Michael Crauderueff's Open Salon Blog

It's Tax Day: Do You Know Where Your Money Is?

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:04:25 -0400

Happy April 15h - Tax Day!

Like many Americans, I am concerned with my tax rate, and ultimately how much cash I'll need to pay Uncle Sam this year.

Today, there are supposed to be conservative "Tea Parties" around the country, expressing outrage over the tax policies and stimulus package of the Obama administration. At least, I think that's what they are protesting...

There is a lot of MSM clamor over these protests. I predict they'll get some news for a day or two and then any energy around them will simply dissipate.

These protests do push us to pay attention to where our tax dollars go. Personally, I am pleased with the stimulus funds, since they are used for a variety of important projects throughout the country in an attempt to create and save jobs.

While the media goes gaga over the tea parties' anger over TARP, little noise is made over the percentage of our taxes that go for military spending. Is there anyone out there that lets us know how much of our money goes for military expenditures?

Yes. Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a Quaker lobby in Washington, D.C., has determined that this year 43% of our monies pay for war.

How do they determine this figure, which differs from the 21% outlined by the president?

FCNL is transparent in explaining their math. They state: "When the president’s proposal says that only 21% of the budget goes to the military, it includes Social Security and Medicare in his definition of the budget. Because this analysis starts with a bigger pie (called the “unified budget”), the military appears as a relatively smaller slice, and social spending looks larger."

FCNL, on the other hand, uses the federal funds budget. "This is the overall budget, including discretionary, entitlement, and mandatory spending, supported by general revenues, including income taxes and estate and gift taxes. Because the FCNL analysis aims to illustrate how our income dollars are spent, it does not include trust funds, such as Social Security and Medicare, which have their own dedicated revenues."

They discuss which parts of the budget they apply to their math: "When FCNL talks about military spending, we talk about two slices – current military spending and spending due to past wars and military activity."

Overall, these are the items that are included in FCNL's calculations:

all spending for the Department of Defense (DOD).
the “050 function,” a categorizing number that OMB uses to identify defense-related spending, regardless of the agency that spends the funds. This category includes funding in many “independent agencies” as well some parts of the Department of Homeland Security, parts of the Coast Guard, and other bits and pieces sprinkled through the budget.
responsibility for the Defense Department retirees as a military expense, although it is not listed as such by OMB.
portions of the foreign aid budget that are, in fact, military programs. These include the foreign military assistance accounts and international military training.

One thing is for sure. Add it all up, and we're all paying through the nose for that 43% - which directly and indirectly ties us to the military-industrial complex.

Hmmm... maybe that's something we should actually be protesting.

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

Cross posted from: Reflecting Obama

Please Sign Global Zero's Nuclear Weapon Ban Petition

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:04:45 -0400

Dear Friends,

President Obama of the U.S. and his Russian counterpart, President Medvedev, met at the G20 Summit last week. The primary topic of the summit was our economic crisis, but Obama and Mdvedev have decided to meet again this summer to sign a treaty to reduce our two countries' stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Indeed, President Obama spoke at the NATO summit in Prague and lifted multi-lateral elimination of nuclear weapons as a goal for the entire world. This is excellent news!

As ordinary citizens, we must continue to let our leaders know that nuclear disarmament needs to be a priority for the 21st century. I have recently become aware of an organization whose purpose is to convince world leaders to completely ban nuclear weapons. It is called Global Zero, and Queen Noor of Jordan is the spokeswoman for this effort. In addition to presiding over the World Colleges Union and advising the U.N. on global peace-building efforts, she has been a leading voice in recent years for the elimination of land mines and cluster bombs, which have caused so much senseless killing of innocents around the world.

Through Global Zero, Queen Noor is now speaking out for ridding our world of nuclear weapons. I encourage you to visit Global Zero's website to see which world leaders have signed on in support of Global Zero's initiative. There you will see that these leaders, of all backgrounds and political affiliations, support the Global Zero's plan to reduce and eliminate U.S.-Russia and world-wide arsenals, as well as to manage the fuel cycle to prevent future development of nuclear weaponry.

Please add your voice to those from around the world by signing Global Zero's petition.

Please feel free to pass this information along to others in your organization, so they may take part in Global Zero's important initiative as well. We cannot afford not to take advantage of this growing momentum.

In Peace,
Mike

*******

Cross posted from Reflecting Obama

Obama and U.S. Policy at G-20 Summit

Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:04:30 -0400

I must admit it. Although I am a huge Barack Obama fan, I have been disappointed in his administration's first steps in the foreign policy realm.

I was very excited that Hillary Clinton was named Secretary of State, but she and her staff made an embarrassing translation error before the Russian foreign minister. Clinton was quick to show her embarrassment and laughed it off, and it may have been a small detail, but it showed momentary incompetence at a high diplomatic level.

I was pleased that Obama announced our withdrawal from Iraq. Yet many of the troops will simply be shifted to Afghanistan, which is where I have my greatest trouble. I have posted on this concern more than once. My greatest fear is that Afghanistan will simply become a quagmire, and that thousands more soldiers and civilians will die in the process. In addition, I am not convinced that an endgame has been developed, which means we could be there a long, long time.

Obama's experience at the G-20 summit gave me mixed hopes for our foreign policy future. First, it was announced that Obama would visit President Medvedev and discuss the joint reduction of both countries' nuclear arsenal. Nice step!

Then, word came out that late this summer, Obama will visit China, where I am sure the economic relationship will be discussed in depth. In a shifting economic world, this is a crucial direction to move in, particularly since China is the number one banker for the U.S.

French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized Obama for seeking too much economic stimulus. I rolled my eyes when Sarkozy threatened to walk out if world banking regulations were not changed to his liking - his manipulation quickly got under my skin.

I was more understanding of Chancellor Merkel's fears of excessive stimulus leading to high inflation, since German society has historically been ravaged by inflationary practices. Indeed, many would say that Hitler was a result of such policy.

Obama understood that European economic systems differ from America's. They have greater entitlements, which have protected their citizens from the effects of the crisis to a greater degree than ours has.

Therefore, Sarkozy and Merkel's calls for greater banking regulation made sense. In addition, Europeans felt that the U.S. should be more contrite, since this crisis began in America, they say. Plus, they didn't want the United States to dominate the conversation or the economy, as it has since World War II.

Obama pushed for more economic stimulus infusion on international fronts, yet he also agreed to greater regulatory oversight and controls. Somehow, the world's leaders reached the middle ground Obama desired with a multi-pronged agreement, and Sarkozy kept his little feet from walking out.

They agreed to $750 dollars from the International Monetary Fund to support seriously troubled economies and $250 billion to boost foreign trade. In addition they decided:

Bankers' pay and bonuses will be subject to stricter controls
A new Financial Stability Board will be set up to work with the IMF to ensure co-operation across borders and provide an early warning mechanism for the financial system
There will be greater regulation of hedge funds and credit ratings agencies
A common approach to cleaning up banks' toxic assets has been agreed
The world's poorest countries will receive extra aid.

Unfortunately, American pundits treated this entire process as a football season, focusing on who was "winning or losing." "Will Obama be pushed around?" they asked.

Give it a rest, folks! This process was not zero-sum, as Dubya always approached it. He swaggered around the world stage and refused to cooperate with other leaders. Obama, though, moved in another direction by modeling cooperation and positive engagement. He said he was there to listen - he couldn't force others to do something they didn't want to do.

Nonetheless, he stood firm in his directing America's leadership, and both our international reputation and influence improved. For the moment, though, we must work to find ways to solve this international crisis. And it didn't come from either the Europeans pointing fingers at the U.S. or from the U.S. throwing its weight around.

The irony is that, once he moves on to NATO discussions, Obama may be able to convinced more countries to join us in Afghanistan. That move would put more people in danger, increase civilian death and destruction, and potentially place everyone in the throes of another interminable Asian war. The positive reputation that Obama so carefully nourished at the G-20 would then find itself flushed down the toilet, of not only international opinion, but of history itself.

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

Cross posted from Reflecting Obama

Obama's Press Conference: Chuck Todd's Stupid Question

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:03:46 -0400

As Chris Matthews said, the reporters were "zombies" during the Obama news conference tonight.

And there was none "stupider" (my academic term) than Chuck Todd.

After a lot of lead up to Chuck's asking a question that had been solicited from "the public," all he could come up with was a question that compared the economic crisis to "war" and asked the American public for sacrifice.

Who asked this question? I was enraged with it.

Obama answered by stating that the American people, especially the military, have sacrificed an awful lot already.

It was a good answer.

If we're in this war, however, it's the economy against us! Americans suffer and sacrifice each and every day. How can we be asked to sacrifice more when we are the victims?!

Sacrifice? Give me a damn break. Get us out of this "war" and I will then make whatever "sacrifice" is requested.

Americans have lost their jobs, homes and health insurance, and Chuck is asking them to give up more?

I wonder what Chuck had in mind - something he'd be willing to give up? Where does he live? How much does he make? What kind of health insurance does he have to protect his family?

Give it up, Chuck. Once you make the sacrifice your talking about for this "war," then come back and see if you have the gall to ask that same question.

Cross posted from Reflecting Obama and Daily Kos

Is Anybody Listening to Our Children?

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:03:24 -0400

Friday night, The News Hour reported on the video project of Michael Steinman's AP English class at Village Academy High School in Pomona, California. Steinman sensed that the economic downturn was impacting the lives of his students. So, when he asked them to write about their experiences with the current recession, he was stunned by the emotions and fear that filled their essays.

Steinman asked them if they would agree to be filmed while sharing their experiences on camera. They did so, and when the project was completed, he posted the result, "Is Anybody Listening?," on YouTube:

The students' fears for their families and their sense of abandonment personalize the unemployment and foreclosures in a state with some of the worst statistics in the country. After the New Hour's presentation of Steinman's video, Mark Shields stated a truism: "Unemployment rates don't bleed; statistics don't cry."

The response to "Is Anybody Listening?" has been extraordinary. Not only have national newscasts covered the story, but President Obama also referred to the project in his address to the Hispanic Chamber of Congress.

As a follow up to his speech, the president met with the students of Village Academy this week during his trip to California, and he personally answered their questions concerning the economy.

One thing that is clear to me is that President Obama is listening because he has presented plans to change the way we operate in our country regarding energy, health care and education.

But are other politicians and pundits listening? Or, are they only looking at the quantitative effects of the recession? Or, are they proposing failed approaches, such as tax cuts for the wealthy, which have failed in the past?

Many of those same politicos have stated that, as a country, we must confront the recession as "war." I would beg them not to treat our country's children as "collateral damage" in this "war of economics." If that were to happen, our country would continue to suffer the following long-term negative effects on this generation of children:

school absenteeism
low graduation rates
high teen pregnancy
high unemployment
low taxes
shattered dreams

The recent Japanese recession is often referred to as a "lost decade". Our country's economy is also in danger of suffering long-term negative consequences. On top of years of negative economic growth, I fear that we will continue with "lost generations" of young people.

But, how long will the recession last? How long will it be until the parents of these children once again have the security of a job and comfort of their own home? I am confident that the president is on the right path to solving our economic woes, but many - Republicans and Democrats - oppose him.

I encourage all politicians to watch this video, especially those Republican governors who have refused stimulus funds for their states and those Democrats who are threatening to block the changes President Obama is proposing. If they were to watch it, they would understand that their political decisions are failing those who need our care most desperately: our children.

What is particularly sad is that such a video could have been filmed in any state, any congressional district, of our country. The Village Academy students' tears grip our hearts and remind us that we must never ignore the faces of those who are suffering through this economic crisis, wherever they may reside.

We must lobby our congressional representatives to support President Obama's budget to bring about the change he has promised. I, for one, do not want to experience more lost generations of children.

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

Cross posted from Reflecting Obama