BLOG POSTS

Joseph Stiglitz, find Nobel Prize winner for Economics and once chief economist to the World Bank, medical had this to say recently about the cost of the Iraq war:

“We are talking at least between one and two trillion dollars now. To put that into perspective, cialis President Bush went to the American people at the beginning of his second term, saying that we have a major crisis with our Social Security system. For somewhere between a half and quarter of the cost of the war in Iraq you could have fixed all the problems associated with Social Security for the next 75 years and still have had a lot left over. Put in another way: We are now spending something like $10 billion a month—$120 billion dollars a year—on Iraq. The amount the entire world gives in foreign aid, on an annual basis, is about half that.”

Read the rest of the Mother Jones interview with Joe Stiglitz HERE.

Filed under: Political priorities

As a Brit living in the heartlands of the U.S.A for over five years, I consider myself an observer of life and politics in this country post-9/11/2001.

I came here exactly twelve months after the 9/11 atrocities to find a nation in shock, still reeling from the first real attack on the homeland since the British tried to regain control of the wayward colonies back in the 18th century.

Ever since the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Americans have held firm to the ideal of a land impervious to foreign invaders. The aerial attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese in 1942 had been the closest America ever came to an assault on the homeland, but even that held not the significance of those twin towers crashing earthwards after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Even the incident of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, on that fateful day, lacked the full horror of the WTC towers crumbling to dust, forever vanquished from the lower Manhattan skyline.

The Phoenix that finally arose from the ashes of 9/11 was one of fear. America felt awesomely vulnerable. How could such a catastrophic event be prevented from ever happening again?

By taking advantage of this nationwide aura of fear, George W Bush and his administration was able to invade Iraq, a nation far removed from the events of 9/11, and plunge America into the stalemate situation it finds itself in today.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing whatever to do with the events of 9/11.

Today, that statement is recorded fact, denied by no-one, except perhaps the discredited Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Nevertheless, at a time when the US populace turned to their leaders for support and direction, a majority of those leaders – the United States Congress – voted in favor of a premeditated invasion of a foreign country.

Let us make no mistake on this fact. George W Bush did not go to war against Iraq on his own authority. The United States Congress took the decision to instigate that war against a known innocent country.

Remember the ‘smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud’?

That phrase was deliberately repeated over and over by members of the administration and Congress, to persuade Americans of a danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s government.

The omission, supported by Congress, was the knowledge that any possibility of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction had been nullified by the actions of America and her allies – notably the British – by sanctions and blanket bombings throughout the previous decade.

Barack Obama was not the only Congressional member notable for a stance against the war in Iraq, but he is the only one seeking the presidency in 2009.

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain threw their Congressional weight behind Bush and his minions over the Iraq issue.

McCain, stubbornly, still insists it was the right decision. The American people are not so stupid as to believe him.

Hillary Clinton no longer supports the war in Iraq, and says ‘if she knew then what she knows now’ she would have voted against it.

Do the American people truly want a president who is only right with hindsight?

Hillary Clinton, along with many of her political colleagues, chose the path of popular support. Americans, in the aftermath of 9/11, needed a scapegoat. Saddam Hussein was the whipping boy. Clinton and McCain were happy to oblige, seeking the popularity of the moment.

Obama, on the other hand, saw the injustice of the time and called for restraint. He argued against the war, but in favor of his conscience.

There are some who would contend that George W Bush similarly acted according to his conscience, yet there is a basic difference between Obama and Bush. The present incumbent arrogantly believed he was carrying out the will of his deity. Even the most religious must now entertain the possibility of that being a falsehood. Events are hardly unfolding in a manner conducive to the belief that American divine intervention in Iraq has produced a society lauding the ‘liberators’.

Barack Obama has, so far as we are aware, no reliance on divinity for his abilities, and instead trusts his own conscience in matters of both foreign and domestic affairs.

In conclusion, my observations of the three front runners lead me to the opinion that a vote for McCain is no more than another vote for George W Bush; allegiance to Clinton is either a desire for a female president at all costs, or a willingness to accept a president who panders to the hysteria of the moment.

Senator Barack Obama may, or may not, be the next John F Kennedy, but so far as much of America – and all the rest of the world – is concerned, he is the best hope for a future that, at best, is bleak if either McCain or Clinton gains control of the reins of power in 2009.

Filed under: An observer’s choice

Much is being spouted of late about the long waits experienced by disabled claimants applying for Social Security benefits. It’s been going on for years, longer even than the time period applicants have to wait for a payout, but a recent investigation and subsequent broadcast by ABC News has roused a few bigwigs in Congress from slumber, opening their eyes just long enough to demand the head of SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue on a silver platter.

The average wait for a disability hearing is 499 days – let’s not be too precise, we’ll call it a round 500. The problem seems to lie with ALJ’s.

Who or what are ALJ’s, I hear you ask?

An ALJ is an Administrative Law Judge, of which there are over 1,000 in the US. They are employees of the SSA, but seem to have a poor work record. Stephen Barr, reporting in the Washington Post on the latest hearings with Michael Astrue in Congress, writes:^[1]

“Most Americans seeking disability benefits have been turned down once or twice in their states and file federal appeals with Social Security. The agency’s administrative law judges, or ALJs, award benefits in 62 percent of the cases that they hear.

The approval rate reflects the nature of the federal hearing process. ALJs usually work from a more complete medical record and hear directly from the claimants, who are often accompanied by lawyers. Although the ALJs work for Social Security, Congress has awarded them a large degree of independence in how they reach decisions.

Astrue said most ALJs do a good job, but he made it clear he has no power to discipline bad apples in their ranks. He said he is frustrated by his inability to deal with “gross misconduct” by judges, especially those accused of fraud, domestic violence and soliciting prostitution.” [my bold]

“Gross misconduct”; “fraud”; domestic violence”, and “soliciting prostitution”? These people must be members of the Republican Party.

Barr continues:

“Disciplinary actions brought against ALJs end up before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which hears federal employee appeals, resulting in months of litigation and, in Astrue’s view, a “paid vacation” for the accused……”

One ALJ only managed to process 40 disability cases in 2006, while others fell well short of the average 400-500 cases annually. Another has not completed one disability case in seven years.

Clearly, this amounts to too much salary and too little supervision. Like many of the bigger government departments, SSA is woefully inefficient and more money is wasted than ever gets to those who deserve it most – the poor and disabled.

Michael Astrue is yet another of those infamous George W Bush nominations. If he is unable, or unwilling, to run his organization efficiently, he should step down and allow someone else to do a better job.

Let’s be clear on this – it’s OUR tax dollars he’s wasting.

^{[1] “Disability Cases Pending, Pending . . .” Washington Post, February 29 2008.}

Filed under: Cronyism