Rhode Island’s Future
By BrianHull | December 29, 2009
In August I took over ownership of the progressive news blog, Rhode Island’s Future. The focus of the blog is news and analysis (local and national) affecting Rhode Island, and the VAST majority of my writing will be done over there. Some national news items will still get crossposted to Brian Hull.net. Additionally, in-depth research will still be posted here as well.
Check out RI Future.org and join the discussion.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Advisor
By BrianHull | September 8, 2009
The White House announced yesterday that Ron Bloom, Obama’s “car czar,” will be the administration’s senior counselor for manufacturing policy. The hope is that Bloom will “provide leadership … for the president’s agenda to revitalize the manufacturing sector.” Bloom will still advise Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on the car industry, but will also report to the National Economic Council on ways to bring back strong manufacturing growth. This is really important for America, and doubly important for Rhode Island.
Rhode Island has never really grown an alternative economy during the 20+ years of progressive shrinkage in the manufacturing sector starting in the 1980s. Most recently, the manufacturing sector lost 1,916 (-3.6%) workers between 2006 and 2007, the largest employment decline among the 19 private industry sectors in Rhode Island, and this is before the recession took hold.
As of 2007, the manufacturing sector comprises 12.2% of the state’s total private employment of about 428,000, and is the third largest private employment segment of the economy, after Health Care & Social Assistance, and Retail Trade (these numbers exclude the roughly 65,000 people who work in state and local governments). Unfortunately, the prediction is for a 9.2% decline in manufacturing during the 2006-2016 decade, dropping from 52,726 jobs to 47,900 jobs.
Nationally, the trend is the same. 49 states lost manufacturing jobs during the past 12 months, and Alaska, the only state that didn’t lose manufacturing jobs, didn’t gain any either. The overall national loss was 1.52 million manufacturing jobs, from 13.44 million in July 2008 to 11.92 million in July 2009. Since 1987, manufacturing as a share of our gross domestic product has declined 30 percent, and in the last decade, America has lost more than 40,000 factories. The U.S. used to be the world’s leading net exporter, but we are now the world’s leading net importer.
Many people had great hope that the changing economy during the 1990s would bring about renewed growth for our nation. We would substitute our manufacturing industry that has been slowly offshored to lower-wage countries since the 1980s, and especially after NAFTA, for much more “lucrative” service industry jobs. The unfortunate reality is that with information flows being as cheap, fast, and easy as they are, most things can be done overseas for cheaper (although not always better). The only real job security a person has, inasmuch as it can’t be sent to another country, is a career dependent upon face-to-face interactions.
Even corporate executives are now beginning to view the wholesale dismantling of U.S. manufacturing as a mistake. In a letter to shareholders, G.E.’s Jeffrey Immelt went so far as to say that the “popular 30-year notion that the U.S. can evolve from being a technology and manufacturing leader to a service leader is just wrong.” Similarly, Nucor (a U.S. steel manufacturer) CEO, Dan DiMicco echoes the same sentiment in a 60 Minutes interview.
Without a doubt, the decline in U.S. manufacturing has been and continues to be a real obstacle in our nation’s economic recovery. When things used to be “Made in America,” recessions ended when people (and governments) started buying products made in U.S. factories. With the shrinking manufacturing base, it’s no surprise that the recoveries after the Bush recessions of 2001 and 2003 were largely jobless. And it’ll be no surprise that once the current recession ends, it may take several year to regain the 7.4 million jobs lost (and counting) since the end of 2007.
As American consumers start buying more goods, it’s not American factories that recall laid-off workers, but rather factories in China. Retail outlets may hire a few more employees, but that’s generally not a substitute for the wages of those who used to work in the manufacturing industry. These wages were about 20% higher than the wages of other non-professional and non-managerial workers.
My hope is that Ron Bloom will see the dire need for a robust industrial policy for the U.S. so that states and communities won’t compete in the race to the bottom, trying to entice industries through ill-conceived tax abatements or tax credit programs. Foreign national governments’ efforts will always win out in this type of competition.
The U.S. is still one of the most productive nations on earth (although Norway, Luxembourg, Ireland, Belgium, and the Netherlands beat us - all those commie European nations), and we need to harness this productive capacity and begin to actually create things in America again. I’m not saying we should start adopting protectionist policies, but we need to understand that trade deficits matter, shuttered factories matter, and enormous job losses in specific sectors matter.
Topics: Economy | No Comments »
The Future of Prostitution in Rhode Island
By BrianHull | August 6, 2009
There is a lot of confusion and disagreement regarding the two bills going through the Rhode Island General Assembly right now which seek to criminalize indoor prostitution. And of greater importance, there is much disagreement surrounding the social benefits and costs of criminalizing prostitution and punishing those involved in the sex industry. As a reminder, indoor prostitution in RI is currently legal, although there are statutes which criminalize profiting off of someone else’s sex work (11-34-5.1), inducing someone to become a prostitute, i.e. pandering (11-34-1), and transporting or housing a prostitute (11-34-5). Legislation sponsored by Rep. Giannini (H 5044) and Senator Jabour (S 0596) seek to close the indoor prostitution loophole. The two bills passed their respective chambers and their differences will need to get hammered out before it can be signed into law. The following is a brief review of the legislation, a discussion about the justification for and opposition to the bills, and to a greater extent a discussion about prostitution in general. This information is intended to assist the public in better understanding the issue and to guide policymakers in developing a progressive policy response which addresses the issue of prostitution in the state of Rhode Island, regardless of whether it occurs indoors or outdoors.
Let’s begin our discussion with Senate Bill 0596. The act essentially invalidates the current pandering, loitering, solicitation, transportation, and profiting laws dealing with prostitution and replaces them with new language regarding commercial sexual activity. This new language criminalizes prostitution, loitering, soliciting, or permitting prostitution to occur, regardless of location. The fines and penalties are relatively more punitive to clients, rather than the prostitutes themselves, however, the legislation would place a penalty on any agent involved in commercial sex work. On its face, it is a very evenhanded approach to criminalizing prostitution.
I had a short conversation with Sen. Jabour about the legislation and to get a better understanding about his approach. His explanation was that law enforcement believes that prostitution is a problem in the state of RI and that it impacts quality of life issues in the neighborhoods in which prostitution occurs. The absence of a penalty provision for indoor prostitution emasculated law enforcement from prosecuting what happens inside, regardless of the social costs borne by the neighborhood. He also believes that sex trafficking is an important related issues, in that there were several shocking examples of trafficked women being forced to live in squalor as prostitutes, but that it should be handled separately (more on this later). And while much of the dispute surrounding prostitution involves the penalties placed on prostitutes, Sen. Jabour ‘s legislation dictates that the liability should be place on everyone involved in the transaction: the prostitute, the client, and any property owners allowing prostitution to occur inside their establishments.
With House Bill 5044, Rep. Giannini told me that initially her desire to criminalize prostitution stems from the secondary, but related issue of human sex trafficking. The penalties for first and subsequent offenses in the House legislation are significantly more punitive than are those in the Senate version, although there exists an “affirmative defense” clause removing culpability from those who were “forced to commit a commercial sexual activity.” The justification for this, says Giannini, is to punish those who have forced people into prostitution, while exonerating the prostitute. Rep. Giannini reasons that her anti-prostitution bill should be considered in conjunction with the human trafficking law (H 5661), and that by combining the two, law enforcement officials will have the tools necessary to prosecute those who exploit individuals (including minors) through human trafficking for sex. This is a noble goal indeed. Giannini’s original intent wasn’t to criminalize prostitution per se, but to rescue those who are being exploited by human traffickers. The only way police are going to be able to enforce human trafficking laws in Rhode Island, says Giannini, is to criminalize indoor prostitution as well.
As a side note, I see two problems with the affirmative defense clause, and unfortunately, Giannini’s responses did not alleviate my concern. First, the clause could be used by persons who wish to escape punishment, who were not “forced,” but falsely accuse someone else as a human trafficker. The invalidity of a false claim would only come out through an emotionally painful and humiliating investigation, one which could be socially or economically devastating. Second, as stated by supporters of Giannini’s legislation, victims who are forced to participate in commercial sex acts typically aren’t cooperative with law enforcement. This could be due to a multitude of reasons (shame, mistrust of police, physical or emotional abuse, immigration issues, etc.) and Rep. Giannini’s assumption that immunity from prosecution will encourage cooperation may not be correct. My understanding of the legislation is that participants in forced sexual activity would be prosecuted if they are uncooperative with an investigation by law enforcement. While this is not Rep. Giannini’s intention, the possibility does exist.
This is a major sticking point for several groups, chiefly among them are the Rhode Island chapters of the National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union. RI NOW views prostitution as “a complex, social and political issue that cannot be solved by increasing rates of incarceration for the prostitutes.” They advocate for social service and police education programs rather than prison, because “the unnecessary incarceration of sex workers that this bill proposes … actually increases the likelihood that they will return to prostitution.” The RI ACLU agrees and states that legislation crafted which punishes prostitutes, especially those subjected to human trafficking, “only serves to further victimize victims.”
Arguments against criminalizing prostitution, and specifically the punitive punishments contained in Giannini’s House Bill, are based on a few principles. First, the recidivism rates of street prostitutes in Rhode Island are extremely high. Of the 236 prostitution arrests occurring in 2008, 182 served time in prison. These individuals, on average, were convicted 6 times for prostitution. About one-third of women convicted for prostitution return to prison within one year, and 80% return to prison within 3 years. This indicates the futility of arrests as a deterrent to a life of prostitution. Second, the incarceration of prostitutes has unintended economic consequences for sex workers, reducing their opportunities for “legitimate” employment and increasing the likelihood that they will return to prostitution. There is an unfortunate reality of our society; the phenomenon of prostitution typically stems from economic need. Third, the cost of jailing prostitutes is expensive and would be better spent on services to shift prostitutes to other careers.
To recapitulate, on the one hand, Sen. Jabour’s legislation seeks to criminalize indoor prostitution for the sake of closing the loophole differentiating indoor from outdoor prostitution so that law enforcement can effectively prosecute sex-for-pay activities which occur indoors. On the other hand, Rep. Giannini’s legislation seeks to empower her human sex trafficking legislation by granting law enforcement the tools to prosecute sex trafficking by criminalizing indoor prosecution. Her reasoning for this is that it’s necessary to protect those who are forced into the sex industry. These different justifications will lead to a better understanding of the functions of the individual bills. The Senate bill wants to close the loophole and treat indoor and outdoor prostitution equally while the House bill wants to criminalize prostitution regardless of location so that the state can prevent human sex trafficking. This is a very important distinction to make. Giannini’s bill only addresses prostitution so that human sex trafficking can be addressed.
At this point, it is vitally important to differentiate the different types of prostitution, and identify some assumptions and justifications. There needs to be distinction made between levels of violence of street and indoor prostitutes. There needs to be clarification when speaking about prostitution whether the sex worker is male, female, or transgender prostitutes, and whether any conclusions can be generalized to all or are specific to one group. There needs to be distinction made between underage sexual exploitation and adult prostitution. Lastly, there needs to be a differentiation made between forced prostitution and consensual prostitution. Of course none of these categories is mutually exclusive. Each subset of prostitution will require proper analysis in order to better understand the nature of the issue, and what to do about it (if anything).
Violence among Street and Indoor Prostitutes
There is a substantial body of work (if one chooses to read it) that addresses the differences between street prostitution and indoor prostitution with regard to levels of violence. One main argument made against decriminalizing the sex industry is the violence inherent in the system and suffered by prostitutes. Typically, opponents of prostitution use figures that show anywhere from 60-99% of prostitutes have been victims of some sort of violence (raped, murdered, robbed, assaulted, punched, slapped, kicked, strangled, threatened with a weapon, stabbed, kidnapped, etc.). While these numbers are staggering, the honest truth is the methodology used in these studies is fatally flawed and suffers from self-selection bias, unrepresentative convenience sampling, and ideological bias.
Studies have shown significant differences between prostitutes who work on the street, indoor prostitutes, call girls, and escorts regarding levels of violence, work safety issues, and “job satisfaction” (yes, job satisfaction). As a case in point, there is a study of female street and indoor prostitutes in England which shows indoor prostitutes experienced violence only about 1-14% of the time (depending on the type of violence), levels dramatically lower than the 60-99% rates used by opponents of prostitution. While street prostitutes are the most vulnerable and the most victimized, they account for only one-fifth of all prostitution in the U.S. The lack of distinction between indoor and outdoor prostitution obviously inflates the incidence of violence among all sex workers, and this is done purposefully for political reasons. Moreover, there are no distinctions made between the violence which occurs during the transaction, and the violence which occurs by the hand of the pimp, which technically is violence occurring outside of prostitution. Again, this skews the result.
I do not pretend that indoor prostitution is free from violence, nor do I contend that a minimal level of violence within the commercial sex industry should be allowed. What I am saying is that the research and figures obtained from street prostitutes cannot be applied to all other forms of sex work. To do so is to be disingenuous. Due to the nature of prostitution, there has not been, and likely will never be, a valid random sampling from which to glean accurate results. Any data presented by anyone is statistically inconclusive. Any results offered to support a claim in favor of or opposed to criminalizing or legalizing prostitution can only be regarded as a very rough estimate. This is an important point which generally gets lost in a very emotional debate.
Male, Female, Transgender Prostitutes
Unfortunately, there is no clear data regarding the victimization rates for the different groups of prostitutes. Just as the statistics used cannot be accurately applied to determine levels of violence among indoor or outdoor prostitutes, they cannot be applicable to male, female, or transgender prostitute groups.
Underage and Adult Prostitution
The illegality of sexual exploitation of a minor is relatively easy to address in Rhode Island. I had the unfortunate distinction of serving on a state grand jury reviewing evidence presented by Rhode Island for child sexual assault cases and then determine if there was enough evidence to prosecute the case.
The various sections under Title 11 – Chapter 37 of Rhode Island’s General Laws deal with child exploitation and sexual contact with children of two distinct age groups: under the age of 14, and between 14 and 16 years of age (the legal age of consent in Rhode Island is 16 years of age). There are different penalties depending on the nature and degree of sexual contact and the age of the perpetrator. All this is a good thing, and adult involved in sexual contact with anyone under the age of 16 should be prosecuted using these laws, regardless of whether or not it occurred indoors or outdoors, or whether it was a commercial act or not. The law is very clear, and arguments about human sex trafficking of minors or prostitution are generally irrelevant.
As it stands, adult prostitution is restricted in certain areas by Title 11 – Chapter 34 of Rhode Island’s General Laws. It is currently illegal to encourage a person to become a prostitute, to transport a person for the purpose of prostitution, derive support from a prostitute’s earnings, loitering in a public place to pick up a prostitute, or solicit a prostitute from a motor vehicle. Aside from these stipulations, adults are free to transact pay-for-sex services anywhere in the state.
Forced Versus Consensual Prostitution
In an overly broad conceptualization, it can be reasonably defended that forced prostitution is always wrong and consensual prostitution is always right. There is much disagreement with this second point as some believe that all prostitution is inherently exploitative and coercive. This is the major point of contention from which anti-prostitution efforts stem. It is also subject to an enormous amount of subjective bias and moral indignation. I can understand the difficulty in trying to balance the benefit of protecting a person’s freedom to engage in commercial sex work if they so desire with the necessity of protecting those exploited in the commercial sex and human trafficking industries. As a matter of course, I’m more supportive of restrictive freedom if that restriction leads to a decrease in sexual exploitation. The evidence, however, is largely inconclusive, or wildly exaggerated and dubious. Moreover, emotionally charged claims that prostitution is inherently evil and violent because of its exploitative nature are unhelpful and can never be proved with empirical evidence.
In the area of sex trafficking, there is a willful avoidance, and a complete disregard for, consensual migration for commercial sex work. It is automatically assumed that if a person crossed a border and is performing sex, that person is being exploited by a human sex trafficker. It’s very possible that he or she is, but it is not conclusive, and it is intellectually dishonest to generalize as such. Studies show that many migrant sex workers were selling sex before coming to the U.S., and were well aware that they would be involved in the sex industry when they arrived. Generally, the (mostly) women make an economic decision to move to the U.S., or other areas, and work in the sex industry. Yes, there are instances of predators luring unsuspecting victims into the commercial sex trade. Yes, there are instances of contractual obligations being changed in transit. Yes, there are instances of unanticipated debt bondage. These claims, however, are grossly overstated. Understanding that will provide better legislation to address legitimate sex trafficking problems and protect and serve those unfortunate to get caught up in it. But disregarding a body of evidence regarding consensual migration for sex work is unproductive.
Sex trafficking and prostitution are generally linked as one and the same, and in some cases they are. There is little evidence, however, to substantiate this claim. Prostitution is a type of work. Sex trafficking is a means of transportation to access that work. They need to be addressed separately so that laws can focus on the specific elements of each issue that are socially disadvantageous or corrosive. Additionally, claims made that the human sex trafficking industry is growing, or that Rhode Island is becoming a magnet for sex traffickers are spurious. Data does not exist to substantiate any claim about the relationship between the legality of indoor prostitution and the commercial sex industry or human sex trafficking. With regard to the other region in the nation in which prostitution is legal, Las Vegas, there is no link between the city’s liberal prostitution laws and the incidence of human sex trafficking. Interestingly enough, and directly refuting this claim, Holland, a nation in which prostitution is legal (and well-regulated, I might add), has seen a decrease in human trafficking.
As for consensual prostitution, there are moral claims espoused that make it much more difficult to have a rational discussion about the issue and develop policy which addresses specific problems. One side of the debate claims that prostitution is coercive while the other side disregards the legitimate instances of horribly wretched living conditions and existences some sexual slaves are forced to endure. What is missing, to a large extent, is an honest discussion about the matter of degree. A 16 year old girl forced to have sex with 10 guys a night against her will in a strange hotel room is vastly different than a woman selling erotic massages and handjobs on the internet. The first scenario is horribly grotesque and needs to be prevented as best as possible. The second scenario isn’t much of a problem and should not be subject to the same set of rules used to prevent the first scenario. The nuances of sexual exploitation, migration and trafficking of sex work, and prostitution are many. Any single heavy-handed approach which criminalizes all activities in the sex industry is far too punitive and dismissive of the multiple shades of commercial sex work which is performed for reasons too numerous to list. While I can understand the reasoning behind their individual approaches to remedying the problems of prostitution, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation in the state, the individual pieces of legislation largely ignore the varied nuances which are part and parcel of the prostitution phenomenon.
So, the question that needs to be asked is, “What do we do from here?” There are many different ways to look at the issue of prostitution: as an activity resulting from economic desperation, as a public safety or public health issue, as a criminal justice issue, as a land use or property value issue, etc. Depending on the “problem” to be “solved,” there will be a specific approach. Unfortunately, there is a grossly unfair social stigma attached to sex workers, whether they are prostitutes, strippers, exotic dances, porn stars, erotic models, etc. This stigma clouds the judgment of well-intentioned and generally reasonable people. But let’s put that aside and determine what the problem is and what the corrective action should be for that problem.
There are three fundamental principles which, I argue, are universally accepted by all, and which should be the foundation upon which we build progressive legislation: first, we would like to reduce the incidence of prostitution in the state; second, we want to protect the health and safety of those involved in commercial sex work; third, we want to stop human sex trafficking as best as possible. With these three underlying principles and with the available data, we can develop policies which consider the root causes of prostitution and the many layers and nuances of those involved in the sex industry. We should base any and all prostitution related legislation of the following 5 criteria.
1. Decriminalize prostitution
· Imprisonment does not work to deter prostitution, it never has, and it is very expensive. The monetary savings from no longer arresting, charging, prosecuting, trying, and imprisoning prostitutes would be better spent on social awareness programs, police investigation of legitimate human trafficking and exploitation of sex workers. Arguments used that suggest our youth will flock in drove to a career in prostitution are unfounded. Moreover, policies (to be discussed below) will be implemented to discourage commercial sex work.
2. Make commercial sex work safer
· As stated previously, street prostitution is the most dangerous form of commercial sex work. Transitioning to other forms of sex work, call girls, brothels, massage parlors, etc., will increase the safety of those involved in pay-for-sex professions. While this is not the role of the state, there are policies the state could adopt which would better protect sex workers from violence. Licensing all locations providing sex-for-fee services would create a legitimate place of employment for commercial sex workers. To ensure the safety of workers, and to verify their ages and willingness to work, random monthly or quarterly inspections of establishments could be required for licensing. Any establishment not licensed would be subject to closure and owners would be prosecuted. Any establishment suspected of employing women against their will should be investigated and owners prosecuted. With a policy of licensing, the underground sex trade would shrink, making it more likely to discover those establishments that are involved in human sex trafficking. Some may argue that licensing prostitution is condoning the practice, but this is a short-sighted view. Prostitution exists, and some of it is very dangerous, so let’s make it safer.
· Additionally, the state could establish strong labor and work safety laws specifically adapted to the commercial sex industry, preventing the exploitation of commercial sex workers by the owners of brothels, massage parlors, strip clubs, etc. The state could establish a commercial sex worker tip line for persons to anonymously tip law enforcement about violations, underage workers, unsafe working conditions, or exploitation. The state could facilitate unionization of sex workers, allowing them to collectively bargain for better working conditions, cleaner and safer environments in which to work, higher pay, and the elimination of exploitative conditions in which sex workers have punitive fees attached to their service.
3. Assist those involved in commercial sex work to transfer to other careers.
· Licensing fees for commercial sex establishments, in combination with decriminalization savings, could be used to provide empowerment services and support for sex workers, drug treatment, mental health services, and job training for those looking for new work.
4. Provide tools for investigation and prosecution of human traffickers.
· Law enforcement should have the tools at its disposal to investigate and prosecute those engaging in human trafficking, whether for the sex industry or for any other reasons. This can be done without criminalizing prostitution, but rather based on licensing requirements. The state should also implement training programs to better locate and identify exploited and trafficked sex workers. Local and state police should establish close working relationships with neighboring jurisdictions and with national and international non-governmental organizations dealing with human trafficking. Law enforcement should work closely with sex worker informants to ensure that establishments are not employing underage sex workers or trafficked persons, even going so far as offering rewards for information leading to prosecution. None of these would require, and would be more effective than, criminalization of prostitution
5. Educate public of social consequences of prostitution.
· A broad based and state wide educational effort regarding the social risks of prostitution should be a part of the equation in order to reduce the demand for commercial sex services.
Some of these proposals may seem shocking, but if the goal of the current anti-prostitution legislation is to protect commercial sex workers from exploitation and human trafficking, there is a much better way to do that than what is currently suggested. The methods proposed in the House and Senate legislation will likely have the unintended consequence of pushing commercial sex work underground, making it more difficult to identify, or provide services to, exploited sex workers. Additionally, the illegality of sex work, and the criminal records of convicted prostitutes, will further disadvantage sex workers from finding other forms of gainful employment.
If the goal of criminalizing sex work, however, is based on the belief that prostitution is bad, you’re entitled to that opinion, and you’re free to disagree with this analysis because of your opposition to prostitution. I will be unfortunate though, because we need to get past the emotional reaction to prostitution and the moral crusade of “saving” prostitutes. We need to find better ways to protect those involved in the sex industry while encouraging them to seek other work and not disparage the choices that theyve made. My warning to state legislators in that if the final bill is based on either of the plans currently offered, the state will begin spending significantly more money to battle a “problem” that will never go away. Prostitution has been ubiquitous throughout history and stretches back as far as the 18th century BCE, being addressed in the Code of Hammurabi, and it’s very likely to have existed for centuries before then. Prostitution will be a part of our society for centuries to come, regardless of punitive laws trying to restrict it. If we turn our attention to the war on drugs, mandatory minimum sentencing, and trying adolescents as adults, we can see exactly what NOT to do to address what are seen as profound social problems. Let’s not make the same mistake with prostitution as well.
Topics: Police, Politics, Prostitution, Rhode Island, Violence | 4 Comments »
Solving Rhode Island’s Budget Crisis: What Should be Done?
By BrianHull | May 25, 2009
We are at a critical point for Rhode Island’s fiscal health. The newest update from the Revenue Estimating Conference shows Rhode Island’s deficit grew by $200 million to a total deficit of $590 million for FY 2010. Since 2004, the structural deficit has grown each year, despite the repeated claim that tax cuts will generate jobs and grow our economy. The Governor has presented his budget designed to handicap Obama’s stimulus plan, the House and Senate Finance Committees are debating it now, and it is assumed that the vote will happen sometime in mid-June.
Please join us for a discussion about Rhode Island’s current budget deficit and taxation policy. The current fiscal crisis will be reviewed with a focus on how the state’s finances became so troubled. Components of the Governor’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget will be explained and a responsible alternative will be presented to ameliorate the ongoing structural deficit.
Ample time will be provided for a question and answer period. After the presentation, attendees will be encouraged to contact their state Representatives and Senators.
For your convenience, the budget presentation will be given in six different locations around the state. Space is limited, however, so please RSVP by clicking the links below.
- Monday, June 1st - 6:30-8pm - RSVP
Richmond Senior Center, 1168 Main Street, Richmond, RI
- Tuesday, June 2nd - 6:30-8pm - RSVP
Middletown Public Library, 700 West Main Road, Middletown, RI - Wednesday, June 3rd - 6:30-8pm - RSVP
Harmony Public Library, 195 Putnam Pike, Harmony (Chepachet), RI - Thursday, June 4th - 6:30-8pm - RSVP
Rogers Free Library, 525 Hope Street, Bristol, RI - Tuesday, June 9th - 6:30-8pm - RSVP
Peace Dale Library, 1057 Kingstown Road, Peace Dale, RI - Thursday, June 11th - 6:30-8pm - RSVP
Rochambeau Public Library, 708 Hope Street, Providence, RI
The event will be hosted by the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats of America in association with the Campaign for Rhode Island’s Priorities
Topics: Economy, Rhode Island, Taxes | 1 Comment »
Not a Single Republican Vote
By BrianHull | January 29, 2009
So, there’s a lot of talk about post-partisanship, about putting away partisan differences and working together to build a bipartisan majority to get things done and solve the bipartisan problems facing the U.S.
Let’s review, shall we…
Initially, Obama sought Republican support by “balancing†the stimulus bill with a large tax cut for individuals and businesses, creating a 2/3 spending and 1/3 tax cut bill. Obama’s “Making Work Pay†tax credit allows individuals and couples to receive a tax credit of $500 or $1000 respectively, with the hope that they’ll take this money and spend it. Of course, a similar strategy was tried in early 2008 (remember those rebate checks?) with very little economic benefit. Even the Heritage Foundation, the ardently anti-tax think tank, opposes this component of the economic stimulus package (albeit for their own reasons).
As for the business tax provisions, companies will be able to write-off losses which happened in 2008 and any incurred in 2009 and then reduce their tax bills retroactively for up to 5 years. The hope is that companies will use the money saved from the write-offs and invest it in expanding their businesses and creating jobs. But as we’ve seen in previous economic recessions, recoveries are never supply driven. Additionally, businesses which hire employees or forgo layoffs will receive a tax credit. Sounds good, but as William Gale says, “much of that money would likely go to companies that would have hired more people anyway … it is impossible to know what firms would have done without such a credit.â€
Next, at the behest of Obama, House Democrats stripped a bankruptcy provision from the bill that would have allowed “bankruptcy judges to shrink … mortgages for homeowners who owe more than their home is worth.â€Â In a show of “bi-partisanship,†Democrats chose to remove the provision in order to gain support among Republicans (and that of the financial industry who recently got $700 billion of taxpayer money) who opposed the measure.
Finally, the provision to support family planning was also removed from the economic stimulus bill so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of Republican lawmakers who don’t want women to make important decisions regarding pregnancy, pre-natal care, or contraception with accurate information. I’ll admit, it’s hard to persuasively argue for the benefits of family planning in the context of immediate economic stimulus, but the provision was removed with the hope of gaining some GOP support.
After compromising on the legislation, removing items important to Democrats, and meeting with Republican lawmakers to gain bipartisan support, not a single Republican voted in favor. This begs the question, did Republicans actually try and work for a compromise bill, or were they purposefully obstructionist and demanding to dilute the effectiveness of important legislation for purely political reasons? I’m pretty sure I know the answer. More importantly, however, will Obama finally realize that bipartisanship isn’t feasible or even necessary right now? Rather than “work with†Republicans to develop a “bipartisan†bill, just ignore them, create better and more effective legislation, and ram it through Congress over the grandstanding protests of Republican lawmakers who are going to bitch and complain about everything the Democrats want to do anyway. Democrats need to realize that no matter how hard they try to “work with†Republicans, they’re never going to vote for a single piece of legislation sponsored by the Democrats. It would be best if they learned this lesson sooner rather than later, especially if they want to maintain a majority after the 2010 elections, because Republicans are already working to take back the House.
Topics: Democrats, Economy, Elections, Republicans, Taxes | 1 Comment »
10% Unemployment!
By BrianHull | January 23, 2009
Fresh from Providence Business News:
The state’s unemployment rate reached double digits in December, jumping 0.7 percentage points to 10.0 percent – the first time it has reached that level since 1976, when the government revised the way it measures joblessness. In other words, one out of every 10 people active in the job market does not have a job.
Awesome! All those tax cuts to the wealthy “job creators” are working wonderfully. Look at how well the economy is doing. We should give rich people even more tax cuts, because it always trickles down, right? Oh, tax cuts, how I love you…..
Seriously though, we need to really revisit the tax structure in Rhode Island. I know everyone’s a reactionary when it comes to taxes - we’re such a “high-tax” state. I’ll agree with that but with a certain caveat. Some of us are taxed too much, while others aren’t taxed enough. The property tax burden is too high and the income tax burden is too low. The state (and I suppose the cities and towns) needs to restructure those two elements of taxation. Property taxes need to be reduced and income taxes, especially those for the higher income levels, need to be increased.
The Governor’s “tax-reform” panel is about to release its plan detailing how really, really rich people should pay less while middle-income and working-class folks should pay more.
In general, a taxpayer’s Rhode Island taxable income currently is sorted into five different baskets, with a different tax rate applying to each. Tax rates range from 3.75 percent to 9.9 percent.
Under the plan, the income would be sorted into four baskets, with tax rates ranging from 3.8 percent to 5.5 percent.
Thus, the lowest tax rate would rise a bit, while the top tax rate would fall sharply.
Tell me again how that is fair. Tell me again how taxing the wealthy drives them from the state. Tell me again how giving the wealthy tax cuts creates jobs, because it sure has worked wonderfully here in Rhode Island.
Topics: Economy, Taxes | 3 Comments »
Governor Carcieri’s Horrible Plan
By BrianHull | January 10, 2009
“Good evening, my fellow Rhode Islanders…â€
With these words, Governor Don Carcieri started his address to the state on Wednesday night. With these words, he spoke to all of us about the profound difficulties our small state is experiencing. With these words, he offered his disastrous solutions:
- Changing the retirement age of all municipal and state workers and teachers to 59 regardless of their current contract.
- Eliminating Cost of Living Adjustments which account for increases in inflation.
- Enacting a “Defined Contribution†retirement plan.
- A 6% cut in local city and town aid, essentially ensuring cuts to police, fire, and garbage collection.
- Changing the delivery of Medicaid-supported social services (aid to seniors and RIte Care).
We need to make sure that our elected Representatives hear from us. Rhode Island needs a fair budget solution that will include additional revenues gained by rolling back the tax breaks to given RI’s wealthiest individuals and families, and by closing corporate tax loopholes.
The House Finance Committee looks as if it will start holding hearings on Tuesday regarding the supplemental budget for this fiscal year. Let’s tell them what we think. We are organizing a phone bank on Wednesday, January 14 at 5:30pm. We will meet at the SEIU Local 1199 Office at 55 Cedar Street in Providence and will focus our calls on the districts of the House Finance Committee members (Reps. Caprio, Ehrhardt, Giannini, Mattiello, Melo, and Silva).
None of the Governor’s solutions are fair to the hard working men and women, the elderly, or the children of Rhode Island. A very large part of the problem we are facing has to do with the recession, caused in large part to unwise state and federal tax cuts skewed to benefit the wealthy and lax regulations on the financial and banking industries (which then received $700 billion of taxpayer money), but what was most striking about the Governor’s proposal was the absence of even the slightest pretense of shared sacrifice. These budget cuts, again, will be borne almost entirely by the middle class, the poor, and the elderly. There was no discussion about rolling back the tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, no discussion about job creation programs or economic development, no discussion about closing corporate tax loopholes, and no discussion about a more equitable tax system that will realign the tax burden.
We must respond! Anyone able to make phone calls on Wednesday, please contact Brian Hull @ brianhull@ripda.org or 401-580-3321.
Topics: Economy, Rhode Island | 1 Comment »
The Economy in a Mess - It Doesn’t Have to Be
By BrianHull | December 10, 2008
There are several issues that I have wanted to write about for a while now, but never took time to do, until now. There’s a lot of discussion about the economy: the financial crisis, home foreclosures, the auto industry bailout, growing unemployment, a shrinking economy, etc. To be honest with you, it seems like the world is falling apart.
What is generally pissing me off is that almost every response coming from the federal government involves giving enormous sums of taxpayer money to businesses and CEOs that were directly responsible for the mess that we’re in, without any sort of oversight or regulations to temper the speculative behavior of unscrupulous individuals. And we see the results, don’t we? There’s still a financial crisis, exemplified by the Republic Windows and Doors debacle. Home foreclosures are on the rise and more people owe more on their homes than they are worth. The country lost another 533,000 jobs in November. And there is no relief in sight.
I suppose all of this was bound to happen when you give lots of money to a bunch of greedy self-interested bastards who have no concern at all for people who actually have to work for a living. I remember, not too long ago, when the financial crisis started percolating up to the public’s collective consciousness. Editorials were plentiful claiming an end to American capitalism. The free market failed us, profoundly, and continues to fail us on a daily basis. What more people need to understand is that capitalism is a wonderful system if the sole purpose of economic transactions is to generate wealth as quickly as possible (which I suppose it is). All the proponents of free-market capitalism can bloviate incessantly about the glorious benefits of a capitalist system, however, a serious societal problem arises when the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated into the hands of the very few. If you’re rich, everything is great, but if you’re not, you’re screwed. Unregulated capitalism has some serious problems, and is not always socially desirous or beneficial in the long-run, as is all too obvious by the current economic situation that we are finding ourselves in.
There needs to be a government response to get the economy back on track, that seems to be undisputed. My view is quite different than the conventional wisdom we have been seeing in Washington. The solution, to me, is pretty obvious. To remedy the financial crisis, the U.S. Government should make low interest loans directly to businesses. It would have been much less expensive than giving $700 billion dollars to the largest banks in the country, essentially rewarding them for their horrible lending practices. And it would have been much more effective since loans would have actually been distributed to borrowers rather than banks using the money to buy up other banks or shore up their books.
To solve the home foreclosure crisis, the U.S. Government should buy homes at their current market value and renegotiate the mortgages directly with the home owners. The overvaluation can be eaten by the banks that got $700 billion of free taxpayer money. The major problem with foreclosures isn’t that home owners owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Instead it’s because the previously low introductory adjustable mortgages rates are now starting to climb and the homeowners are no longer able to refinance (again). Alternatively, freezing interest rates would remedy a large part of the problem because absent a few extreme instances of new unemployment, medical expenses, or divorces, people were able to happily pay their mortgages at a lower interest rate. For instance, if someone bought a house for $250,000 and they were capable of paying their mortgage when the interest rate was at 6%, the U.S. Government can buy the house for the current mortgage value and lower the interest rate back down to 6%. I’m not sure why the government has decided that only those people who purchased a home between January 1 and July 31, 2005 deserve this accommodation.
To rectify growing unemployment, the U.S. Government should create a vast public spending program to put people back to work doing things that need to get done. For starters we can fix the bridges that are constantly falling down. Additionally, since the three largest U.S. auto manufacturers can’t figure out how to make cars that people want to buy, the U.S. Government should either tell them how or let them fail and retrain the workers for the jobs of the future: building wind turbines, tidal energy generators, solar cell panels, solar radiation collectors, etc. so we can move away from importing $700 billion of oil every year into the U.S. All the vague phrases like “requirements for restructuring and cost-cutting” that are being attached to any aid package for the auto industry is merely code for more layoffs anyway. Do we want to give the Big 3 billions of dollars to layoff more workers, or would that money be better spent elsewhere?
The government should stop looking for solutions in the private sector in today’s economy because it has failed us so miserably. Rather, it should focus on getting more actively involved in providing goods and services directly to those who desperately need them. The government should stop worrying about trying to save the largest employers on Wall Street or in Detroit and just save the employees instead. If a few top level executives and managers lose their jobs because of their own bad decisions, so be it. Point being, there are options other than the morally hazardous decisions which the government is currently making. There are options that would be beneficial for workers rather than business. There are options that would turn the economy around rather than have it sink further into a crisis.
Topics: Alternative Energy, Education | 2 Comments »
Barack Obama’s Victory Speech
By BrianHull | November 5, 2008
Topics: Elections | 1 Comment »
F is for Failure: The Bush Doctrine in Ruins
By BrianHull | October 21, 2008
On the brief occasions when the President now appears in the Rose Garden to “comfort” or “reassure” a shock-and-awed nation, you can almost hear those legions of ducks quacking lamely in the background. Once upon a time, George W. Bush, along with his top officials and advisors, hoped to preside over a global Pax Americana and a domestic Pax Republicana — a legacy for the generations. More recently, their highest hope seems to have been to slip out of town in January before the you-know-what hits the fan. No such luck.
Of course, what they feared most was that the you-know-what would hit in Iraq, and so put their efforts into sweeping that disaster out of sight. Once again, however, as in September 2001 and August 2005, they were caught predictably flatfooted by a domestic disaster. In this case, they were ambushed by an insurgent stock market heading into chaos, killer squads of credit default swaps, and a hurricane of financial collapse.
At the moment, only 7% of Americans believe the country is “going in the right direction,” Bush’s job-approval ratings have dropped into the low 20s with no bottom in sight, and North Dakota is “in play” in the presidential election. Think of that as the equivalent of a report card on Bush’s economic policies. In other words, the Yale legacy student with the C average has been branded for life with a resounding domestic “F” for failure. (His singular domestic triumph may prove to be paving the way for the first African American president.)
But there’s another report card that’s not in. Despite a media focus on Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the record of his Global War on Terror (and the Bush Doctrine that once went with it) has yet to be fully assessed. This is surprising, since administration actions in waging that war in what neoconservatives used to call “the arc of instability” — a swath of territory running from North Africa to the Chinese border — add up to a record of failure unprecedented in American history.
On June 1, 2002, George W. Bush gave the commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The Afghan War was then being hailed as a triumph and the invasion of Iraq just beginning to loom on the horizon. That day, after insisting the U.S. had “no empire to extend or utopia to establish,” the President laid out a vision of how the U.S. was to operate globally, facing “a threat with no precedent” — al-Qaeda-style terrorism in a world of weapons of mass destruction.
After indicating that “terror cells” were to be targeted in up to 60 countries, he offered a breathtakingly radical basis for the pursuit of American interests:
“We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long… [T]he war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act… Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world.”
This would later be known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s “one percent doctrine” — even a 1% chance of an attack on the U.S., especially involving weapons of mass destruction, must be dealt with militarily as if it were a certainty. It may have been the rashest formula for “preventive” or “aggressive” war offered in the modern era.
The President and his neocon backers were then riding high. Some were even talking up the United States as a “new Rome,” greater even than imperial Britain. For them, global control had a single prerequisite: the possession of overwhelming military force. With American military power unimpeachably #1, global domination followed logically. As Bush put it that day, in a statement unique in the annals of our history: “America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge — thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.”
In other words, a planet of Great Powers was all over and it was time for the rest of the world to get used to it. Like the wimps they were, other nations could “trade” and pursue “peace.” For its pure folly, not to say its misunderstanding of the nature of power on our planet, it remains a statement that should still take anyone’s breath away.
The Bush Doctrine, of course, no longer exists. Within a year, it had run aground on the shoals of reality on its very first whistle stop in Iraq. More than six years later, looking back on the foreign policy that emerged from Bush’s self-declared Global War on Terror, it’s clear that no President has ever failed on his own terms on such a scale or quite so comprehensively.
Here, then, is a brief report card on Bush’s Global War on Terror:
High-Value Targets
1. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda: The Global War on Terror started here. Osama bin Laden was to be brought in “dead or alive” — until, in December 2001, he escaped from a partial U.S. encirclement in the mountainous Tora Bora region of Afghanistan (and many of the U.S. troops chasing him were soon enough dispatched Iraqwards). Seven years later, bin Laden remains free, as does his second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, probably in the mountainous Pakistani tribal areas near the Afghan border. Al-Qaeda has been reconstituted there and is believed to be stronger than ever. An allied organization that didn’t exist in 2001, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was later declared by President Bush to be the “central front in the war on terror,” while al-Qaeda branches and wannabe groups have proliferated elsewhere.
Result: Terror promoted.
Grade: F
2. The Taliban and Afghanistan: The Taliban was officially defeated in November 2001 with an “invasion” that combined native troops, U.S. special operations forces, CIA agents, and U.S. air power. The Afghan capital, Kabul, was “liberated” and, not long after, a “democratic” government installed (filled, in part, with a familiar cast of warlords, human rights violators, drug lords, and the like). Seven years later, according to an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate, Afghanistan is on a “downward spiral”; the drug trade flourishes as never before; the government of President Hamid Karzai is notoriously corrupt, deeply despised, and incapable of exercising control much beyond the capital; American and NATO troops, thanks largely to a reliance upon air power and soaring civilian deaths, are increasingly unpopular; the Taliban is resurgent and has established a shadow government across much of the south, while its guerrillas are embedded at the gates of Kabul. American and NATO forces promoted a “surge” strategy in 2007 that failed and are now calling for more of the same. Reconstruction never happened.
Result: Losing war.
Grade: F
3. Pakistan: At the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush administration threw its support behind General Pervez Musharraf, the military dictator of relatively stable, nuclear-armed Pakistan. In the ensuing years, the U.S. transferred at least $10 billion, mainly to the general’s military associates, to fight the Global War on Terror. (Most of the money went elsewhere). Seven years later, Musharraf has fallen ingloriously, while the country has reportedly turned strongly anti-American — only 19% of Pakistanis in a recent BBC poll had a negative view of al-Qaeda — is on the verge of a financial meltdown, and has been strikingly destabilized, with its tribal regions at least partially in the hands of a Pakistani version of the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda and foreign jihadis. That region is also now a relatively safe haven for the Afghan Taliban. American planes and drones attack in these areas ever more regularly, causing civilian casualties and more anti-Americanism, as the U.S. edges toward its third real war in the region.
Result: Extremism promoted, destabilization in progress.
Grade: F
4. Iraq: In March 2003, with a shock-and-awe air campaign and 130,000 troops, the Bush administration launched its long-desired invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, officially in search of (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad fell to American troops in April and Bush declared “major combat operations…ended” from the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier against a “Mission Accomplished” banner on May 1st. Within four months, according to administration projections, there were to be only 30,000 to 40,000 American troops left in the country, stationed at bases outside Iraq’s cities, in a peaceful (occupied) land with a “democratic,” non-sectarian, pro-American government in formation. In the intervening five-plus years, perhaps one million Iraqis died, up to five million went into internal or external exile, a fierce insurgency blew up, an even fiercer sectarian war took place, more than 4,000 Americans died, hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars were spent on a war that led to chaos and on “reconstruction” that reconstructed nothing. There are still close to 150,000 American troops in the country and American military leaders are cautioning against withdrawing many more of them any time soon. Filled with killing fields and barely hanging together, Iraq is — despite recently lowered levels of violence — still among the more dangerous environments on the planet, while a largely Shiite government in Baghdad has grown ever closer to Shiite Iran. Thanks to the President’s “surge strategy” of 2007, this state of affairs is often described here as a “success.”
Result: Mission unaccomplished.
Grade: F
5. Iran: In his January 2002 State of the Union address, Bush dubbed Iran part of an “axis of evil” (along with Iraq and North Korea), attaching a shock-and-awe bull’s-eye to that nation ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. (A neocon quip of that time was: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”) In later years, Bush warned repeatedly that the U.S. would not allow Iran to move toward the possession of a nuclear weapons program and his administration would indeed take numerous steps, ranging from sanctions to the funding of covert actions, to destabilize the country’s ruling regime. More than six years after his “axis of evil” speech, and endless administration threats and bluster later, Iran is regionally resurgent, the most powerful foreign influence in Shiite Iraq, and continuing on a path toward that nuclear power program which, it claims, is purely peaceful, but could, of course, prove otherwise.
Result: Strengthened Iran.
Grade: F
Unlawful Enemy Combatants
6. Lebanon: Vowing to encourage a “democratic,” pro-western Lebanon and crush the Shiite Hezbollah movement, which it categorized not only as a tool of Iran but as a terrorist organization, the administration green-lighted Israel’s disastrous air assault and invasion in the summer of 2006. From that destructive war, Hezbollah emerged triumphant in its southern domain and strengthened in Lebanese national politics. Today, Lebanon is once again close to a low-level civil war and the influence of Syria, essentially the unmentioned fourth member of the President’s “axis of evil,” is again on the rise.
Result: Hezbollah ascendant.
Grade: F
7. Gaza: As part of the President’s “freedom agenda,” the administration promoted Palestinian elections on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip meant to fend off the rising strength of the Hamas movement, which it considered a terrorist organization, and promote the power of Fatah’s president Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas, however, won the election. The U.S. promptly refused to accept the results and, with Israel, tried to strangle Hamas in its Gaza stronghold. Hamas today remains entrenched in Gaza, while Abbas is a weakened figure.
Result: Hamas ascendant.
Grade: F
8. Somalia: In 2006, using U.S. trained and funded Ethiopian troops, the Bush administration intervened by proxy in a Somali civil war to oust a relatively moderate Islamist militia on the verge of unifying that desperate country for the first time in a long while. Two years later, the situation has only deteriorated further: the capital Mogadishu is in chaos, militant Islamists have retaken much of the south, those Ethiopian troops are preparing to withdraw, and the Bush-backed government to fall. At least, ten thousand Somalis have died and more than a third of the population, a jump of 77%, needs aid just to survive.
Result: Catastrophe.
Grade: F
9. Georgia: Promoting Georgian democracy — and an oil pipeline running through its territory that brought Central Asian energy to Europe while avoiding Russia — the administration armed, trained, and advised the Georgian military, backed the country for NATO membership, and looked the other way as its leader launched an invasion of a breakaway region (where Russian troops were stationed). Support for Georgia was part of a long-term Bush administration campaign to rollback Russian influence in its “near abroad,” especially in Central Asia (where results would, in the end, prove hardly more promising). The Russian military promptly crushed and then demolished the Georgian military, brought the future usefulness of the oil pipeline into question, and sidelined NATO membership for the foreseeable future. In response, the Bush administration could do nothing at all.
Result: Humiliating defeat.
Grade: F
Axis of Evil Extra Credit Target
10. North Korea: Calling North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il variously a “dwarf,” a “pygmy,” and simply “evil,” and his regime “the world’s most dangerous,” Bush targeted it in his “axis of evil” speech. As an invasion of Iraq loomed, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made clear that the U.S. was willing to fight and win wars “on two fronts.” The administration turned its back on modestly successful, Clinton-era two-party negotiations that froze North Korea’s plutonium-processing program, began overt — and possibly covert — campaigns to undermine the regime, and regularly threatened it over its nuclear weapons program. The invasion of Iraq evidently led North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il to the obvious shock-and-aweable conclusion and he promptly upped the pace of that program. In 2006, the country tested its first nuclear weapon and became a nuclear power.
Result: Nuclear proliferation encouraged.
Grade: F
Collateral Damage
11. Global Public Opinion: In the 2003 National Security Strategy of the United States was this infamous line: “Our strength as a nation-state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes and terrorism.” In other words, the U.N., the International Criminal Court, and al-Qaeda were all thrown into the same despised category, along with, implicitly, international public opinion. Who needed any of them? The result? With the help of its torture policies and its prison camp at Guantanamo for public relations, the Bush administration achieved wonders. Never has global opinion of the U.S. been lower (or anti-Americanism more rampant) than in these years — and when the administration needed allies, they were hard to find (or expensive to buy).
Result: Public diplomacy in the tank.
Grade: F
12. The American Taxpayer: The Bush administration estimated that the war in Iraq might cost the U.S. $50-60 billion, the war in Afghanistan far less. By now, those wars have officially cost more than $800 billion, close to $200 billion in the last year (at an estimated $3.5 billion a week). Their real long-term costs are almost incalculable, though they will certainly reach into the trillions. The full price tag of the Global War on Terror, including the costs of extraordinary renditions, as well as the building and maintaining of offshore prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, and elsewhere, is unknown, but historians looking back will undoubtedly conclude that the squandering of such sums helped push the U.S. toward financial meltdown.
Result: Priceless.
Grade: F
Evaluation
If you want a final taste of pathos — to deal with the disasters it created, the Bush administration has finally turned to the most un-Global-War-on-Terror-like diplomatic maneuvers. It rushed an envoy to North Korea to save a disintegrating nuclear deal (while agreeing to remove that country from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terror), is preparing the way for possible negotiations with parts of both the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban (call it “reconciliation”), and is evidently considering setting up a “U.S. Interest Section” in Teheran soon after the election.
In these last years, the Bush administration’s deepest fundamentalist faith — its cultish belief in the efficacy of military force above all else — has proven an empty vessel. With its “military strengths beyond challenge” all-too-effectively challenged, Bush’s second-term officials are finally returning to some of the most boringly traditional methods of diplomacy and negotiation — under far more extreme circumstances and from a far weaker position — while their former neocon supporters scream bloody murder from right-wing think tanks in Washington and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. “Having bent the knee to North Korea,” former U.N. ambassador John Bolton wrote recently in that paper, “Secretary [of State] Rice appears primed to do the same with Iran, despite that regime’s egregious and extensive involvement in terrorism and the acceleration of its nuclear program.”
And they do have a point. This administration does now seem to be on bended knee to the world.
As with Pandora’s Box, however, what the Bush administration unleashed cannot simply be taken back. A new administration will not only inherit an arc of instability that is truly aflame, but the paradigm, still remarkably unexamined, of a Global War on Terror. Now, there is a disaster-in-the-making for you.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the American Age of Denial. The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), a collection of some of the best pieces from his site and an alternative history of the mad Bush years, has recently been published. To listen to a podcast in which he discusses this article, click here.
Topics: Iran, Iraq, Republicans | No Comments »