House Republicans Shred Constitution With Backdoor Proposal of Permanent War

John Nichols | May 11, 2011

House Republicans like to talk -- and talk, and talk -- about their regard for the founders and the Constitution.

 
 
House Speaker John Boehner, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-Tea Party, and their circle even attempted -- in unsettlingly bumbling manner [1] -- to read the document into the Congressional Record at the opening of the current Congress.
 
Now, however, with a backdoor plan to commit the United States to a course of permanent warmaking, they are affronting the most basic premises of a Constitution [2] that requires congressional declarations of all wars and direct and engaged oversight of military missions.
 
The House Republican leadership, working in conjunction with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-California, has included in the 2012 defense authorization bill language (borrowed from the sweeping Detainee Security Act) that would effectively declare a state of permanent war against unnamed and ill-defined foreign forces [3] "associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda.
 
The means that, despite the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan (which GOP leaders in the House have refused to officially recognize as a significant development), the Department of Defense will be authorized to maintain a permanent occupation of Afghanistan [4], a country bin Laden abandoned years ago, and a global war against what remains of bin Laden's fragmented operation.
 
Instead of an explicit declaration of war with Afghanistan or the ill-defined global conflict, the GOP leaders has slipped language into the spending bill that simply announced theU.S. is "engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces" and that claims an old "Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups."
 
That's about a wide-ranging as it gets, and the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee argues that the language makes a mockery of the Constitutional requirement that Congress check and balance the executive branch [5] and the Department of Defense when it comes to questions of extending wars.
 
(The language included in the spending bill) would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval," argues Congressman John Conyers, D-Michigan. [6]"Such authority must not be ceded to the President without careful deliberation from Congress."
 
Conyers and 32 House Democrats have written [7] Armed Services Committee Chairman McKeon asking that he "immediately call hearings... so that the American people have an opportunity to consider the serious impacts that this legislation could have on our national security."
 
That's the right call.
 
Who says?
 
James Madison, the essential author of Constitution.
 
Madison observed in the founding years of the American experiment that: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
 
The Madisonian impulse is kept alive today not by House leaders who claim to revere the Constitution while adandoning its principles but by those members of Congress who object to permanent war for the same reasons that thewisest of the founders did.
 
Here is the Conyers letter: [7]
 

Dear Chairman McKeon:
 
We are writing concerning certain troubling provisions in H.R. 968, the Detainee Security Act of 2011, which we understand are likely to be considered as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of the Fiscal Year of 2012. Whatever one thinks about the merits of the Detainee Security Act, it is a serious enough departure from current counterterrorism policy and practice to merit consideration apart from the NDAA. Accordingly, we request that you use your chairmanship in the House Armed Services Committee to immediately hold hearings so that the public can further consider the various provisions within the Detainee Security Act.
 
Among the many troubling aspects of the Detainee Security Act are provisions that expand the war against terrorist organizations on a global basis. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was widely thought to provide authorization for the war in Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That war has dragged on for almost ten years, and after the demise of Osama Bin Laden, as the United States prepares for withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Detainee Security Act purports to expand the "armed conflict" against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and "associated forces" without limit. By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations "associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval. Such authority must not be ceded to the President without careful deliberation from Congress.
 
The Detainee Security Act also unwisely requires that all terrorism suspects eligible for detention under the AUMF be held exclusively in military custody pending further disposition. The practical effect of this provision will be to undermine the ability of the FBI and local law enforcement to participate in counterterrorism operations, which could have serious negative impacts on national security. Moreover, in a recent hearing in the House Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson noted that, rather than help clarify detention authority, the military custody provision in the Detainee Security Act would create serious litigation risk for the government.
 
The Detainee Security Act contains several additional troublesome provisions that relate to Guantanamo. The Detainee Security Act in effect requires that terrorism suspects be tried in military commissions, thereby cutting out Article III federal courts from conducting terrorism trials. This is unwise, as Article III federal courts have convicted over 400 individuals of terrorism-related offenses since 9/11. Military commissions, mired by legal problems and controversy, have convicted only six. The Detainee Security Act would also make permanent current transfer restrictions on Guantanamo detainees, further undermining the ability of the President to close the offshore detention facility. In our view, restricting the President in this way is unnecessary to promote a robust national security that keeps the American people safe.
 
Whatever one thinks of these various proposals in the Detainee Security Act, it is clear that they will have serious consequences and should be examined extensively. We therefore request that you use your chairmanship to immediately call hearings on Detainee Security Act so that the American people have an opportunity to consider the serious impacts that this legislation could have on our national security.
 
Sincerely,
 
Representatives John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), John Dingell (D-Mich.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Michael Honda (D-Calif.), Jesse Jackson (D-Ill.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), John Lewis (D-Ga.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), George Miller (D-Calif.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), David Price (D-N.C.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-Calif.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and David Wu (D-Ore.).
 

Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/blog/160594/house-republicans-shred-constitution-backdoor-proposal-permanent-war

The Assassination of Osama bin Laden Statement by the United National Antiwar Committee

The U.S. government has used the pretext of finding Osama bin Laden to justify their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Now that bin Laden is dead, they can no longer claim this motive. Our demand remains the same: Bring the troops home NOW!

The Obama Administration does not intend to end military operations. The war apparatus of weaponry, drones, bases, mercenaries, and reliance on highly secret special forces like JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) to do its dirty work with no oversight by Congress or the public has increased along with an escalating war budget. Violence and war are the conflict resolution methods preferred by the U.S. leadership.

In pursuit of oil and domination, the U.S. so-called “War on Terror” has caused the deaths of tens of thousands Afghans, well over a million Iraqis, as well as the loss of 6,000 U.S. soldiers. To pay for this bloodshed and destruction, the U.S. has spent trillions of dollars to expand the war machine and benefit the rich that could have gone for jobs, education, health care and green energy alternatives. As poll after poll has demonstrated, the U.S. population has turned against these wars and wants the troops brought home.

President Obama is using the assassination of bin Laden to re-legitimize U.S. militarism and to build up popular support for U.S. military actions abroad and his own re-election at home. The country is put on high alert to create an atmosphere of heightened fear and anger, a tactic frequently used when Americans turn against government policies. Soon after President Obama announced the killing of bin Laden, hyper-patriotic flag waving demonstrations broke out on campuses, in front of the White House and even at baseball games.

The jingoistic atmosphere engendered by Obama’s extra-judicial assassination of bin Laden has put Muslim Americans in jeopardy. It has increased Islamophobia across America. After the announcement of bin Laden’s murder, racists defiled a mosque in Portland, Maine with the slogan “Osama today, Islam tomorrow.” In Oregon, a Muslim center had to cancel an event after receiving threats. Mosques across the country, fearful of attacks, have increased security. This is the ugly impact at home of the so-called “War on Terror” abroad. UNAC urges the entire antiwar movement to stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters against these racist attacks.

The administration will no doubt use the ‘successful’ mission to justify further secrecy, denying any kind of democratic oversight over U.S. foreign policy. It sets a precedent for saying the U.S. has the right to attack anyone that the administration designates an enemy at any place, any time and legitimizes secret renditions, torture and indefinite incarceration without trial. These increased Executive powers are included in current legislation and reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act and must be opposed.

Our democracy, civil rights, and civil liberties are threatened. They will argue that the need for secrecy makes it even more important to prosecute Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and WikiLeaks for publicizing documents that expose the lies and criminal behavior of the government. On top of that, it will be used to further authorize FBI harassment and grand jury probes against antiwar and Palestine solidarity activists. All of these victims of the U.S. government are put in further jeopardy by the atmosphere created by the assassination of bin Laden. Eventually those fighting the massive cutbacks and attacks on unions will become the victims of this restriction of our civil liberties.

The extra-judicial assassination of bin Laden, like the NATO bombing of Libya, is clearly designed to remind the masses of workers and students rising up in the Middle East against U.S.-backed dictators that Washington is still boss. It is also an attempt to roll back the growing opposition to the occupation of Afghanistan by war-weary working people in the U.S. There is no possibility that this assassination will bring security, democracy, or peace in the Middle East or America.

We will not be intimidated. In spite of U.S. grandstanding and the wars without end, millions of people around the world are throwing off the yoke of years of repression and claiming their right to determine their own destiny. The Arab Spring shows that people will not allow fear and militarization to suppress the yearning for freedom. People across the U.S. are not fooled by government lies and have turned against the wars and occupations. The unions and their supporters in the thousands in Wisconsin stood up against the corporate-controlled state government to fight back against the attack on collective bargaining and the cut backs of social services. Their actions inspired many and others will follow.

This is the time to forge unity and to step up our opposition to U.S. wars and occupations. We must stand with those who are victimized and those who struggle for freedom and a better life. We need to build a movement independent of all political parties that mobilizes powerful mass actions to challenge reactionary government policies. We need to march and continue to march until we meet our goals of peace and justice.


Bring the Troops, War Contractors, Mercenaries
and War Dollars Home NOW!
U.S. Out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya NOW!
NO to Islamophobia!
Hands Off the Arab Spring!

*****************

United National Antiwar Committee
UNACpeace.org

5/6/11

Effort To Dismantle Federal Unemployment Insurance Program Launched in Congress

Posted by: Mitchell Hirsch
May 06, 2011

Less than five months after approving a reauthorization of federally-funded unemployment insurance benefits as part of an agreement that also extended the tax cuts for Americans with the highest incomes, leading members of Congress are looking to break that agreement and dismantle the unemployment benefits program while leaving the tax cuts for the wealthy in place.

A bill introduced yesterday in the House by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and in the Senate by Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, would give states the ability to seize the federal funds allocated for unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and use them for other purposes, including bailing out state government funds and substituting for employer unemployment taxes.

The measure would also allow states to reduce the number of weeks of federally-paid emergency and extended unemployment benefits, reduce the amounts paid or eliminate the benefits entirely.  One provision would allow a state to take the federal benefits funds and use them to finance its depleted unemployment trust fund rather than collect employer taxes, or to pay regular state benefits instead.

The bill is rather cynically titled the Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits and Services Act of 2011 (pdf)  – the “JOBS Act”.  They can call it whatever they want – it’s still just a vehicle to steal the guaranteed benefits from long-term unemployed job-seekers, those workers hurt the worst by the continuing unemployment crisis.  More than 4 million workers currently receive federal benefits through either the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) or Extended Benefits (EB) programs.  And, as Congressional research has shown, the nation’s unemployment insurance system has kept more than 3 million Americans from falling into poverty.

Federal unemployment insurance benefits are only available to workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and have not been able to find work after exhausting their eligible weeks of regular state benefits, which in most states includes up to 26 weeks.  These federal benefits continue to be an essential means of support for those seeking new work in a job market that is barely growing fast enough to keep up with population-related increases in the labor force.  And while the unemployment rate is back at 9 percent nationally, the average duration of unemployment for jobless workers is nearly 9 months.

But these facts and the struggles of millions of unemployed workers seem to hold little sway with some lawmakers, who appear bent on shutting down unemployment insurance programs at every level.  They couch this proposal in language reminiscent of the welfare reform debate of the 1990s -- with lots of references to “flexibility”.  In a statement announcing the bill, Rep. Camp says it’s “about giving States the flexibility to spend current funds better,” and Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY), a co-sponsor, says the bill will give “States the flexibility to make better choices about how to spend Federal unemployment benefit dollars.”

But unemployment insurance is not welfare – it’s an insurance program that guarantees benefits to eligible workers to help them sustain themselves and their families while they search for new employment.  It is those guaranteed benefits that this proposal would allow states to take away from jobless workers and use for things like bailing out state trust funds or substituting for employer taxes.

Other members of the House Ways and Means Committee were quick to blast the measure.  Ranking Member Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) and Human Resources Subcommittee Ranking Member Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) issued a statement saying the proposal “takes a hatchet” to the unemployment insurance program.  Rep. Levin said the bill’s supporters are “proposing to end this year’s guaranteed benefit for the long-term unemployed, just like they’ve proposed ending the guaranteed benefit for Medicare recipients.”

“This legislation takes money out of the pockets of the long-term unemployed and throws it to states, many of which have mismanaged their trust funds,” Levin said.

“This is a surprise assault on the jobless, which encourages the states to terminate assistance to 4 million long term unemployed Americans,” said Rep. Doggett.  “It represents only the latest attempt by Republicans to blame the unemployed for unemployment on the very day that ongoing unemployment claims had their largest weekly increase since last July.”

Unemployed workers are already facing attacks on benefits in a number of states.  Michigan and Missouri have recently cut their maximum state benefit weeks from 26 to 20.  Florida is close to enacting even harsher reductions in state benefits eligibility.  In addition, states including Tennessee, Wisconsin and North Carolina have already allowed federally-paid extended benefit programs to cease making payments.

It is true that many states now have insolvent unemployment insurance trust funds, and have taken on debt to the federal government by borrowing to pay state benefits.  And both the high numbers of jobless workers and the prolonged duration of the labor market downturn have contributed significantly to that insolvency.  But many of those states failed to adequately finance their trust funds during good economic times, and thus were not sufficiently prepared for the recession.  Some now look to use their current solvency issues to go after the very benefits that the unemployment insurance system is there to provide – as the newly-proposed “JOBS Act” would encourage them to do.

Attacking unemployment benefits will not restore solvency to unemployment trust funds, or solve the issues relating to state debts and employer taxes.  A bill introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) – the Unemployment Insurance Solvency Act – would address those issues, allowing states to waive interest payments for two years, averting immediate tax increases for employers, and maintaining benefits for jobless workers.

Meanwhile, with the introduction of the benefit-robbing “JOBS Act” the assault on unemployed workers by some in Congress has achieved a shocking new low.  By seeking to break the agreement to continue federal unemployment benefits, allowing states to dismantle the federal program and steal unemployment benefits from jobless workers -- while maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy -- some lawmakers are turning ‘trickle-down’ pseudo-economics into sado-economics.

Call your Representative and your Senators in Congress toll-free at 888-245-0215.  Tell them to oppose Rep. Camp’s and Sen. Hatch’s bill to dismantle the federal unemployment insurance program.  Tell them to oppose stealing benefits from unemployed workers.

http://unemployedworkers.org/sites/unemployedworkers/index.php/site/blog_entry/effort_to_dismantle_federal_unemployment_insurance_program_launched_in_cong

Video: "16 Corporations or We the People?"

With Bin Laden dead, can we have our rights back?

On Sunday, May 1, President Obama announced the death of Al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the notorious terrorist who spearheaded the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. While the predominant reaction from around the world has been one of relief and joy, bin Laden’s death reminds us of just how big an impact the 9/11 attacks had on us and the way we perceive and treat each other.

While the U.S. was already grappling with the immigration issue, 9/11 triggered a major overhaul of legislation that imposed stringent restrictions on immigration and gave the government much greater power to infringe on the rights of citizens and visitors to this country. The U.S had essentially gone into lock-down mode domestically, and U.S. foreign policy became more aggressive. At the time of the attacks, Barack Obama was an local politician only known in Chicago, and largely unknown to the world. He wrote a short article for his local newspaper, the Hyde Park Herald, in which he reacted to the tragic events of that day and suggested a cautious approach to its repercussions. He stated-

The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity….

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin American, Eastern Europe, and within our own shores.

Obama’s emphasis on steering clear of blind rage and discrimination, as a way of blaming certain groups for the attacks, seems prophetic now. Over the last ten years, we have witnessed increasingly stringent immigration enforcement, and a steady dissolution of civil rights and attitudes towards immigrant communities, especially Muslim-Americans and South Asians. This view was echoed by Chris Hedges, a senior journalist and war correspondent who witnessed 9/11 and was plunged into its aftermath. In an address at a fundraising event on Sunday night as news of bin Laden’s death was creeping in, Hedges remembered-

When I was in New York, as some of you were, on 9/11, I was in Times Square when the second plane hit. I walked into The New York Times, I stuffed notebooks in my pocket and walked down the West Side Highway and was at Ground Zero four hours later. I was there when Building 7 collapsed. And I watched as a nation drank deep from that very dark elixir of American nationalism … the flip side of nationalism is always racism, it’s about self-exaltation and the denigration of the other.

The risks and backlash that both Obama and Hedges referenced have materialized over the last decade and placed the U.S. at a crucial crossroads where the decisions we take now will significantly impact the America of the future. In its fifth week, Breakthrough‘s human rights Facebook game America 2049 takes players to their mission in Phoenix, Arizona, which has been in someway the epicenter of the immigration debate.  In Phoenix, players confront heightened debates around severely restricted immigration policies. Players are also confronted with a scenario where ethnic celebrations and festivals have been outlawed for fear that “they promote dissent and unnecessarily emphasize differences between populations.” The game presents players with choices for how to address such a situation in the future, and by referencing historical artifacts, shows how our present could very well lead to the dytopic future that the game depicts. One example of this historical reference is a 1920s songbook – “O! Close the Gates.” (see photo) – that demonized immigrants in popular culture.

In Level 5 of America 2049, players also meet Cynthia Espinoza. Watch her testimonial about the need to preserve America’s multicultural heritage:

America 2049 addresses the rights of immigrants, including forced immigrant workers, in a country that has struggled to reach a rational solution to the “foreign threats” amplified by the attacks of 9/11. The attacks changed the immigration issue in America dramatically, sparking off a wave of new legislation or a tightening of existing ones. In an intriguing article, the Southern California Public Radio (SCPR) outlined five ways in which Osama bin Laden — and the 9/11 attacks he masterminded — altered the immigration landscape in the U.S. These include, perhaps most notoriously, the establishment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has been responsible for a growing number of deportations each year, as well as the now-canceled Secure Border Initiative network (SBInet) or the “virtual fence” that was planned for the entire stretch of US-Mexico border. The erosion of basic rights accelerated with the Patriot Act, which considerably expanded the government’s ability to conduct surveillance over Americans.

The calls for comprehensive immigration reform have intensified over the past few years, making it even more pressing to address the rights of immigrants who have no criminal records and are working hard to become part of American society. Another aspect of the immigration debate that is brought up in America 2049 is the degradation of immigrant worker rights and forced migration. While the tragedy of 9/11 caused the government to enforce stricter anti-immigrant legislation, one of the side effects has been the neglect of immigrant worker conditions. In America 2049, players discover an actual account by a Puerto Rican laborer at Camp Bragg, Rafael F. Marchan, who protested against his deplorable working conditions in the early 1900s. Unfortunately, such situations still exist today, as reported by the New York Times about a story of “500 Indian men hired by Signal International of Alabama for rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina were confined in squalid camps, illegally charged for lodging and food, and subject to discrimination and abuse.” The fact that such forced servitude of immigrant workers continues a hundred years on from the example in America 2049 proves that prompt action must be taken to restore basic human rights for everyone.

So while the world celebrates the end of a tyrant, we must remember that more than celebrating a death, we must take this opportunity to work towards lasting peace and respect for basic rights for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or background. Osama bin Laden caused much havoc around the world and claimed countless innocent lives, but letting his actions be used as a reason for the dissolution of respect and rights for hard working, innocent people can simply not be justified. As a statement that circulated virally soon after bin Laden’s death was announced said- “If Osama Bin Laden is dead, can we have our rights back?” Ten years on, let’s make that our main goal.

http://restorefairness.org/2011/05/%E2%80%9Cwith-osama-bin-laden-dead-can-we-have-our-rights-back%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-how-the-effects-of-911-could-lead-to-america-2049/

$4 Gas: Get Used To It

by Jacob Goldstein

Get in line.

In China, there's one car or truck for every 14 people. In the U.S., the ratio is nearly one to one.

But China's catching up. The country is now the world's biggest car market, and the the number of civilian vehicles in the country grew by an astonishing 19 percent last year.

As a result of this kind of growth, demand for oil is shooting up in China and other developing countries. And it's likely to keep rising in the years years to come.

But the world's big oil-producing regions may be unable or unwilling to increase production fast enough to keep up.

The combination of long-term increases in demand and sluggish growth in supply means we should get used to higher prices for oil — and, by extension, higher gas prices.

It's true that the most recent spike in oil prices was precipitated by unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. So if things settle down in the region, the price of oil and gasoline will likely fall in the short term.

In fact, just today, oil prices fell sharply.

But those longer-term trends aren't going away.

 

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil supplier, has historically increased production when demand rose. But, lately, it hasn't been doing that. The country is now producing less oil per day than it was in 2005.

Saudi Arabia hasn't publicly explained the change , according James Hamilton, an economist and oil expert.

It's possible that the country has decided its economic interest is best served by producing less oil. It's also possible that the country just isn't able to increase output.

"Their main field, the world's largest producing field, has been in production since 1951," Hamilton told me. "Sooner or later, that's going into decline. A lot of people think it's now."

Other big fields, including those in Mexican waters and the North Sea, are also in decline, he said.

Hamilton said that two common complaints about higher oil prices — that they're caused by publicly traded oil companies, and that they're caused by speculators — don't hold up in the long term.

Publicly traded oil companies account for a minority of global oil production; most oil is supplied by state-owned oil firms. Those countries try to regulate oil production via OPEC, but they often fail to stick to predetermined targets. In other words, the cartel often doesn't function very well.

And speculators can't affect the price of oil in the long term. If they bid up the price higher than the market can bear, oil stockpiles will increase, which in turn will put downward pressure on prices.

"There's an underlying reality on the ground, which is the people consuming the oil and the people producing the oil," Hamilton said.

Even as growth slows from Saudi Arabia and other big producers, other regions around the world may pick up the slack. Iraq, Central Asia, and parts of Africa, Canada and the U.S. all may increase output, according to Hamilton.

That could drive down prices for a while. But, in the medium term, there's a good chance that supply just won't be able to keep up with demand.

"The demand is pretty darn sure," Hamilton said. "Even if we get through a few years here, we're going to be right back in the same boat soon."

For a look at what that might mean, Hamilton cited the years leading up to the financial crisis.

Between 2005 and 2007, he said, China's oil consumption increased by 1 million barrels a day. But global oil production didn't increase at all. So other countries wound up consuming less oil.

A key lesson from those years, Hamilton says: "It takes an awfully high price of oil to persuade us to reduce consumption."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/05/05/135995528/-4-gas-get-used-to-it?sc=fb&cc=fp

Kids, Seniors, Disabled, Others Would Feel Sting of Ryan’s Medicaid Cuts

by January Angeles
May 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm

Converting Medicaid to a block grant and cutting its federal funding nearly in half over the next two decades, as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget would do (see graph), would carry serious consequences for some of the most vulnerable Americans, as I explain in a recent report.  Here are just a few examples of how different groups could be affected:

• Seniors: An overwhelming majority of Medicare beneficiaries who live in nursing homes rely on Medicaid for their nursing home coverage.  Because the Ryan plan would require such deep cuts in federal Medicaid funding, it would inevitably result in less coverage for nursing home residents and shift more of the cost of nursing home care to elderly beneficiaries and their families.  A sharp reduction in the quality of nursing home care would be virtually inevitable, due to the large reduction that would occur in the resources made available to pay for such care.


• People with disabilities: These individuals constitute 15 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries but account for 42 percent of all Medicaid expenditures, mostly because of their extensive health and long-term care needs.  Capping federal Medicaid funding would place significant financial pressure on states to scale back eligibility and coverage for this high-cost population, many of whom would be unable to obtain coverage elsewhere because of their medical conditions.



• Children: Currently, state Medicaid programs must provide children with health care services and treatments they need for their healthy development through the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) aspect of Medicaid, which provides regular preventive care for children and all follow-up diagnostic and treatment services that children are found to need.  A block grant would likely permit states to drop EPSDT coverage, meaning that children, particularly those with special health care needs, would not be able to access some care that medical professionals find they need (because Medicaid would no longer cover certain health services and treatments for children, and their parents wouldn’t be able to afford to pay for that care on their own).

• Working parents and pregnant women: Many state Medicaid programs already have extremely restrictive eligibility criteria for parents.  In the typical state, working parents are ineligible for Medicaid if their income exceeds 64 percent of the poverty line (or $14,304 a year for a family of four), and unemployed parents are ineligible if their income exceeds 37 percent of the poverty line ($8,270 a year for a family of four).  Under a block grant, states could cut these already low eligibility levels even further, cap enrollment, and/or require low-income parents to pay more for health services.  States could do the same for low-income pregnant women who rely on Medicaid for their prenatal care, resulting in them forgoing services that are critical to ensuring a healthy pregnancy.

Unfortunately, that’s not all.  The Ryan budget, which the House passed on April 15, would also repeal the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion.  Health reform will result in some 17 million more people gaining coverage through Medicaid by 2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  If it’s repealed, millions of low-income parents and childless adults would remain uninsured.

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/kids-seniors-disabled-others-would-feel-sting-of-ryan%E2%80%99s-medicaid-cuts/

Five Biggest Recipients Of Corporate Tax Breaks Spent $8 Million In 2010 Elections (UPDATED)

Amanda Terkel
First Posted: 05/ 3/11 03:30 PM ET
Updated: 05/ 4/11 11:09 AM ET

This story has been updated.

WASHINGTON -- The top five recipients of large federal corporate tax breaks in 2009 are also among the biggest spenders in the U.S. political system -- they shelled out a combined $7.86 million in campaign contributions during the 2010 elections (in political action committee and individual employee contributions), according to analysis from the New York City Public Advocate's office. Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, is now calling on these companies to verify that no taxpayer dollars will be used in future election spending, warning such a move could "carry financial risk to the [companies'] bottom line."

De Blasio, a Democrat, has aggressively gone after campaign finance accountability and successfully used his bully pulpit to convince several Wall Street firms not to spend any corporate dollars on political advertising.

According to the analysis by de Blasio's office, ExxonMobil, Bank of America, General Electric (GE), Chevron and Boeing had combined profits of $77.16 billion in 2010 but paid $0 in current federal income taxes in 2009. [ExxonMobil's spokesman contacted The Huffington Post and disputed this figure. See below.] It should be noted, however, a Chevron spokesman said the company paid current taxes of $1.5 billion and deferred taxes of $162 million for 2010.

At the same time, these companies gave a combined $7.86 million in political contributions during the 2010 election cycle -- a 7 percent jump over their 2008 political spending.

Charts via the Office the Public Advocate:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, all five of these companies ranked among the top 100 biggest political spenders between 1989 and 2010, with Chevron and ExxonMobil giving more heavily to Republicans, and the other three corporations generally balancing donations between the two parties.

In 2010 alone, Boeing ranked 28th in political giving ("on the fence" in political leanings), GE ranked 30th ("leans Democratic"), Bank of America ranked 37th ("leans Republican") and ExxonMobil ranked 93rd ("strongly Republican"). Chevron was not in the top 100 overall donors for the year.

"[Corporate] tax breaks were put in place to promote growth and create jobs, not bankroll the political causes of corporate executives," said de Blasio in a statement. "The unencumbered and anonymous spending in elections let loose by the Citizens United ruling has opened the door for a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. No company that can afford to spend millions of dollars to influence our elections should be pleading poverty come tax time."

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Citizens United cleared the way for a federal court's decision in Speechnow.org v. FEC, which opened the floodgates for unlimited election spending by certain independent political groups, as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political candidates or party committees. These groups can raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations and unions. Thanks to the ruling, the five companies could have contributed even more than the $7.86 million than was disclosed in 2010.

De Blasio sent letters to the heads of each of the corporations, expressing concern over the use of their federal tax credits. He urged each company to "ensure full disclosure of its political spending to demonstrate that these funds and other corporate treasury dollars are not being used for political spending and electioneering." He also asked all of them except GE to adopt policies that prohibit their trade association dues from being used for political contributions and electioneering.

His office is also launching a campaign to ask the public to email ExxonMobil and urge the company to "adopt the proposed shareholder resolution on disclosure of political spending," which will be considered at the company's May 25 shareholders meeting.

In response to de Blasio's statement, ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers told The Huffington Post in an email that the company complies with all tax laws and disclosure requirements. He also addressed some criticism of ExxonMobil's federal taxes.

"Recent media reports have highlighted efforts by lawmakers to end economy-wide tax deductions for U.S. oil companies that were established to support manufacturing jobs in the United States and prevent U.S. companies from paying double taxation on income earned outside the country," Jeffers wrote. "ExxonMobil is one of the largest taxpayers in the United States," he added. "During the first quarter of this year, on earnings of $2.6 billion in the United States, we incurred U.S. tax expenses of $3.1 billion."

Boeing held its shareholders meeting on Monday and according to a spokesman, 67 percent of shareholders voted with the management against publishing amounts contributed to trade associations. The company already publishes its other political contributions online.

"Like most of its competitors, Boeing does not publish amounts contributed to trade associations or otherwise mandate disclosure of funds spent for non-political purposes that are later used by the third parties to support political activity," reads the Board of Directors' statement in opposition. It cites problems with potentially revealing corporate strategy to competitors through this information and problems in compelling third parties to reveal whether they used Boeing-contributed funds for political purposes.

GE spokesman Andrew Williams sent a statement that, like Exxon's, did not address the issue of political contributions and also took exception to media reports on the company's tax liability.

"We will file our 2010 tax returns by September," he wrote to The Huffington Post. "We expect to have a small federal income tax liability. In 2010, GE paid significant federal income taxes for prior years. We also paid about $1 billion in 2010 in other state, local and federal taxes in the U.S." Williams said the company's federal tax rate was low in 2010 because the company "lost billions of dollars in GE Capital, our financial arm, as a result of the global financial crisis. Similarly, in 2009 GE Capital's losses were so large that the total company lost money on its U.S. operations." He added that GE expects its tax rate will be higher in 2011 as GE Capital recovers.

In March, however, GE told shareholders that the company expected to get back a $3.2 billion tax benefit from the federal government.

Last year, Bank of America agreed to begin publishing a summary of its political donations online.

"We comply with all state and federal campaign regulations," said Bank of America spokesman Jerry Dubrowski. "Our policy is not to make corporate contributions to candidates for public office."

In a statement, Chevron wrote, "Chevron is committed to adhering to the highest standards of ethics and transparency in engaging in any political contributions. We have strict policies and internal approval processes so that decision making and reporting on political contributions comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable laws. A list of corporate contributions made during 2010 is available on Chevron.com." It also defended its taxes, stating, "Between 1998 and 2008, the oil and gas industry paid $1 trillion in total income taxes. ... In 2010, Chevron, as an example, paid $12.9 billion in taxes on pretax income of $32.1 billion, or an effective tax rate of 40 percent."

Large corporations that won't be paying any federal income taxes have faced fierce bipartisan criticism in recent weeks.

Former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold, who now runs the Progressives United political action committee, launched a campaign pressuring GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt on the issue. And in April, there were massive protests in Washington state over the Democratic-controlled legislature proposing cuts to public programs over closing corporate tax loopholes.

For the past month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been publicly shaming what he calls the "worst corporate income tax avoiders" in an effort to share the burden of deficit reduction more equally, rather than letting it fall more on programs that assist low-income and middle-class individuals. The top five federal corporate tax break recipients have been particular targets of Sanders' campaign.

UPDATE: 10:41 p.m. -- ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers disputes the $156 million 2009 federal tax benefits figure, arguing the company paid $500 million in US income taxes in 2009. De Blasio's office based its number on ExxonMobil's publicly available SEC filing documents (form 10-K filed in 2010). Politifact has a longer analysis of ExxonMobil's taxes here.

This article has also been updated to include a statement from Chevron.

The chart originally provided by de Blasio's office incorrectly identified 2009 federal income taxes as being from 2010. Federal 2009 taxes are the most recent taxes paid by all corporations listed. The 2010 profits are the most recent profits reported. De Blasio's original chart can be viewed here.

The story was also changed to include Chevron's 2010 tax filings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/recipients-corporate-tax-breaks-elections_n_856630.html?view=print

Gov. Walker signs bill blocking communities from passing sick leave ordinances

Governor says the new bill removes another barrier to creating jobs

11:11 AM CDT, May 5, 2011

MADISON (AP)

Gov. Scott Walker has signed a bill that prohibits local governments from passing ordinances guaranteeing workers' paid sick and family leave.

The Republican measure came after a state appeals court upheld a Milwaukee ordinance requiring employers to give workers paid sick leave. Milwaukee voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance by referendum two years ago but it's been tied up in the courts ever since.

The bill declares that statewide employee leave provisions trump local ordinances and prohibits cities, villages, towns and counties from adopting their own.

Walker, a Republican, says in a statement the bill removes another barrier to creating jobs. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat who ran against Walker for governor, opposes the bill, saying it could drive jobs out of the city.

http://www.fox6now.com/news/politics/witi-20110505-sick-leave-bill,0,2257310,print.story

GOP Chooses Big Oil at the Expense of Granny

By Jim Hightower, AlterNet
Posted on May 4, 2011, Printed on May 5, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150833/gop_chooses_big_oil_at_the_expense_of_granny

Now, let's check today's sports scores: 4, 10.7 and 21-and-a-half.

Those tallies are from the oil league, and the winner, of course, is the league's powerhouse, ExxonMobil.

Four, as you might have guessed, is the $4 that Exxon is siphoning out of your wallet these days for 1 gallon of its petrol.

Next comes 10.7. That's the $10.7 billion in profits that this oil giant has soaked up in just the first three months of this year -- a new record, not achieved by any managerial genius, increased productivity or improvement in customer service, but solely by the jack-up in gasoline prices.

Finally, 21-and-a-half. This is the big score made by Rex Tillerson, Exxon's CEO. The chief pulled down $21.5 million in personal compensation last year, making him the highest paid executive in the oil league and one of the most richly paid CEOs in the entire country.

Wait ... this late-breaking score is just in: 0. That's from the special tax game that ExxonMobil consistently wins in Washington. Last year, ExMo powered through loopholes created by its slick lobbying team to pay an income tax of zero on the $19 billion it had racked up in profits the year before. But, wait again, here's a surprising update on that score: Exxon's taxes were actually less than zero! How's that possible? Because Big Oil's lobbyists have so skewed the tax system that Exxon was able to extract a $156 million rebate from us taxpayers last year.

So Exxon is soaking us at the gas pump and sacking our public treasury to gain record profits for itself, while bestowing a royal fortune on its CEO. It wins, we lose.

With a record like that, you wouldn't think the oil league would need more handouts from government -- but then, you're not a Republican congressperson.

The GOP recently pushed its appropriations priorities through the House, touting the bill as a revolutionary, politically responsible, tax-saving piece of legislative art.

Well, art is in the eye of the beholder. The Repubs "saved" money by essentially killing Medicare and drastically slashing Medicaid, Head Start, EPA, food stamps, and dozens of other popular and effective programs that Americans overwhelmingly support. Having taken their blunt budget ax to these programs that support our nation's notion of the common good, GOP leaders then scampered to save one of the least popular and least effective federal programs on the books: the annual taxpayer subsidy for Big Oil.

As gasoline prices were rising toward $4 a gallon and higher, House Republicans voted unanimously to let the oil giants continue siphoning $4 billion a year out of our public treasury. All 241 of the Republican/tea party House members -- with not even one dissenter in the bunch -- declared that in this time of a supposed budget "crisis," the neediest among us are not the elderly and the poor, but the little waifs of Big Oil.

As Casey Stengel once asked of the bumbling New York Mets team he was managing, "Can't anyone here play this game?"

Meanwhile, ExxonMobil just announced a 69 percent leap in profits this year, while Chevron, ConocoPhillips and others are enjoying similar jumps in theirs. Guess what percentage of those enormous profits the corporations are likely to pay in taxes?

Zilch. Last year, ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhilips each banked multibillion-dollar profits, yet far from paying even a dime in taxes, all three worked the loopholes to get multimillion-dollar refunds from us.

Republican lawmakers had a clear choice in dealing with the deficit. So why did they choose to cut off your granny's health care, while helping these corporate billionaires make off like bandits? I guess it's a matter of who you really love.

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the new book, "Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow." (Wiley, March 2008) He publishes the monthly "Hightower Lowdown," co-edited by Phillip Frazer.

http://www.alternet.org/news/150833/gop_chooses_big_oil_at_the_expense_of_granny?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet