President Obama’s top national security adviser, who has played a key part in designing the new Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, has been trying to clear up some confusion about the exit strategy. Gen James Jones said in an interview that “in no manner, shape or form” would the US withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011.
This after President Obama mentioned in his Tuesday speech , “these additional American and international troops will allow us … to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”
Gen Jones was deeply involved in designing the new strategy, attending all 10 meetings between the president and his top advisers at which the strategy was discussed.
He has stated for the record, “This is not a withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan in 2011, it is a decision to turn over to the Afghans some of the responsibility where they are ready to accept that responsibility. But in no manner, shape or form is the United States leaving Afghanistan in 2011.”
The coming year will demand two major changes in Washington: 1) The Federal Reserve will need to absorb excess reserves from the banking system or risk igniting inflation. 2) The White House will need to slow the tide of deficit spending or risk undermining the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.
The Federal Reserve (Fed) knows that past liquidity injections require a response. Though done to relieve the strains of the financial crisis, the excess of money and reserves in the banking system, unless removed, just about guarantees inflation — too much money chasing too few goods. And the rise in such inflationary pressure has been dramatic. During the past year, bank reserves have increased by an astounding 225 percent, the monetary base — bank reserves plus currency in circulation — has jumped by 77 percent, and the primary, M1 measure of money supply has increased by 13.5 percent. All these expansions are far beyond the economy’s longer-term fundamental needs, which at most would require money growth of 6-7 percent a year. Little wonder, then, in the face of this inflationary prospect, that the price of gold has skyrocketed by some 30 percent since the most intense fears about the economy began to ebb last July.
Though many of the programs that the Fed put in place to alleviate the financial crisis have begun to shrink naturally as financial healing relieved the need for such assistance, ultimately the needed remedial action will demand a rise in short-term interest rates. Since such rates today are inordinately low, the economy, especially as the recovery gains momentum, will cope will with moderate rate hikes, but the political pressure on Fed chairman Bernanke to delay the needed move will nonetheless build as the 2010 election approaches. If he and the Fed yield to that pressure, then inflation concerns will build, gold prices will continue to rise, and the dollar will continue to lose value on foreign exchange markets. If the Fed resists such pressure and steps up to its responsibilities, it can forestall such painful outcomes.
Demands for a change in White House budget policy are no less important. The budget outlook presently is far from encouraging. Fiscal 2009, which ended this past September, had a deficit of $1.4 trillion, more than three times the $459 billion deficit of the previous year. At 10 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), last year’s flow of red ink was almost twice the size of Ronald Reagan’s worst relative deficits and unprecedented since World War II. Official White House estimates for the current fiscal year show only a slight improvement to a deficit of $1.3 trillion. At 8.5 percent of that year’s estimated GDP, the situation would be the most severe since 1945, except, of course, for last year.
Weighing even heavier than this immediate situation are projections of continued large deficits for 2011 and beyond. According to White House estimates, these remain large despite expectations of continued economic recovery. Even out in 2013, the White House looks for deficits of over $500 billion, still substantial at over 3 percent of projected GDP. What is more, these rather depressing expectations emerge even amid unrealistically optimistic expectations for economic growth. More plausible growth figures would constrain revenues expectations and generate still larger deficit estimates.
Even more problematic are the uncertainties engendered by the administration’s heavy legislative calendar. Two issues in particular feature large, health care reform and the cap-and-trade environmental bill. Neither is included in the administration’s already large deficit estimates. The second of these pieces of legislation would actually tend to narrow the deficit because it amounts to a huge tax on production. But there is reason to worry over its economic effects anyway, as it would raise costs throughout the economy and hamstring growth accordingly. The health care picture is more ambiguous. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has characterized both bills before congress as deficit narrowing, despite the huge costs involved, under the dubious assumption that business will pay out any health care savings in wages and in so doing raise incomes and income tax receipts. Though plausible, such a view nonetheless leaves much room for skepticism.
What the economy needs in this situation is first an end to the huge legislative uncertainly and second a believable plan to contain the deficits and the flow of debt. That plan must include specifics. So far, various elements in the government have expressed determination to establish prudent budgetary control, but has offered more than the vaguest of statements along the lines of bending the government’s “cost curve,” what ever that could mean. If Washington wants to move the economy forward, it will have to give confidence that it has a definite plan. Further, that plan will have to address deficits with something more than just tax hikes, which will have their own adverse economic consequences. They will have to address spending, particularly entitlements spending, which already constitutes more than half of all federal outlays, far larger than defense spending.
At the moment, citizens have the luxury of time. The economic recovery is just beginning and these needs can wait for some months yet. But as 2010 matures and the recovery gains momentum, further gains will demand these policy changes. The authorities at the Fed and the White House do not have to do everything right, but they will have to make some change in these directions or the longer-term prospects for the economy, inflation, and the dollar will darken.
While I very much like Sarah Palin and what she represents, I do believe she made a serious error when answering a question concerning the issue of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
Rusty Humphries: Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?
Sarah Palin: I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue ’cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.
Rusty Humphries: Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?
Sarah Palin: I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game. You know, I’ve got to tell you, too: I think our campaign, the McCain/Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were and perhaps what their future plans were. And I don’t think that that was fair to voters to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of the things that now we’re seeing made manifest in the administration.
Rusty Humphries: I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?
Sarah Palin: Hey, you know, that’s a great point, in that weird conspiracy-theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son. And a lot of people say, “Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he’s your kid!” Which we have done. But yeah, so maybe we could reverse that and use the same [unintelligible]-type thinking on them.
I believe Sarah Palin made a serious mistake by excusing the paranoid conspiracy mindset that dominates the fringes of both parties. Truthers, birthers and baby trig conspiracy believers (see the deranged scum sucking troll Andrew Sullivan) deserve nothing but disdain and marginalization from serious individuals. Individuals who buy into these conspiracy theories should never be legitimized in my opinion. They are no different than ufologists and bigfoot chasers. Such ridiculous individuals should not be described as legitimate by a serious potential leader.
Sarah had options when it came to responding to such a question. She could have said that engaging in such reckless speculation, which is devoid of relevance and substance, should not be entertained when this country faces such serious challenges. She easily could have pivoted and discussed the bias in the mainstream media that was eager to entertain conspiracy theories regarding her, but hesitant to publicize those involving Barack Obama. By saying that “I think the public, rightfully, is still making [Barack Obama's Birth Certificate] an issue,” Sarah Palin said that the public is also right to make the birth of her son an issue. I’m sorry, but I disagree. The paranoid twits who made the birth of her son an issue are insane and should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating such clearly spurious allegations.
I’m not naive as to the nature of politics and I don’t expect Sarah Palin to be either. Opposition research and mudslinging are a part of major campaigns, but most candidates know to treat is an unfortunate reality rather than embrace and legitimize it. I like that Sarah Palin speaks her mind and I agree with her in regards to investigating Obama’s past associations and radical views, but birth certificates and amniotic fluid cross the line of what should be considered off limits.
Some will say Barack Obama’s birth is a legitimate question, but they, like Sarah Palin, should know that, even if the birth certificate issue was legitimate, getting him removed from office for that reason would make him a victim in the eyes of many. It would be portrayed as undoing the election based on a technicality. There would be rioting in the streets and likely calls for a constitutional convention. The way to beat Barack Obama is at the ballot box and Palin should know that. By not dismissing the birth certificate issue as a non-issue and a mistake, she has made a major error. Obama’s past associations are one thing, but you can’t make him the bad guy because of something his parents did. You’d have to prove that Obama wasn’t born here and knew that while running for office, in order for him to even begin to look like the bad guy.
I like Sarah Palin. I’ve defended her when she has been wrongfully attacked, but I believe she made a serious mistake in this instance. I hope I’m wrong and this does not come back to haunt her, but I fear it will. I’ve criticized other for taking pleasure in attacking Palin, but there are times when we must soberly criticize our own. Newt Gingrich was wrong to back Dede Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman and Sarah Palin was wrong to excuse those who deal in destructive conspiracy theories. Acknowledging that they were wrong does not mean I won’t support them, but it does mean that I hope they learn from the experience. I fear that if we the people never correct those who would lead us, we run the risk of raising politicians that are ill prepared to do so.
Twenty years ago today, at a press conference aboard the Russian cruise ship Maxim Gorky, the end of the Cold War was officially declared. And yet the fear accompanying nuclear weaponry remains, as President Obama recently said, “because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.”
It is in this context that we recall a film that captures the deepest anxieties at the height of Cold War tensions. Stanley Kramer’s “On the Beach” premiered 50 years ago this month in both Washington D.C. and Moscow, and it’s as terrifyingly real today as it’s ever been. Based on Nevil Shute’s 1957 novel of the same name, the film stars Gregory Peck as the captain of the USS Sawfish, a naval submarine searching for signs of human life following catastrophic nuclear warfare in a third world war.
In this scene, a scientist played by Fred Astaire (in his first non-musical role) explains the reckless thinking that led to so much destruction.
The film’s release on both sides of the Iron Curtain didn’t prevent the Cuban Missile Crisis a few years later. But it did exist as a powerful warning to the two superpowers that playing with fire can burn the whole block.
I recently had coffee with a good friend of mine named Marc Whitehorn. He is super sharp and well reasoned about most everything. Anyhow, we got to talking about Obama and the health care bill and My Friend, Marc, Had great things to say about it. Here is what he had to say:
Russ: “Hey Marc, what do you think of The Obama health plan, how do yuo think he is doing?”
Marc: “What did you think of cash for clunkers?”
Russ: “It seemed to go okay.”
Marc: (rolls eyes)
Russ: “What!?!”
Marc: cash for clunkers is a very good indicator of how health care will be handled. It was targeted at a VERY specific group of people for less than a year and the cost was underestimated by at least $1billion. What happens when they unleash a policy that will become the “norm” for all citizens in the u.s.? If the gov’t. is a landscaper, in the cash of cash for clunkers they were given care of ONE tree for less than a year and couldn’t take care of it without putting in WAY more cash than they originally thought. Now they’re going to take charge of the forest… oh, and how, again, will the plan be funded–in layman’s terms, please?
I’m thankful that president Obama is our diplomat because the u.s. really took an image/p.r. beating with the “decider.” President obama is a much better diplomat and nations would seem to be more willing to share in the job of planet police with him. HOWEVER, his recent visit to China was telling of his willingness to ask hard questions of those leaders around the world who are ruling, um, questionably… why not ask,
“What happened to all the people displaced from beijing for the 2008 olympics?”
What exactly are you doing to help in the situation with north Korea since their missiles will be a lot closer to you than to us?”
“Why does amnesty int’l keep reporting about pastors and non-gov’t. church christians being persecuted, or missing?”
“Is it REALLY a good policy to carry out the 1 child per family edict? explain to me again what happens when contraception fails?”
I guess it’s kinda hard to do that when they are carrying the lion share of our national debt and no one wants to consider what happens should they decide we are no longer a good “investment.”
Also, how, exactly, has the $787 billion stimulus package been distributed? The unemployment rate is 9.2%, but what about those of us who didn’t qualify, or were intimidated by all the bureaucracy? Is it really true that it’s closer to 16-18% when those folks are taken into account?
Well, these are my questions. I’m ignorant of policy and politics, but things do raise my eyebrows when they don’t seem to add up.”
Elayne Boosler is just a stand-up comedian, but she makes a good point. She’s been to the White House a few times, even at the personal request of the president at the time. Even with those kinds of creds, she had to go through a dozen levels of security, up to and including everything except a full body cavity search, to make it past the main gate. Her point is that it’s more than just the mother of all fuck-ups that the Salahis made it into a state dinner without an invitation, it suggests that there was a deliberate breach of security, perhaps by someone fairly high up the food chain.
I love a good conspiracy theory. On the other hand, I wonder why the righties haven’t jumped on this one with both feet. Even to me, this incident suggests a level of incompetence in the general neighborhood of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that is more than a little worrisome. How are you going to make the world safe for democracy if you can’t even keep the president safe from a Washington Redskins pom-pom princess?
WASHINGTON (AP) — After months of debate, President Barack Obama will spell out a costly Afghanistan war expansion to a skeptical public Tuesday night, coupling an infusion of as many as 35,000 more troops with a vow that there will be no endless U.S. commitment. His first orders have already been made: at least one group of Marines who will be in place by Christmas.
Obama has said that he prefers “not to hand off anything to the next president” and that his strategy will “put us on a path toward ending the war.” But he doesn't plan to give any more exact timetable than that Tuesday night.
Dec 1, 12:52 AM EST