren't you tired of clicking endless petitions to be sent to Congressmen already bought and paid for by Wall Street and K Street? Aren't you ready to finally be seen and be heard out in the streets, where we can't be ignored?

US Uncut is. Take a stand with us, and go to usuncut.org to find everything you need to get started.

The momentum is finally on our side.  Let's get to work.  #Winning

The revolution will be tweeted, liked, & shared.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/15/956508/-All-in-a-Month%E2%80%99s-WorkCrashing-BofA,-Drawing-Beck%E2%80%99s-IreShaming-Corporate-Tax-Dodgers-

Must See Chart: This Is What Class War Looks Like

March 9, 2011



via dailykos.com

This chart puts the class war in simple, visual terms. On the left you have the "shared sacrifices" and "painful cuts" that the Republicans claim we must make to get our fiscal house in order. On the right, you can plainly see WHY these cuts are "necessary."

http://jackdean.posterous.com/must-see-chart-this-is-what-class-war-looks-l

Michigan’s Govorner Slashes Corporate Tax Rate by 86 Percent, Hikes Taxes for Working Poor

By Pat Garofalo | Sourced from Think Progress
Posted at March 14, 2011, 12:51 pm

As we’ve been documenting, several conservative governors have proposed placing the brunt of deficit reduction onto the backs of their state’s public employees, students, and middle-class taxpayers, while simultaneously trying to enact corporate tax cuts and giveaways. Govs. Rick Scott (R-FL), Tom Corbett (R-PA), and Jan Brewer (R-AZ) have all gone down this road.

Following suit, Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) has proposed ending his state’s Earned Income Tax Credit, cutting a $600 per child tax credit, and reducing credits for seniors, while also cutting funding for school districts by eight to ten percent. At the same time, as the Michigan League for Human Services found, the state’s business taxes would be reduced by nearly $2 billion, or 86 percent, under Snyder’s plan:

Business taxes would be cut by 86 percent from an estimated $2.1 billion in FY 2011 to $292.7 million in FY 2013, the first full year of the proposed tax changes…Taxes on individuals from the state income tax would rise by $1.7 billion or nearly 31 percent, from an estimated $5.75 billion in FY 2011 to $7.5 billion in FY 2013, the first full year of the tax changes.

As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found, the practical upshot of Snyder’s tax increases is to place even more of a burden on Michigan’s poorest residents, who will see a bigger hike than those at the upper end of the income scale:

Michigan already has a regressive tax system, which Snyder’s proposal will only make worse. Currently, someone in the poorest 20 percent of Michigan taxpayers pays a tax rate of 8.9 percent, while someone in the richest one percent pays 5.3 percent.

In addition to trying to make an unfair tax system even more problematic for Michigan’s low-income residents, Snyder has also asked that the state be given the power to dismiss local government and appoint emergency “town managers” who could break contracts and “strip powers from elected officials.”

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/528411/michigan%E2%80%99s_gop_gov._slashes_corporate_tax_rate_by_86_percent,_hikes_taxes_for_working_poor/

Walmart CEO Pay: More in an Hour Than Workers Get All Year?

by ALICE GOMSTYN
ABC NEWS Business Unit
July 2, 2010

Walmart Executive-Worker Pay Gap Strikes Chord in Chicago and Beyond

By Ed Smith's math, the CEO of Walmart earns more in an hour than his employees will earn in a year.

ABC News

Chicago alderman Ed Smith has calculated that Walmart CEO Michael Duke earns more in an hour than his employees will earn in a year. Smith's numbers may be a bit off, according to an executive compensation firm, but he argues that there's still a "sad" contrast between the tens in millions of dollars Duke receives and the wages of his employees.

Smith, an alderman in Chicago, presented posters at a city council meeting showing that Walmart CEO Michael Duke's $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, worked out to $16,826.92. By comparison, at a Walmart store planned for the Windy City's Pullman neighborhood, new employees to be paid $8.75 an hour would gross $13,650 a year.

Smith's numbers could be a bit off. Equilar, an executive compensation research firm, calculates that Duke earned just south of $20 million in 2009 and $28 million in 2008, not counting millions of dollars in potential performance awards. But the alderman argued that there's still a "sad" contrast between Duke's compensation and the wages of his employees.

"How can you go to bed at night and sleep knowing you make this kind of money and the people working for you can hardly buy a package of beans and rice?" he asked in an interview with ABCNews.com.

Walmart, meanwhile, said that its wages across the country are competitive in local markets and that on average, hourly employee pay -- which includes more experienced workers but not managers -- ranges from $10 to more than $12.

The retail giant made no apologies for Duke's salary.

"I don't think Mike Duke needs, as the CEO of a Fortune 1 company, needs me to defend his compensation package," said Walmart director of community affairs Steven Restivo, referring to Walmart's status as the largest company on the planet.

The debate over Walmart wages has been a thorny local issue in Chicago, where city aldermen on Wednesday reluctantly approved plans for a new Walmart store. It also speaks to continued concerns nationwide over the pay gap between top executives and their rank-and-file employees.

A study last fall by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal Washington D.C. research group, found that CEOs in the country's S&P 500 companies make, on average, 319 times more than the average American worker.

IPS associate fellow Sam Pizzigati said that in the 1970s, that ratio was 30 to 1.

"We've seen, over the past three decades, a tenfold-plus increase in the gap between top executives and average American workers," Pizzigati said. "That Chicago alderman is putting his finger on a very real problem in American economic life."

Why the Pay Gap Has Grown

Pizzigati said the reasons for the yawning gap are two-fold. Declining top-bracket tax rates over the last half-century, he said, took away a strong disincentive for company boards to keep a lid on CEO pay.

The top marginal tax rate, he said, dropped from 91 percent in the 1960s to 28 percent in 1980s. It stands at 35 percent today.

"If you look at historical record, executive pay really started exploding in early 1980s," he said. "That's when the top rate started precipitously falling."

On the worker side, Pizzigati said, wages have been hurt by the declining power of U.S. organized labor. When it represented more than one-third of the American workforce, unions could influence wages -- and force them higher -- throughout the labor market. With just seven percent of Americans represented by unions today, Pizzigati said, that's no longer the case.

Paul Hodgson, a senior research associate at the executive compensation watchdog group The Corporate Library, attributed the gap to another factor: the use of stock awards in CEO pay. Notwithstanding the recent financial crisis, stocks have seen tremendous gains since the 1980s and that, he said, has been reflected in CEO compensation.

As a result, he said, "CEO pay has been growing exponentially while everyone else's wages have been growing arithmetically."

Companies that shell out blockbuster salaries and benefits maintain that high compensation is necessary to attract the best talent to top positions.

In Chicago, in recent years the compensation issue has centered largely on so-called big box stores like Walmart. In 2006, the city's mayor vetoed a resolution by the city council to raise minimum hourly pay by giant retailers in the city to $10 plus $3 worth of benefits.

Chicago Labor Leaders Wanted Higher Pay at Walmart

This week's approval of the new Walmart store came despite demands by labor organizers that Walmart, a non-union company, should pay at least $11 an hour to new employees. Walmart countered that the $8.75 it plans to pay -- which is 50 cents above Chicago's minimum wage -- is more than the starting hourly wages of unionized grocery store workers in the area.

An organizer for Local 881 United Food and Commercial Workers declined to comment on wages for union members, citing ongoing contract negotiations, but said that, overall, members receive better health insurance and retirement benefits than Walmart employees. (In its defense, Walmart said its health insurance plans offer "a wide range of options" and trumpeted its 401k and profit sharing plans.)

Smith said he ultimately decided to join his fellow aldermen in unanimously voting to allow the Pullman store because of the jobs the store is expected to create and its addition to the city's tax base.

He, too, would have liked to see the retailer pay at least $11 an hour to new employees, but added that he's glad Walmart's $8.75 starting pay is above minimum wage.

"As Kenny Rogers says, 'You gotta know when to hold them and know when to fold 'em,'" Smith said. "So that's what we did."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-ceo-pay-hour-workers-year/story?id=11067470