Cuts unlikely to deliver promised budget savings

On paper, there's one thing to like about the ugly spending cuts due to kick in on Friday: $85 billion in budget savings at a time when Washington continues to bleed red ink. In reality, the so-called "sequester" is likely to yield less than half that much in the short term.

In part, that has to do with the complex way the government handles its money. But it also reflects the probability that the spending cuts will hurt the economy, which in turn will lower tax revenue and drive up the costs of social safety-net programs like unemployment insurance.

On top of that, federal agencies - especially the Pentagon - will have to pay penalties to suppliers if the sequester forced them to cancel contracts.

Add it up, and the actual savings could be a lot less than budget hawks envision. Read more >>

Hard Times Generation: Families living in cars

This bus is a retired unit that has been customized. 

Never has unemployment been so high for so long. And as a result, more than 16 million kids are living in poverty -- that's the most since 1962. It's worst where the construction industry collapsed. And one of those places is central Florida.

We went there 16 months ago to meet families who'd become homeless for the first time in their lives. So many were living day-to-day that school buses had to change their routes to pick up all the kids living in cheap motels. We called the story "Hard Times Generation."

Then eight months ago, we went back to see how things had changed. We found that some families are losing their grip on the motels and discovering that the homeless shelters are full. Where do they go then? Well, they keep up appearances by day and try to stay out of sight at night -- holding on to one another in a hidden America, a place you wouldn't notice unless you ran into the people that we met in the moments before dawn. Read more >>

The Bank for International Settlements

Image via Wikipedia

"...the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations."

Professor Carroll Quigley
Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966)
President Bill Clinton’s Georgetown Professor

The Middle Class Game Is Up: We're Heading to a Slave Labor Planet

Joe Bageant
Class solidarity was such a good idea. It really was. Obviously, most of the people who need solidarity are in the world's laboring classes. After all, the rich have more than enough solidarity already, as was recently demonstrated by their successful execution of the greatest global financial heist in history. Oh sure, we'll see some state sponsored mock show trials of a few of them - they always throw a few of their own out of the sleigh to the wolves during their escapes. The big heist was big news. Working Americans will be applying Preparation H to their keisters for a long time to come.

But the ultimate accomplishment of the already rich, the newly rich and the corporate rich, has been their global solidarity on the corporate/financial front. It's been a long run up to globalism, but the rich have great patience. As an American, all my life I've heard their chief mouthpiece, the president of the United States, beginning with Eisenhower, right on up through Kennedy, Reagan, Ford, Carter and Bush, and now Obama, sing the same song. Which goes moreover like this:

"Trade is the road to peace. Commerce and business know no national boundaries. They link nations together on productivity, creating jobs and peace across the world."

It sounded good at the time. Who would have thought that the people enjoying all this harmony and peace brought about through globalization would be enjoying it in a one big happy planetary work gulag? And if they are not doing so at the moment, they will be as soon global capitalism, under the watchful solidarity of the rich, bears full fruit.

Thanks to globalization, the American, Australian and European working classes are on their way to extinction, in terms of their traditional rights, and quality of life. Just like the workers being poisoned to death by circuit board toxins in Guiyu, China, their fates will be determined by global capital, either by default or by bitter struggle against it. We are not seeing much of the latter and are not likely to, until it is too late, which it may already be. After all, you cannot put up much of a struggle against global capital when you worship it a creed and are addicted to commodities too.

Oh yeah, I forgot. We're gonna "develop" and "stimulus" our way out of what is happening now - which is that we are fast becoming a slave labor workhouse planet. Now let me see here - hmmm - who is in charge of development? Oh yeah, the global financiers.

There is no way the world's working people can win in the long run, which is getting pretty damned short, or even survive, except by joining the worker struggles, of China, Asia and Africa and India. The idea that American workers are the same as the Asian and Latin American and African working people goes down hard in American gullets.

But for Americans, it does not go down at all. As a people, they'll never ever accept that fact, because they'll never know it for at least two reasons. (1) They are too over worked and undereducated to find out for themselves, and (2) American corporate media machinery will never let them hear of it. Americans are screwed, blued and tattooed.

And for that I blame Anderson Cooper. That's right, CNN's boyishly good looking, sincere faced, Emmy Award winning Anderson Cooper. Let me explain.

Between the corporate and financial elites and the slobbering masses stands the American Information Class - the reporters, talking heads, news anchors and pundits. In short, the entire gaggle of meat puppets and journalism hacks who have been cultivated and bred to be clueless by the university industry and others serving our corporate empire. In other words, serving global capitalism, and the national fictions it maintains, including that sizable piece of corporate feudal turf known as America. And that fiction is maintained through la danse des marionnettes de viande.

Not that these meat puppets are to be pitied for their cluelessness. Lordy no! When your employer is throwing celebrity and money at you faster than you can suck up the adulation or blow the bucks, why would anybody pause long enough to get a clue. I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd pull a Bill Clinton, buy me some Cuban cigars and tell the secretary, "Under the desk, baby! And crack open a bottle of of Jack Daniels for me on your way down."

It's certainly an easy gig. Move your lips like a reporter, wear a black shirt and a $600 bush jacket in disaster and war porn spots as Anderson Cooper does, and make at least 4 million a year base salary (plus a few hundred thousand more a year in speakers fees for canned talks. Cooper's agency will provide the list). Anderson's basic message is that the world is a horrific place filled with miserable inferior lives, ridden by want, African machete amputations and the like. The guy in front of the flat screen in Cedar Rapids, Iowa doesn't even have to stop and think to draw the corpo-state approved conclusion Anderson delivers. It's instantaneous into his deep reptilian brain: "Hatians fucked. Iraqis fucked. Greeks fucked. Me live in best place of all."

Attractive, serious and sincere looking, and presented as calm and rational against the backdrop of world terror and misery, Anderson is the perfect robotic mouthpiece, easy on the eyes, poised in the "Anderson Cooper suit," (actually, it's Ralph Lauren, the gay aesthetic goes a long way in his business). And most importantly, despite what he's seen first hand, he remains clueless about the world. Bullet proof to reality. Robot. Then again, that's a job qualification in the entertainment business. American news is first and foremost entertainment. If you happen to stumble onto some accidental truth, be assured there will be a correction in the name of Republican sponsored "fairness and balance in media."

Now this may be a stretch for some more open minded readers, but to my mind, anyone such as Cooper, who actually believes he is worth 4 million, and can put it in the bank without dying of shame, has no idea what's going on in this world - no matter how much he or she is paid to look like they do. In fact, anyone doing so for over $50,000 is in the same category. Which includes everyone you see on your television screen. It's all just self-absorbed celebrity preening. At the local level the rubes watch you on Keokuk Cable. At the national level, an indoctrinated people read Vanity Fair's writers going down on you, telling you what a brave and saintly journalist you are. And the internet dedicating hundreds of thousands of word to your choice in suits.

There is no way out of our culture manufacturing machinery. We're not in charge. It would be bigger than any one of us because it consists of all of us. It tells us all we are individuals supremely worthy of our silliest notions and desires, thereby making us soft and lazy, infantilized an incapable of truly effective solidarity as a people. Instead, we are fed Tea Party drivel. [I don't agree about the Tea Party being drivel; neither does Naomi Wolf -- Read why.] Even if CNN decided to send Coop to Guiyu to cover the blood poisoned worker women with the deformed children, the result would be the same. The guy in Cedar Rapids would see further proof that "Me live in best place in world. Got Cheetos." Or perhaps a nice Cotes du Rhône if you are a member of the commodity drugged educated faux middle class.

And I wanna say to them: "Not for much longer, buddy. Not much longer. And you can thank Anderson Cooper and a helluva lot of other people like him who do not have a clue, but nevertheless inhabit your very mind, for that."

The Business of America Is Kleptocracy

Tomgram: William Astore, The Business of America Is Kleptocracy

It’s hard to miss these days. The headlines tell the story -- repetitively. Everyone, it seems, is on the take. The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Goldman Sachs with securities fraud for creating and selling “a mortgage investment that was secretly intended to fail” -- and then betting against its own customers. JPMorgan Chase which, in a pinch in 2008, happily took taxpayer dough, just reported $3.3 billion in profits for the first quarter of 2010, a jump of 55% over the previous quarter. The bank set aside $9.3 billion in what’s called “compensation and benefits” for its employees in 2009.

Even when they lose, they win. According to James Kwak of the Baseline Scenario website, on a deal in which JPMorgan swallowed $880 million in losses, its bankers still managed to walk away with up to $10 million in compensation. As he wrote, “JPMorgan’s bankers did just fine, despite having placed a ticking time bomb on their own bank’s balance sheet.” Meanwhile, Robert Rubin, who helped create the world that led to the 2008 financial meltdown as Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, then took a top position at Citibank and made more than $100 million before it tanked on his watch. As economist Dean Baker puts it, “In the fall of 2008, when Citigroup was saved from bankruptcy with a taxpayer bailout, Rubin quietly slipped out the back door (with his money), resigning from his position at Citigroup.” Only recently Rubin made the headlines for offering the least apologetic (non-)apology imaginable for taking the American people to the cleaners.

And when it comes to taking, according to Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times, “more than 125 former Congressional aides and lawmakers are now working for financial firms as part of a multibillion-dollar effort to shape, and often scale back, federal regulatory power.” In other words, the regulators and their aides legislate the rules and then simply step through that infamous revolving door and pick up a handsome check on the other side. There are, in fact, at least 11,000 well-employed registered lobbyists in Washington today. A $3.4 billion “industry” in 2009, lobbying is definitely a field to get into, even in bad times, and according to the Christian Science Monitor, “when the cost of grass-roots efforts and of strategic advisers are all counted, total spending on influencing policy in Washington approaches $9.6 billion a year.”

As for the money flowing into politics from corporate deep pockets, 2008 not only saw the first billion-dollar presidential campaign, but at $1.7 billion, more than doubled the 2004 campaign’s costs, and no one expects 2012 to be anything but more expensive. All this is, of course, known to anyone who glances at the front page of a daily newspaper, but what exactly do we make of it all? What does it add up to? William Astore, historian and TomDispatch regular, has a suggestion, but before you start his piece, you might want to close your purse or button that back pocket with your wallet in it. Otherwise, they could be picked bare by the time you’re done. Tom

American Kleptocracy
How Fears of Socialism and Fascism Hide Naked Theft
By William J. Astore

Kleptocracy -- now, there’s a word I was taught to associate with corrupt and exploitative governments that steal ruthlessly and relentlessly from the people. It’s a word, in fact, that’s usually applied to flawed or failed governments in Africa, Latin America, or the nether regions of Asia. Such governments are typically led by autocratic strong men who shower themselves and their cronies with all the fruits of extracted wealth, whether stolen from the people or squeezed from their country’s natural resources. It’s not a word you’re likely to see associated with a mature republic like the United States led by disinterested public servants and regulated by more-or-less transparent principles and processes.

In fact, when Americans today wish to critique or condemn their government, the typical epithets used are “socialism” or “fascism.” When my conservative friends are upset, they send me emails with links to material about “ObamaCare” and the like. These generally warn of a future socialist takeover of the private realm by an intrusive, power-hungry government. When my progressive friends are upset, they send me emails with links pointing to an incipient fascist takeover of our public and private realms, led by that same intrusive, power-hungry government (and, I admit it, I’m hardly innocent when it comes to such “what if” scenarios).

What if, however, instead of looking at where our government might be headed, we took a closer look at where we are -- at the power-brokers who run or influence our government, at those who are profiting and prospering from it? These are, after all, the “winners” in our American world in terms of the power they wield and the wealth they acquire. And shouldn’t we be looking as well at those Americans who are losing -- their jobs, their money, their homes, their healthcare, their access to a better way of life -- and asking why?

If we were to take an honest look at America’s blasted landscape of “losers” and the far shinier, spiffier world of “winners,” we’d have to admit that it wasn’t signs of onrushing socialism or fascism that stood out, but of staggeringly self-aggrandizing greed and theft right in the here and now. We’d notice our public coffers being emptied to benefit major corporations and financial institutions working in close alliance with, and passing on remarkable sums of money to, the representatives of “the people.” We’d see, in a word, kleptocracy on a scale to dazzle. We would suddenly see an almost magical disappearing act being performed, largely without comment, right before our eyes.

Of Red Herrings and Missing Pallets of Money

Think of socialism and fascism as the red herrings of this moment or, if you’re an old time movie fan, as Hitchcockian MacGuffins -- in other words, riveting distractions. Conservatives and tea partiers fear invasive government regulation and excessive taxation, while railing against government takeovers -- even as corporate lobbyists write our public healthcare bills to favor private interests. Similarly, progressives rail against an emergent proto-fascist corps of private guns-for-hire, warrantless wiretapping, and the potential government-approved assassination of U.S. citizens, all sanctioned by a perpetual, and apparently open-ended, state of war.

Yet, if this is socialism, why are private health insurers the government’s go-to guys for healthcare coverage? If this is fascism, why haven’t the secret police rounded up tea partiers and progressive critics as well and sent them to the lager or the gulag?

Consider this: America is not now, nor has it often been, a hotbed of political radicalism. We have no substantial socialist or workers’ party. (Unless you’re deluded, please don’t count the corporate-friendly “Democrat” party here.) We have no substantial fascist party. (Unless you’re deluded, please don’t count the cartoonish “tea partiers” here; these predominantly white, graying, and fairly affluent Americans seem most worried that the jackbooted thugs will be coming for them.)

What drives America today is, in fact, business -- just as was true in the days of Calvin Coolidge. But it’s not the fair-minded “free enterprise” system touted in those freshly revised Texas guidelines for American history textbooks; rather, it’s a rigged system of crony capitalism that increasingly ends in what, if we were looking at some other country, we would recognize as an unabashed kleptocracy.

Recall, if you care to, those pallets stacked with hundreds of millions of dollars that the Bush administration sent to Iraq and which, Houdini-like, simply disappeared. Think of the ever-rising cost of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now in excess of a trillion dollars, and just whose pockets are full, thanks to them.

If you want to know the true state of our government and where it’s heading, follow the money (if you can) and remain vigilant: our kleptocratic Houdinis are hard at work, seeking to make yet more money vanish from your pockets -- and reappear in theirs.

From Each According to His Gullibility -- To Each According to His Greed

Never has the old adage my father used to repeat to me -- “the rich get richer and the poor poorer” -- seemed fresher or truer. If you want confirmation of just where we are today, for instance, consider this passage from a recent piece by Tony Judt:

In 2005, 21.2 percent of U.S. national income accrued to just 1 percent of earners. Contrast 1968, when the CEO of General Motors took home, in pay and benefits, about sixty-six times the amount paid to a typical GM worker. Today the CEO of Wal-Mart earns nine hundred times the wages of his average employee. Indeed, the wealth of the Wal-Mart founder’s family in 2005 was estimated at about the same ($90 billion) as that of the bottom 40 percent of the U.S. population: 120 million people.

Wealth concentration is only one aspect of our increasingly kleptocratic system. War profiteering by corporations (however well disguised as heartfelt support for our heroic warfighters) is another. Meanwhile, retired senior military officers typically line up to cash in on the kleptocratic equivalent of welfare, peddling their “expertise” in return for impressive corporate and Pentagon payouts that supplement their six-figure pensions. Even that putative champion of the Carhartt-wearing common folk, Sarah Palin, pocketed a cool $12 million last year without putting the slightest dent in her populist bona fides.

Based on such stories, now legion, perhaps we should rewrite George Orwell’s famous tagline from Animal Farm as: All animals are equal, but a few are so much more equal than others.

And who are those “more equal” citizens? Certainly, major corporations, which now enjoy a kind of political citizenship and the largesse of a federal government eager to rescue them from their financial mistakes, especially when they’re judged “too big to fail.” In raiding the U.S. Treasury, big banks and investment firms, shamelessly ready to jack up executive pay and bonuses even after accepting billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts, arguably outgun militarized multinationals in the conquest of the public realm and the extraction of our wealth for their benefit.

Such kleptocratic outfits are, of course, abetted by thousands of lobbyists and by politicians who thrive off corporate campaign contributions. Indeed, many of our more prominent public servants have proved expert at spinning through the revolving door into the private sector. Even ex-politicians who prefer to be seen as sympathetic to the little guy like former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt eagerly cash in.

I’m Shocked, Shocked, to Find Profiteering Going on Here

An old Roman maxim enjoins us to “let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” Within our kleptocracy, the prevailing attitude is an insouciant “We’ll get ours, though the heavens fall.” This mindset marks the decline of our polity. A spirit of shared sacrifice, dismissed as hopelessly naïve, has been replaced by a form of tribalized privatization in which insiders find ways to profit no matter what.

Is it any surprise then that, in seeking to export our form of government to Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve produced not two model democracies, but two emerging kleptocracies, fueled respectively by oil and opium?

When we confront corruption in Iraq or Afghanistan, are we not like the police chief in the classic movie Casablanca who is shocked, shocked to find gambling going on at Rick’s Café, even as he accepts his winnings?

Why then do we bother to feign shock when Iraqi and Afghan elites, a tiny minority, seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the majority?

Shouldn’t we be flattered? Imitation, after all, is the sincerest form of flattery. Isn’t it?

William J. Astore is a TomDispatch regular; he teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology and served in the Air Force for 20 years, retiring as a lieutenant colonel. He may be reached at wjastore@gmail.com.

Pew Poll: Public's Priorities for 2010: Economy, Jobs, Terrorism

Pew Research Center

As Barack Obama begins his second year in office, the public’s priorities for the president and Congress remain much as they were one year ago. Strengthening the nation’s economy and improving the job situation continue to top the list. And, in the wake of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, defending the country from future terrorist attacks also remains a top priority.

At the same time, the public has shifted the emphasis it assigns to two major policy issues: dealing with the nation’s energy problem and reducing the budget deficit. About half (49%) say that dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority, down from 60% a year ago. At the same time, there has been a modest rise in the percentage saying that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, from 53% to 60%.

Other policy priorities show little change from a year ago. For example, despite the ongoing debate over health care reform, about as many now call reducing health care costs a top priority (57%) as did so in early 2009 (59%). In fact, the percentage rating health care costs a top priority is lower now than it was in both 2008 (69%) and 2007 (68%).

In addition, the percentage placing top priority on providing health insurance to the uninsured stands at 49%. That is little changed from a year ago and off its high of 61% in January 2001. Notably, there is now a wider partisan gap in opinion about this issue than for any of the other 20 issues in the survey: fully 75% of Democrats rate providing health insurance to the uninsured as a top priority compared with just 26% of Republicans.

More than six-in-ten Americans say securing the Social Security system (66%) and securing the Medicare system (63%) should be top priorities for Obama and Congress. About as many (65%) say that improving the educational system should be a top policy priority. For all three items, public evaluations are not significantly different than they were one year ago.

In the wake of the financial crisis, the public does not place increased financial regulation among its top policy priorities. Fewer than half (45%) say stricter regulation of financial institutions should be a top priority for the president and Congress.

Budget Deficit and Energy

The priority given to reducing the budget deficit has risen seven points over the last year; in early 2009, 53% of the public called deficit reduction a top priority compared with 60% in the current survey. Both Republicans (+10 points) and Democrats (+8 points) have become more likely to say this is a top priority.

Emphasis on the budget deficit has increased since 2002, when it reached a low ebb following several years of budget surpluses (from 1998 to 2001 the question was worded “paying off the national debt”). Currently, the priority given to reducing the budget deficit is not significantly higher than it was in 2008 (58% top priority) or 1997 (60% top priority) and it lags slightly behind the high of 65% in December 1994.

In the past two years, there has been no difference between the priority Republicans and Democrats place on reducing the budget deficit. In the current survey, a single point separates Republicans (61% top priority) from Democrats (60% top priority). In 2009, partisans were equally close in their views. This is a dramatic change from much of the previous decade. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats expressed far more concern than Republicans over the deficit. The opposite was true in 1997, when Bill Clinton was in office. At that time significantly more Republicans than Democrats said reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority.

Six-in-ten independents say this should be a top priority, matching the views of Republicans and Democrats. Independents’ concern over the budget deficit has been stable over the past three years.

While concern over the budget deficit has gone up, the percentage giving priority to dealing with the nation’s energy problem has declined significantly – and this decline has taken place among Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. In the current survey, 49% rate energy a top priority, down 11 points from 60% in 2009. In the late 2000s, about six-in-ten consistently gave top priority to dealing with the nation’s energy problem. The current number is more in line with views from the early years of that decade, when the percentage that said dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority ranged from the low-to-mid 40s.

Global Warming and the Environment

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public’s list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.

Jobs, Economy and Terrorism Defense

Strengthening the nation’s economy, improving the job situation and defending the country from future terrorist attacks are far-and-away the top three policy priorities for the public. No other item comes within 14 points. Last year, both the economy and jobs edged ahead of defending the nation against terrorism as top priorities. In 2008, the economy and terrorism defense were virtually tied atop the priority list, while somewhat fewer people expressed concern over jobs. In 2006 and 2007, the public was more concerned about terrorism than it was about economic issues.

Improving the job situation has moved to the top of the list only recently. For much of the past decade, the percent of the public calling the job situation a top priority fluctuated in the 60s and trailed the economy. It spiked to 82% in 2009 and stands at 81% in the current survey.

There are no major differences in how Republicans, Democrats and independents prioritize strengthening the economy. Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans and independents to rate improving the job situation as a top priority. And Republicans are slightly more inclined than Democrats and independents to give top priority to defending the country from future terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, at least 75% of all groups give top priority to these issues, and partisan differences are generally modest when compared to differences over other policy priorities.

Dueling Partisan Agendas

Despite general partisan agreement on the importance of improving the job situation, strengthening the economy and protecting the country, large differences exist between Republicans and Democrats on other leading issues.

Republicans and Democrats take starkly different positions on the importance of providing health insurance to the uninsured; 75% of Democrats call this a top priority compared with 26% of Republicans. The 49-point gap in opinion is the largest for any of the 21 issues tested. Health insurance also was the most political divisive issue a year ago, though the gap was smaller at 38 points. In the current survey, 41% of independents call providing health insurance to the uninsured a top priority.

Democrats also are far more likely than Republicans to put a top priority on dealing with global warming, the problems of poor and needy people, protecting the environment, reducing health care costs and improving the educational system. In each case, Democrats are at least 20 points more likely than Republicans to consider each of these issues top priorities.

Republicans, by contrast, place more emphasis than do Democrats on strengthening the military, dealing with illegal immigration, and reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington. Here again, the gaps in opinion are relatively large, with Republicans being about 20 points more likely than Democrats to call each of these issues top priorities.

The gap between Republicans and Democrats on reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington has widened this year; 45% of Republicans say this should be a top priority compared with 27% of Democrats. In 2009, Republicans (37%) were somewhat more likely than Democrats (30%) to call reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests a top priority. And in 2007, the partisan balance was reversed with more Democrats (44%) calling this a top priority than Republicans (28%).

Reducing the budget deficit and reducing federal income taxes for the middle class are two points of partisan agreement. Almost the same percentage of Republicans and Democrats call these issues top priorities.

State of the Union Address

With Obama’s State of the Union address set for Jan. 27, 39% say that this year’s address will be more important than past years’ addresses, while 45% think it will be about as important as previous State of the Union addresses. Just 9% say it will be less important. At 39%, the public assigns greater importance to Obama’s address than they did to the last three State of the Union speeches given by former President George W. Bush. Nonetheless, fewer see Obama’s upcoming address as more important than said that about Bush’s State of the Union addresses in 2002 and 2003.

In January 2002, 54% said that Bush’s State of the Union was more important than in previous years. Opinion was similar a year later in January 2003. The percentage saying that Obama’s State of the Union address is more important than in previous years is much greater than it was for former President Clinton’s speeches in 1999 and 2000.

About half of Democrats (54%) say that Obama’s State of the Union address will be more important than speeches in past years. Republicans and independents are less inclined to take this view: 30% of Republicans and 32% of independents say it will be more important, while pluralities of both groups say it will be about as important as past addresses (49% of independents say this, as do 47% of Republicans).

Gallup Poll: Obama's Approval Among Whites Down to 39%

Jeffrey M. Jones
Support has declined much more among whites than among nonwhites

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Since the start of his presidency, U.S. President Barack Obama's approval rating has declined more among non-Hispanic whites than among nonwhites, and now, fewer than 4 in 10 whites approve of the job Obama is doing as president.

Obama last week fell below 50% approval in Gallup Daily tracking for the first time in his presidency, both in daily three-day rolling averages and in Gallup Daily tracking results aggregated weekly.

"The only subgroup showing a greater change than whites is Republicans, down 24 points since Obama's first full week in office."

In his first full week in office (Jan. 26-Feb. 1), an average of 66% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing, including 61% of non-Hispanic whites and 80% of nonwhites. In the most recent week, spanning Nov. 16-22 interviewing, his approval rating averaged 49% overall, 39% among whites, and 73% among nonwhites. Thus, since the beginning of his presidency, his support has dropped 22 points among whites, compared with a 7-point loss among nonwhites.

Given the 17-point drop in his approval rating among all U.S. adults, it follows that Obama's support has declined among all major demographic and attitudinal subgroups, with one notable exception -- blacks.

Blacks' support for Obama has averaged 93% during his time in office, and has been at or above 90% nearly every week during his presidency. Thus, part of the reason Obama's support among nonwhites has not dropped as much as his support among other groups is because of his consistent support from blacks. (With Hispanics' approval rating down five points, greater declines among Asians, Native Americans, and those of mixed races account for his total seven-point drop among nonwhites.)

The accompanying table shows how Obama's approval rating has changed by subgroup from his first full week in office to the most recent week. The only subgroup showing a greater change than whites is Republicans, down 24 points during this time. Independents' approval of Obama has declined nearly as much (down 18 points), whereas support among Democrats is down only 6 points.

Obama's strongest support comes from blacks, Democrats, and liberals -- all of whom give him approval ratings above 80%. He maintains solid support of more than 60% from nonwhites, Hispanics, and young adults.

A Closer Look at Race and Party

One reason Obama may have maintained support among blacks is their overwhelming affiliation with the Democratic Party. This is not a sufficient explanation, though, because Obama's approval rating has dropped among Democrats even as it has held steady among blacks.

In fact, it appears as though Obama's relatively small loss in support among Democrats has come exclusively from white Democrats. In late January/early February, Obama averaged 87% approval among white Democrats and 90% approval among nonwhite Democrats. Now, his approval rating among white Democrats is 76%, down 11 points, but is essentially the same (if not a little higher) at 92% among nonwhite Democrats.

Bottom Line

Obama won the Democratic nomination and the presidency with strong support from blacks and other racial minorities. In fact, according to exit polls and Gallup's final pre-election estimates, he won the election despite losing by double digits to John McCain among white voters.

Those patterns of support seem to have persisted into his presidency, with his support among whites starting out lower and dropping faster than his support among nonwhites. And though he maintains widespread loyalty among Democrats, the small loss in support he has seen from his fellow partisans seems to be exclusively from white Democrats.

It is important to note that this pattern is not unique to Obama. For example, Bill Clinton averaged 55% job approval during his presidency, including 52% among whites but a much higher 76% among nonwhites and 82% among blacks.

100 new militia groups since Obama elected

This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast Nov. 16, 2009.

Raw Story
Some 100 new militia groups have formed since the election of President Barack Obama, says the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In a re-run of the phenomenon seen when President Bill Clinton took office, gun-rights advocates, libertarians, survivalists and others are forming militias as a symbol of their resistance to what they see as an administration that threatens to restrict their right to bear arms and expand government control over the lives of private citizens.

"The truth is that these groups are popping up like mushrooms after a spring rain," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a social-justice group that has been tracking the rise of militias over the past year.

Potok's group put out a report earlier this year raising the alarm about the resurgence of armed militias. Since then, he told CNN, the group has counted about 100 new groups formed across the country.

"There really is this terrible fear mixed with fury about the idea that President Obama is somehow leading a socialistic takeover of America," Potok said.

A CNN news crew that visited the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia found a group that sees itself as a "deterrent" to any attempts to restrict gun use, and otherwise sees itself as a place to learn survival skills.

"Just the simple fact that we are out here and we are doing this, will give somebody pause, will make them think twice," said militia member Michael Lackomar, who added that he thought Obama "could be dangerous for the nation."

"Anytime we get a Democratic president in the office, people become concerned, including myself, and we get a resurgence out here," said one militia member, identified only as Brian.

But CNN's Jim Acosta points out that gun control "is unrealistic in many ways, because the Obama administration and the Democrats know that it would be political suicide for them to go after gun control measures. Even the attorney general has indicated he won't go back to the assault weapons ban enacted in the Clinton administration."

In its report from August, the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out that the most recent wave of militia groups differs slightly from the wave seen under President Clinton in one respect.

"A key difference this time is that the federal government — the entity that almost the entire radical right views as its primary enemy — is headed by a black man," the report states. "That, coupled with high levels of non-white immigration and a decline in the percentage of whites overall in America, has helped to racialize the Patriot movement, which in the past was not primarily motivated by race hate."

The Coming Battle

Image via Wikipedia

In 1899, M. W. WALBERT who wrote "The Coming Battle", knew what was coming, knew of the "evils lurking" within the global system of fractional reserve banking. His book is available for free online and well worth reading.

Michael Edwards writes, "This book details the attempts by the big European banking families to control the resources of this country by controlling the government via control of the Treasury. The First and Second Banks of the United States were their early attempts at forming a National Bank, privately owned, to oversee our money supply. President Andrew Jackson crushed the Second Bank of the United States in one of the most heroic stands ever taken by an American citizen. He is treated like a villain in modern history classes.

These international "banksters" finally succeeded in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. This bill, previously orchestrated by Nelson Aldrich, was soundly defeated under President Taft. In order to defeat Taft, the banking community backed Woodrow Wilson, and, to ensure his victory, encouraged ex- President Teddy Roosevelt to run again in order to siphon votes from the popular Taft. Wilson won by the nearly identical margin (42%) as Bill Clinton (43%), when Ross Perot took votes from George Bush. Wilson then slipped the Act through a bare quorum of Congress on December 23, 1913 after most of the opposition had gone home for the holidays.

The Coming Battle

Introduction:

In this volume the author endeavors to give an accurate history of the present National Bank System of currency, including an account of the first United States Bank,- both of which were borrowed from Great Britain by those statesmen who, like the father of Sir Robert Peel, believed that a national debt was the source of prosperity.

It is believed that the facts adduced in the following pages will be productive of some good, in pointing out the immense evils lurking in that system of banking, a system which has produced panics at will, and which is the active abettor of the stock gamblers, railroad wreckers, and those industrial tyrants of modern times, the enormously overcapitalized and oppressive trusts.

It is sought to point out the great dangers of delegating purely government powers to these greedy monopolists, by which they are enabled to organize a money trust, far more tyrannical than all the other combinations now in existence; and by which they absolutely defy the authority that endowed them with corporate life.

The issue between these banks and the people will be joined in the near future, and the greatest struggle the world ever witnessed will take place between the usurping banks on the one hand and the people on the other.

In the nature of things, unjustly acquired power of man over man generally rises to such heights of arrogance, as to eventually create a public opinion that will grind tyranny of every form to atoms, hence, The Coming Battle that will surely take place in the near future and the victory that will be won by justice will be the noblest events in American history. -- M. W. WALBERT

Begin reading Chapter 1 here.