Jobs Not Wars

January 7th, 2013

Photobucket

The “fiscal cliff” deal was not all bad. Social Security and Medicare weren’t cut. Unemployment benefits were extended. Taxes went up a tiny bit on some of the wealthiest.

But Pentagon spending remained outrageously high, giveaways to corporations were enormous, the President went back on his commitment to end tax cuts for more of the wealthiest, the deal raised taxes on people making $20-200K per year more than on those making $200-500K, and the debt ceiling limit remained — setting up a big push to cut Social Security and Medicare in the coming months.

No deal at all would have been better than this one. Had the “Bush” tax cuts expired, the good parts of this deal could have been passed.

We must now work to take the focus off the deficit and put it on jobs and smart public investment. That means moving the money away from war preparations. Please sign this petition. The greater the number of signers, the greater use we will be able to make of it in influencing the coming showdown.

Sign the Petition/CLICK HERE

Phantom bombers weigh down military budget

December 28th, 2012

By Michael Hoffman / DOD Buzz.com
December 27th, 2012
Click here for orginal article

Photobucket

The Pentagon is under intense pressure to find inefficiencies in its spending. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the military has a responsibility to rid itself of wasteful spending, especially as Congress tries to come to an agreement to reduce spending and lower the federal deficit.

One place the Pentagon ought to look is its nuclear enterprise, said Hans Kristensen, a noted nuclear expert with the Federation of American Scientists. He pointed specifically at the Air Force’s nuclear bomber fleet.

It’s within that fleet that fleet the Air Force maintains 141 nuclear bombers, but only 60 remain in the nuclear mission. The other 91 remain counted as nuclear capable, deployed bombers, yet most are not even stationed at an active base.

The Air Force maintains a nuclear capable bomber fleet that includes the B-1, B-2 and B-52. It’s the B-1 and B-52 that makes up the majority of the phantom bombers that continue to weigh down the military’s budget.

These phantom bombers cost the military extra money because of their nuclear capability. This certification forces the Air Force to maintain standards on the number of bombers in their fleet if they are still listed. This costs money even if the Air Force has no plans to use them in that role.

A request for comment from the Air Force was not returned.

These bombers also count against the U.S. under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed in 2010 by the U.S. and Russia. The treaty dictates that both countries must remain under the 700 deployed nuclear capable missiles and bombers.

Deactivating these bombers and removing them from the nuclear capable list would save the Air Force money, Kristensen. It’s unclear why the military has chosen not to deactivate them.

Of course, the Air Force has worked hard the past five years to get their nuclear bomber fleet in order after the embarrassing 2007 episode when airmen at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., lost track of six nuclear warheads and mistakenly flew them from Minot and Barksdale Air Force Base, La. The Air Force has since stood up Global Strike Command and placed a renewed priority on its nuclear enterprise.

U.S. Stocks Retreat on Federal Budget Deadline Concern

December 26th, 2012

Photobucket
Bloomberg News/By Inyoung Hwang on December 24, 2012
READ FULL ARTICLE (CLICK HERE)

U.S. stocks fell, after the biggest tumble in five weeks for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, amid concern that President Barack Obama and Congress will fail to agree on a budget by the end of the year.

Seven out of 10 groups in the S&P 500 slumped. Hewlett- Packard Co. led losses among the biggest U.S. companies. Chevron Corp. slid 1 percent as energy companies fell. Research In Motion Ltd. (RIM) erased 2.8 percent, after the largest drop since 2008 on Dec. 21. J.C. Penney & Co. and Home Depot Inc. paced gains with consumer discretionary stocks as shoppers made last- minute dashes to buy gifts.

The S&P 500 retreated 0.2 percent to 1,426.66 in New York. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 51.76 points, or 0.4 percent, to 13,139.08. New York Stock Exchange trading closed at 1 p.m. ahead of the Christmas holiday. Trading in S&P 500 companies was 38 percent below the 30-day average for that time of day.

“The action last week in Washington flipped the switch for short-term market movement from up to down,” Frederic Dickson, who helps manage $32 billion as chief investment strategist at D.A. Davidson & Co. in Lake Oswego, Oregon, said in a telephone interview. “The action picks up later in the week, when politicians return to Washington but it’s going to take them a couple days to figure out what to do. Today’s a wait-and-see day.”

The S&P 500 is heading for a 0.7 percent gain this month as Obama and Republican leaders discussed how to avoid more than $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts — known as the fiscal cliff — that will automatically take effect at the start of 2013. The Congressional Budget Office has said the changes will probably push the U.S. economy into a recession. The equity benchmark has increased 13 percent this year, heading toward its biggest annual gain since 2009.

Budget Stalemate

Senator Joseph Lieberman, a retiring Connecticut independent, said yesterday that Senate leaders must take charge of resolving the budget stalemate.

The S&P 500 slid 0.9 percent on Dec. 21 after House Speaker John Boehner failed to obtain support from congressional Republicans for his plan to allow tax rates to increase on incomes above $1 million. Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” program, Lieberman said, “For the first time, I feel it’s more likely that we will go off the cliff.”

Lawmakers plan to return to Washington on Dec. 27 to resume their negotiations. Before leaving to spend the Christmas holiday with his family in Hawaii, Obama on Dec. 21 urged leaders of both parties to put together an interim bill to keep taxes from rising on middle-income Americans.

Holiday Pause

“The continued uncertainty over the fiscal cliff issue is weighing on the market,” Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist at Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank Wealth Management, which oversees $111 billion, said in a telephone interview. “There’s concern corporate earnings will be a little bit weaker in the fourth quarter than the market had anticipated. As much as we’d like to have a holiday season rally here, I think the market is going to pause.”

Americans have missed out on almost $200 billion of stock gains as they withdrew money from the market over the past four years because of the financial crisis.

Assets in equity mutual, exchange-traded and closed-end funds have increased about 85 percent to $5.6 trillion since the bull market began in March 2009, trailing the S&P 500’s 94 percent advance, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and Morningstar Inc. (MORN) The proportion of retirement funds in stocks fell about 0.5 percentage points, compared with an average increase of 8.2 percentage points in rallies since 1990.

Biggest Declines

Energy and technology companies posted the biggest drops out of 10 S&P 500 groups today, falling more than 0.4 percent. Hewlett-Packard slumped 2.3 percent, the most in the Dow, to $14.01. Chevron lost 1 percent to $108.63.

RIM, which is set to release its BlackBerry 10 line of smartphones early next year, sank 2.8 percent to $10.61. The company tumbled 23 percent on Dec. 21 after Chief Executive Officer Thorsten Heins said users who do not want enhanced services, including advanced security, are expected to generate “less or no service revenue.” Service fees accounted for about $982 million in sales last quarter, out of a total of $2.73 billion.

Herbalife Ltd. dropped 4.4 percent to $26.06, following a 19 percent drop on Dec. 21. The maker of weight-loss supplements whose shares have been shorted by hedge-fund manager Bill Ackman hired Moelis & Co. as a strategic adviser.

Failed Bid

Greenbrier Cos. fell 3.1 percent to $15.64 after tumbling 22 percent in the previous two trading days as Carl Icahn’s failed bid for the company and the sale of most of his shares dragged the stock lower for a third day. Icahn disclosed on Dec. 21 that he cut his Greenbrier stake to 3.41 percent after the Lake Oswego, Oregon-based company rejected a sweetened offer of $22 a share from Icahn-controlled American Railcar Industries Inc.

Consumer discretionary stocks posted among the biggest gains out of 10 groups in the S&P 500 today, rising 0.2 percent. Comscore said yesterday that e-commerce sales jumped 16 percent to $38.7 billion between Nov. 1 and Dec. 21. The Reston, Virginia-based digital research firm reported a 15 percent gain last year. It excludes auctions and large corporate purchases.

J.C. Penney rose 1.4 percent to $19.87. Home Depot increased the second-most in the Dow, adding 0.4 percent to $61.57.

Senate Approves Military Spending Bill

December 24th, 2012

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Photobucket

WASHINGTON-The Senate voted 81 to 14 on Friday for a $633 billion military bill for next year that would tighten penalties on Iran over its nuclear ambitions and bulk up security at diplomatic missions worldwide after the deadly raid in Benghazi, Libya. The White House has threatened a veto despite solid bipartisan support in the House and the Senate for the sweeping policy measure that spends $1.7 billion more than President Obama requested to cover the cost of ships, aircraft, weapons and military personnel. The bill would authorize $528 billion for the Defense Department’s base budget, $17 billion for defense and nuclear programs in the Energy Department and $88.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan.

The White House has threatened a veto for the sweeping policy measure that spends $1.7 billion more than President Obama requested to cover the cost of ships, aircraft, weapons and military personnel.

Cliff Hanger: The President’s Unnecessary and Unwise Concessions

December 20th, 2012

Photobucket
by Robert Reich
OpEdNews 12/20/2012 (CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE)

Why is the President back to making premature and unnecessary concessions to Republicans?

Two central issues in the 2012 presidential election were whether the Bush tax cuts should be ended for people earning over $250,000, and whether Social Security and Medicare should be protected from future budget cuts.

The President said yes to both. Republicans said no. Obama won.

Photobucket

But apparently the President is now offering to continue Bush tax cuts for people earning between $250,000 and $400,000, and to cut Social Security by reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.

These concessions aren’t necessary. If the nation goes over the so-called “fiscal cliff” and tax rates return to what they were under Bill Clinton, Democrats can then introduce a tax cut for everyone earning under $250,000 and make it retroactive to the start of the year.

They can combine it with a spending bill that makes up for most of the cuts scheduled to go into effect in January. Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.

Social Security should not be part of any such deal anyway. By law, it can’t contribute to the budget deficit. It’s only permitted to spend money from the Social Security trust fund.

Besides, the President’s proposed reduction in annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustments would save only $122 billion over 10 years. Yet it would significantly harm the elderly.

It defies logic and fairness to give more tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting benefits for the near-poor.
The median income of Americans over 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of them depend on Social Security for more than half of this. The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year.

Even Social Security’s current cost-of-living adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on elderly recipients, who spend far more on health care than anyone else — including annual increases in Medicare premiums.
Hands off Social Security. If the Republicans are willing to raise tax rates on high earners but demand more spending cuts in return, the President should offer larger cuts in defense spending and corporate welfare.

http://robertreich.org/

Violence at home or abroad, is NOT the answer!

December 17th, 2012
Photobucket
A Message from the Peace Economy Project (PEP)
In support of the national “Jobs-Not-wars” campaign

With last week’s overwhelmingly sad and tragic news of gun violence in Newtown, CT, leaving 27 people dead, including 20 young children, we are reminded of the importance of joining together to make America and our world a safer place for all. We applaud the president’s commitment to do something to reduce the level of violence in our society and look forward to his proposals.

Violence, whether at home or war abroad, is too often our answer. We need to find alternative solutions that de-escalate violence and instigate peace in our world. Violence simply begets more violence. That is true for how Americans relate to one another and how our country relates to the rest of the world.

War is destructive and costly. War kills and wounds people. War is destructive to our environment – leaving behind depleted uranium and other toxic substances that kill people, cause birth defects, contaminate water … and the list goes on and on.

War and outrageous Pentagon spending has a detrimental effect on our whole economy. We all lose, when we chose to spend 57% of our discretionary funds on War and the preparation for war. Our voices can help reduce violence at home and abroad. Please Click Here to Sign a Petition urging the President and Congress to abandon austerity solutions to the deficit and instead end the war, cut military spending, tax the super-rich, and redirect resources to restore and protect the social safety net, create jobs and meet other urgent social needs.

Tell Congress:

• To look to the Pentagon first – that’s where all the money is!! We can cut billions and still protect America. Unnecessary and wasteful spending simply maintains huge profits for military contractors and does not make our country more secure.
• The Pentagon receives more money than it needs in its budget. This year it is holding more than $100 billion in unobligated (surplus) funds.
• The Pentagon is the only federal agency NOT subject to an annual audit. In one year, the Pentagon loses, wastes or misspends more than the combined budgets of 5 other departments: State, Interior, Commerce, Justice & Energy.
• There are lots of places in the bloated run-away Pentagon budget where cuts could be made that won’t impact national security – waste, fraud and abuse, weapons systems that don’t work for use against enemies that no longer exist, and more.

Click Here to Sign the Petition.

Thank you for your time and continued support.
The Peace Economy project

7 absurd ways the military wastes taxpayer dollars

December 14th, 2012

Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012/SALON.com
CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

If you thought the Petraeus scandal was embarrassing, wait ’til you hear how much is spent on military golf courses
By Laura Gottesdiener, Alternet
Photobucket

The David Petraeus scandal has shined a light on the luxurious, subsidized lifestyle of the U.S. military’s top generals. But so far, what the media has uncovered only scratches the surface of the abuses. Here are seven absurd ways the military wastes our money — and none of them have anything to do with national defense.

1. A whole battalion of generals? The titles “general” or “admiral” sound like they belong to pretty exclusive posts, fit only for the best of the best. This flashy title makes it pretty easy to say, “so what if a few of our military geniuses get the royal treatment — particularly if they are the sole commanders of the most powerful military in human history.” The reality, however, is that there are nearly 1,000 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces, and each has an entourage that would make a Hollywood star jealous.

According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there are 963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror — and polishing the boots of senior military personnel — became Washington’s No. 1 priority. (In roughly that same time frame, starting in 1998, the Pentagon’s budget also ballooned by more than 50 percent.)

Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number. Many of these generals are “spending time writing plans and defending plans with Congress, and trying to get the money,” he explained. In other words, a large number of these generals are essentially lobbyists for the Pentagon, but they still receive large personal staffs and private jet rides for official paper-pushing military matters.

Dina Rasor, founder of Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, explains that this “brass creep” is “fueled by the desire to increase bureaucratic clout or prestige of a particular service, function or region, rather than reflecting the scope and duties of the job itself.”

It’s sort of like how Starbucks titles each of its baristas a “partner” but continues to pay them just over minimum wage (and a caramel macchiato per shift).

As Rasor writes, “the three- and four-star ranks have increased twice as fast as one- and two-star general and flag officers, three times as fast as the increase in all officers and almost ten times as fast as the increase in enlisted personnel. If you imagine it visually, the shape of U.S. military personnel has shifted from looking like a pyramid to beginning to look more like a skyscraper.”

But the skyscraper model doesn’t mean that the armed forces are democratizing. In fact, just the opposite; they’re gaming the system to allow more and more officers to deploy the full power of the U.S. military to aid their personal lives — whether their actual work justifies it or not.

2. The generals’ flotillas. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed Arnold Punaro, a retired major general in the Marines, to head an independent review of the Pentagon’s budget. Here’s the caution he came up with: “We don’t want the Department of Defense to become a benefits agency that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

So, just how good are these benefits? For the top brass, not bad at all. According to a Washington Post investigation, each top commander has his own C-40 jet, complete with beds on board. Many have chefs who deserve their own four-star restaurants. The generals’ personal staff include drivers, security guards, secretaries and people to shine their shoes and iron their uniforms. When traveling, they can be accompanied by police motorcades that stretch for blocks. When entertaining, string quartets are available at a snap of the fingers.

A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million — per general. That’s not even including their own salaries — which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation — and the free housing, which has been described as “palatial.” On Capitol Hill, these cadres of assistants are called the generals’ “flotillas.”

In Petraeus’ case, he didn’t want to give up the perks of being a four-star general in the Army, even after he left the armed forces to be director of the CIA. He apparently trained his assistants to pass him water bottles at timed intervals on his now-infamous 6-minute mile runs. He also liked “fresh, sliced pineapple” before going to bed.

3. Scandals. Despite the seemingly limitless perks of being a general, there is a limit to the military’s (taxpayer-funded) generosity. That’s led some senior officers to engage in a little creative accounting. This summer the (formerly) four-star general William “Kip” Ward was caught using military money to pay for a Bermuda vacation and using military cars and drivers to take his wife on shopping and spa excursions. He traveled with up to 13 staff members, even on non-work trips, billing the State Department for their hotel and travel costs, as well as his family’s stays at luxury hotels.

In November, in the midst of the Petraeus scandal, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demoted Ward to a three-star lieutenant general and ordered him to pay back $82,000 of the taxpayers’ misused money. The debt shouldn’t be hard to repay; Ward will receive an annual retirement salary of $208,802.

Panetta may have been tough — sort of — on now three-star general Ward, but he’s displayed a complete refusal to reevaluate the bloated ranks of the military generals. Unlike his predecessor Robert Gates, who has come out publicly against the increasing number of top-ranking officers and tried to reduce their ranks, Panetta has so far refused to review their numbers and has yet to fire a single general or admiral for misconduct. He did, however, order an “ethics training” after the Petraeus scandal.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Another reason to expand Medicaid limits in Missouri

December 13th, 2012

Photobucket

Staggering cost of caring for uninsured patients in Missouri

Barb Shelly / The Kansas City Star.com
Click here for orginal article

Adding to the case in favor of expanding Medicaid limits, the Missouri Hospital Association announced today that in 2011, for the first time, the cost to hospitals of caring for uninsured patients topped $1 billion.

The $1.1 billion tab was 22 percent higher than what hospitals acquired in 2010. Of the 2011 amount, $622.8 million was charity care provided by the association’s 129 participating hospitals. The remaining amount was bad debt.

Hospitals are currently able to recoup some of that amount from the federal and state governments, which pay “disproportionate share” compensation to hospitals which serve high numbers of poor and uninsured patients. But those payments are expected to be phased out under the Affordable Care Act as more people gain insurance either through new state marketplaces or from expanded Medicaid limits.

The hospital association anticipates that Missouri hospitals will lose $3.3 billion in disproportionate share payments through 2020. They will still have to care for uninsured sick people in their emergency rooms, however. Financially, that’s an impossible scenario.

The answer is for the Missouri legislature to raise Medicaid limits to the level called for in the Affordable Care Act, 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

Missouri currently only covers adults who earn up to 19 percent of the poverty level. That’s a salary of just more than $4,000 a year for a family of four. An expansion to 133 percent would put 200,000 to 300,000 Missourians under the Medicaid umbrella. The federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost the first three years and not less than 90 percent after that.

With the ability to see a doctor regularly, fewer people would end up in hospital emergency rooms. Those that do arrive there would be more likely to have insurance.

Gov. Jay Nixon is pushing for the Medicaid expansion and says he will account for it in next year’s budget. Republicans in the legislature are holding out, with some saying they won’t even consider it. If they stick to their guns, they’d better start considering the prospect of hospitals in Missouri shutting down for lack of money to care for uninsured patients.

‘Fiscal cliff’ hit on Missouri estimated at $1B in defense spending, $125M in state funding

December 11th, 2012

Photobucket
By DAVID A. LIEB Associated Press
December 11, 2012 – 10:46 am EST
CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE

Missouri government could lose $125.8 million in federal funding in 2013 for dozens of programs, including aid to public schools that serve a large number of low-income students, funding for special education, early childhood programs and food subsidies for women and children.

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri — Missouri could lose about $125 million in federal funding for various programs and the state’s military-related economy could take a $1 billion hit, according a report looking at what to expect if officials in Washington don’t reach a deal to avert the “fiscal cliff.”

The estimates from the Washington-based Federal Funds Information for States show that automatic spending cuts due to begin in the new year could have disproportionate impact on Missouri because of the state’s concentration of defense contractors and military installations.

Unless Congress and the White House agree on an alternative deficit-reduction plan, the spending cuts will be coupled with the expiration of tax cuts enacted during President George W. Bush’s administration to create what some have called a “fiscal cliff” because of the potential to send the nation back into a recession.

The Federal Funds Information for States, which tracks the effects of federal policy decisions on states, projects that Missouri’s share of the defense spending cuts could total just over $1 billion — the 10th-highest amount among states.

Separately, Missouri government could lose $125.8 million in federal funding in 2013 for dozens of programs, including aid to public schools that serve a large number of low-income students, the organization said. Funding for special education, early childhood programs and food subsidies for women and children also could see sizable cuts.

“It certainly has the potential to impact multiple programs in the state of Missouri, some of those which potentially could cause increased demand on state resources. There’s no doubt about that,” said Missouri Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia.

The exact impact remains unclear, especially if federal officials reach a compromise that includes a different mix of program cuts or tax hikes.

The uncertainty lingers as Missouri officials are trying to come up with a revenue projection that will be used by Gov. Jay Nixon and lawmakers to prepare a budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1.

Perhaps even more uncertain than the specific federal spending cuts is the potential impact that the federal tax changes will have on Missouri revenues. Because Missouri’s tax code is tied to the federal one in some areas, Missouri’s revenues could rise or fall depending on the federal actions.

For example, an increase in the federal income tax rate for individuals could have a negative effect on state revenues, because federal taxes can be deducted from the amount of income subject to Missouri taxes, state budget director Linda Luebbering said. If the federal government reduces its standard deduction for income taxes, that could have a positive effect on Missouri’s revenues, because a greater amount of income then would be subject to Missouri’s taxes, Luebbering said.

Luebbering said she isn’t banking on the federal tax code changes being either a boon or a bust for Missouri.

“It’s pretty much going to be a wash,” she said, unless the combination of federal tax hikes and spending cuts pushes the nation toward a recession, in which case tax revenues are likely to fall.

Schaefer said the amount of federally generated uncertainty facing state budget writers “is ridiculous.”

“It is extremely annoying and difficult to deal with when you’re trying to come up with a state budget that funds everything from health care to public education and everything in between,” Schaefer said. “A major partner of yours in that process is the federal government. Yet we’re coming up now on the end of the calendar year, and the federal government has absolutely no clue on where they’re going to be on some of these major issues.”

Join the national Jobs Not Wars campaign!

December 10th, 2012

Photobucket

Jobs-Not-Wars is a time-limited petition campaign to urge the president and congress to abandon austerity solutions to the deficit and instead to end the war, cut military spending, tax the super-rich, and redirect resources to restore and protect the social safety net, create jobs, deal with climate change and meet other urgent social needs.

The campaign will contribute to the mobilization of progressive forces for the budget battle that will take place in 2013. Thirty-five organizations reflecting a broad range of issues, concerns and activities launched the petition drive and invite and urge other organizations to join them.

Seventy (70) organizations from all corners of the progressive movement (including many members of the New Priorities Network) have launched a Jobs-Not-Wars petition campaign. If your organization is not among them, please endorse it at http://bit.ly/jobs-not-wars-endorsement.

Organizations are asked to endorse and publicize this campaign. Organizational endorsements should be registered at http://bit.ly/jobs-not-wars-endorsement.

Click here for a full list of endorsing organizations.

Individuals are urged to sign the petition and spread word about this to their social networks. Please sign the petition here.
The campaign will terminate around the time of the inauguration when signed petitions will be presented to the White House and Congress.

For additional information, contact info@jobs-not-wars.org.