I want to thank our co-chairs Mark and Jeff; to my dear friend, the guy who always has my back, Vice President Biden.  (Applause.)  All the members of Congress –- Joe deserves a hand –- all the members of Congress and my Cabinet who are here today; all the distinguished guests who’ve traveled a long way to be part of this.  I’m not going to be as funny as Eric — (laughter) — but I’m grateful that he shared his message with us.  Michelle and I feel truly blessed to be here.

This is my third year coming to this prayer breakfast as President.  As Jeff mentioned, before that, I came as senator.  I have to say, it’s easier coming as President.  (Laughter.)  I don’t have to get here quite as early.  But it’s always been an opportunity that I’ve cherished.  And it’s a chance to step back for a moment, for us to come together as brothers and sisters and seek God’s face together.  At a time when it’s easy to lose ourselves in the rush and clamor of our own lives, or get caught up in the noise and rancor that too often passes as politics today, these moments of prayer slow us down.  They humble us.  They remind us that no matter how much responsibility we have, how fancy our titles, how much power we think we hold, we are imperfect vessels.  We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to Him.  Avoiding phony religiosity, listening to Him.

This is especially important right now, when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.  Our economy is making progress as we recover from the worst crisis in three generations, but far too many families are still struggling to find work or make the mortgage, pay for college, or, in some cases, even buy food.  Our men and women in uniform have made us safer and more secure, and we were eternally grateful to them, but war and suffering and hardship still remain in too many corners of the globe.  And a lot of those men and women who we celebrate on Veterans Day and Memorial Day come back and find that, when it comes to finding a job or getting the kind of care that they need, we’re not always there the way we need to be.

It’s absolutely true that meeting these challenges requires sound decision-making, requires smart policies.  We know that part of living in a pluralistic society means that our personal religious beliefs alone can’t dictate our response to every challenge we face.

But in my moments of prayer, I’m reminded that faith and values play an enormous role in motivating us to solve some of our most urgent problems, in keeping us going when we suffer setbacks, and opening our minds and our hearts to the needs of others.

We can’t leave our values at the door.  If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union.  Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel — the majority of great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis, or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action — sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.

This is no different today for millions of Americans, and it’s certainly not for me.

I wake up each morning and I say a brief prayer, and I spend a little time in scripture and devotion.  And from time to time, friends of mine, some of who are here today, friends like Joel Hunter or T.D. Jakes, will come by the Oval Office or they’ll call on the phone or they’ll send me a email, and we’ll pray together, and they’ll pray for me and my family, and for our country.

But I don’t stop there.  I’d be remiss if I stopped there; if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends.  So instead, I must try — imperfectly, but I must try — to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.

And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody.  But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”  I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs -– from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato.

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone.  And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”  It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

When I talk about giving every American a fair shot at opportunity, it’s because I believe that when a young person can afford a college education, or someone who’s been unemployed suddenly has a chance to retrain for a job and regain that sense of dignity and pride, and contributing to the community as well as supporting their families — that helps us all prosper.

It means maybe that research lab on the cusp of a lifesaving discovery, or the company looking for skilled workers is going to do a little bit better, and we’ll all do better as a consequence.  It makes economic sense.  But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper; that as a country, we rise and fall together.  I’m not an island.  I’m not alone in my success.  I succeed because others succeed with me.

And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure.  It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these –- for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.

To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”  And for others, it may reflect the Jewish belief that the highest form of charity is to do our part to help others stand on their own.

Treating others as you want to be treated.  Requiring much from those who have been given so much.  Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper.  Caring for the poor and those in need.  These values are old.  They can be found in many denominations and many faiths, among many believers and among many non-believers.  And they are values that have always made this country great — when we live up to them; when we don’t just give lip service to them; when we don’t just talk about them one day a year.  And they’re the ones that have defined my own faith journey.

And today, with as many challenges as we face, these are the values I believe we’re going to have to return to in the hopes that God will buttress our efforts.

Now, we can earnestly seek to see these values lived out in our politics and our policies, and we can earnestly disagree on the best way to achieve these values.  In the words of C.S. Lewis, “Christianity has not, and does not profess to have a detailed political program.  It is meant for all men at all times, and the particular program which suited one place or time would not suit another.”

Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical.  It is God who is infallible, not us.  Michelle reminds me of this often.  (Laughter.)  So instead, it is our hope that people of goodwill can pursue their values and common ground and the common good as best they know how, with respect for each other.  And I have to say that sometimes we talk about respect, but we don’t act with respect towards each other during the course of these debates.

But each and every day, for many in this room, the biblical injunctions are not just words, they are also deeds.  Every single day, in different ways, so many of you are living out your faith in service to others.

Just last month, it was inspiring to see thousands of young Christians filling the Georgia Dome at the Passion Conference, to worship the God who sets the captives free and work to end modern slavery.  Since we’ve expanded and strengthened the White House faith-based initiative, we’ve partnered with Catholic Charities to help Americans who are struggling with poverty; worked with organizations like World Vision and American Jewish World Service and Islamic Relief to bring hope to those suffering around the world.

Colleges across the country have answered our Interfaith Campus Challenge, and students are joined together across religious lines in service to others.  From promoting responsible fatherhood to strengthening adoption, from helping people find jobs to serving our veterans, we’re linking arms with faith-based groups all across the country.

I think we all understand that these values cannot truly find voice in our politics and our policies unless they find a place in our hearts.  The Bible teaches us to “be doers of the word and not merely hearers.”  We’re required to have a living, breathing, active faith in our own lives.  And each of us is called on to give something of ourselves for the betterment of others — and to live the truth of our faith not just with words, but with deeds.

So even as we join the great debates of our age — how we best put people back to work, how we ensure opportunity for every child, the role of government in protecting this extraordinary planet that God has made for us, how we lessen the occasions of war — even as we debate these great issues, we must be reminded of the difference that we can make each day in our small interactions, in our personal lives.

As a loving husband, or a supportive parent, or a good neighbor, or a helpful colleague — in each of these roles, we help bring His kingdom to Earth.  And as important as government policy may be in shaping our world, we are reminded that it’s the cumulative acts of kindness and courage and charity and love, it’s the respect we show each other and the generosity that we share with each other that in our everyday lives will somehow sustain us during these challenging times.  John tells us that, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?  Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

Mark read a letter from Billy Graham, and it took me back to one of the great honors of my life, which was visiting Reverend Graham at his mountaintop retreat in North Carolina, when I was on vacation with my family at a hotel not far away.

And I can still remember winding up the path up a mountain to his home.  Ninety-one years old at the time, facing various health challenges, he welcomed me as he would welcome a family member or a close friend.  This man who had prayed great prayers that inspired a nation, this man who seemed larger than life, greeted me and was as kind and as gentle as could be.

And we had a wonderful conversation.  Before I left, Reverend Graham started praying for me, as he had prayed for so many Presidents before me.  And when he finished praying, I felt the urge to pray for him.  I didn’t really know what to say.  What do you pray for when it comes to the man who has prayed for so many?  But like that verse in Romans, the Holy Spirit interceded when I didn’t know quite what to say.

And so I prayed — briefly, but I prayed from the heart.  I don’t have the intellectual capacity or the lung capacity of some of my great preacher friends here that have prayed for a long time.  (Laughter.)  But I prayed.  And we ended with an embrace and a warm goodbye.

And I thought about that moment all the way down the mountain, and I’ve thought about it in the many days since.  Because I thought about my own spiritual journey –- growing up in a household that wasn’t particularly religious; going through my own period of doubt and confusion; finding Christ when I wasn’t even looking for him so many years ago; possessing so many shortcomings that have been overcome by the simple grace of God.  And the fact that I would ever be on top of a mountain, saying a prayer for Billy Graham –- a man whose faith had changed the world and that had sustained him through triumphs and tragedies, and movements and milestones –- that simple fact humbled me to my core.

I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment — asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong.  I know that He will guide us.  He always has, and He always will.  And I pray his richest blessings on each of you in the days ahead.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

Dear Governor Herbert,

I read your State of the Union address and thought it was well done. Utah is truly a great place to live and do business, and also for golf, a sport we both enjoy. With the USGA Public Links Championship at Soldier Hollow this year perhaps we can find some time to golf together as part of the occasion.

Your speech was almost entirely positive and I was in agreement almost one hundred percent — except in one glaring way—your expressed antagonism to the federal government. I suppose that was red meat for the GOP, a part of a ritual of being elected in Utah.  It’s the safe, almost required thing to do. It assures an applause line.

However, it is my contention that it is unhealthy for us to continually demean our national government and promote disrespect for it and not give credit where credit is due.

You say government doesn’t create jobs, and that all the credit for a good economy in Utah rests snugly in the trophy case of free enterprise, but that is so obviously and patently untrue that it surprises me that Republican politicians continue to repeat that nonsense without fear of contradiction. I would think that just for the sake of a clear conscience that an occasional Republican would have the personal integrity to refrain from making that absurd statement. Is it part of some secret anti-government Republican oath that requires repeating?

As CEO of the Great State of Utah how many jobs are you supervising? Are these not jobs? Do these people not pay taxes? Are they not providing goods and services? Is there any other CEO in the state supervising more jobs than you? The jobs in Utah’s Higher Education System are some of the most important and esteemed jobs in the state, and surely those government jobs lead to the creation of thousands of free enterprise jobs. Our public school teachers all across this state are preparing our children for college and future employment, not to mention thousands of other state and local employees keeping our important government agencies operating smoothly, services that are absolutely necessary in order for free enterprise to thrive and grow. How are all these government jobs not contributing to a vibrant economy? How would free enterprise survive without them?

How many free enterprise jobs did government create this year with the expansion of I-15 in Utah County? How much did that government project contribute to our economic prosperity?

I drive by Camp Williams quite often and I have been amazed at the number of employee cars parked at the site. One would think there was a BYU or Utah football game being played there. Outside of the LDS City Creek Project the federal government’s National Security Agency project at Camp Williams is probably the originating source of more private enterprise jobs than any other single source this past year. The future high paid government employment figures at NSA will remain high for years to come and will surely enable future governors to take credit for job creation while demeaning the feds for being in the way.

I wonder how our new job report would look without all the jobs made possible this past year by the feds—jobs that were 100% opposed by our Utah congressional delegation. Yes, even our token Democrat has to vote like a Republican to stay in office.

Perhaps a tip of the hat to the feds for all those jobs would have been appropriate instead of a snarly stay out of the way attitude.

Then there was the help the feds sent us so that we could keep our balance sheet in A1 shape and still provide funds for teachers and other state employees who otherwise would have been given pink slips. Perhaps a tip of the hat to the feds would have been appropriate.

Then there was your zeal for clean air, and I personally appreciate your expressed commitment to that goal, but again a tip of the hat to the feds would have been nice. Without them we would be in a dark cloud every day, and our stiff-necked opposition to their regulations ought to be an embarrassment, and our brazen corporate polluters remain criticism free in your remarks.

What single issue unifies Utahns more than any other? When jobs at Hill Air Force Base are at risk! Suddenly everyone comes together! And why?  Because government jobs are our bread and butter. The feds are damned if they cut the budget and damned if they don’t.

And, yes, your congratulatory remarks about our armed forces were appropriate, and that was another place where you could have given a tip of the hat to the feds, and you could have even gone the extra mile and thanked the feds for taking out Osama bin Laden for helping to clear the way for our young men to come home.

Oh, yes, it would be nice if we could truly put aside politics and be forever honest with one another and appreciative of one another, for we are all in this together. Remember, we are part of the United States of America, that great country that some refer to disrespectfully when it suits their purpose, as ‘The Feds,’ as if the feds are not part of the United States of America.

And yes, I am grateful that we have not yet declared our intent to secede.

Best wishes for continued success. I admire your lifetime of unselfish public service and think you are doing a good job, and I realize, sadly, that the party base must have some red meat from time to time and there are certain rituals to which a politician must pay homage. I don’t hold that against you.

Respectfully,

Joe Watts

A Strong Economy Fosters Healthy Communities and Prosperous Families

Lt. Governor and Mrs. Bell; President Waddoups; Speaker Lockhart; members of the Utah Legislature; members of my Cabinet; Justices of the Utah Supreme Court; Utah’s First Lady, my beautiful wife, Jeanette; and my fellow Utahns:

It is an honor and a privilege to address you this evening. As we assemble in this beautiful and historic chamber, let us take time to acknowledge those who protect our freedoms and keep our homeland safe. This past August, I traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to meet with some of our deployed Utah servicemen and women. It was a humbling experience. Our liberty – the free exercise of our God-given rights – is preserved by the men and women of our Armed Forces who willingly put themselves in harm’s way for God, family and country. This past year, in the span of just over a month, we lost six Utah soldiers, sailors and marines in Afghanistan. These brave servicemen made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of this nation and the ideals which make it great. We also acknowledge the loss of Agent Jared Francom, tragically killed in the Ogden shooting incident just a few short weeks ago.

Tonight, we have as honored guests in the gallery, family members of those we have lost at home and abroad. As they stand, please join with me to acknowledge them, and thank them for their loved one’s service and sacrifice.

As Governor of the great State of Utah, I am pleased to report that the state of our State is strong – and growing stronger. I want you to know I am very optimistic about Utah’s future. While our national economy continues to struggle, the economy in Utah surges ahead. Our unemployment rate continues to steadily fall. We currently have the second-fastest rate of job creation in the nation. Every sector in our economy is growing again, except one. And I’m proud to say the sector that is not growing is state government.

Utah’s success is not only consistently recognized, it is increasingly praised by those outside our borders. Now, some people have said I talk about our rankings a little too much – and it may be a fair observation. But I hope you are as proud of Utah as I am. We have a great state, we have a great message and we are making great progress. I believe Utah’s Governor should be the State’s chief advocate and champion, and I am simply not going to stop touting Utah’s accomplishments.

I should point out that our accolades have less to do with “me” and everything to do with “we.” Indeed, they reflect the efforts of individuals here in this room and many others across the state. Some of our recent recognitions include being named the state with the best economic outlook and the most dynamic economy. And, for the second consecutive year, Utah has been named the best state for business by Forbes Magazine. These rankings speak to Utah’s economic strength. But this is not just about rankings; it is about economic recovery for the people of Utah. My focus is on growing the economy because I know a strong economy fosters healthy communities and prosperous families.

While recognition is nice, the underlying reasons for that recognition are what are most important. Forbes wrote: “No state can match the consistent performance of Utah. It is the only state that ranks among the top 15 states in each of the six main categories [on which] we rate the states.” Those six categories are economic climate, growth prospects, labor supply, business costs, regulatory environment and quality of life. Tonight, I will use the criteria of those economic experts to highlight Utah’s progress and our prospects. Let’s start with our current economic climate. In 2011, we added more than 36,000 jobs to our economy. Our unemployment rate has dropped from 7.5% to 6.0% today – a full 2.5% lower than the national average. Gross domestic product, personal income and business income continue to steadily rise. Utah still leads the nation in export growth. You might remember in last year’s State of the State, I challenged our business community to further increase our export growth – and they have responded with vigor. In 2011, we saw a 41% increase in exports, breaking records we set in 2009 and 2010.

Utah’s economic climate is healthy, but we must not relent in our efforts to improve. I recognize there are many people who are still hurting financially. I have met with many of you throughout the state. I want you to know, I am committed to working for all of you. There are, in fact, approximately 80,000 Utahns who are looking for work, and I will not rest – and I know that you in the Legislature will not rest – until every Utahn who wants a job can find a job.

My goal is to accelerate private sector job creation of 100,000 jobs in 1,000 days (www.utahjobsplan.com). I emphasize private sector, because it is the private sector – not government – that creates wealth, creates jobs and creates opportunities for Utah’s citizens. Government must create an environment where free enterprise can succeed and then get out of the way.

Let me give just one of many examples where business is thriving in Utah’s fertile field. Started 25 years ago in a garage, Lifetime Products now employs more than 1,300 people in Utah and was recently courted by many other domestic and international locations for a planned expansion. Ultimately, Lifetime determined that its home state of Utah was the best place to invest. This story is repeating itself hundreds of times across our state.

Utah’s steady job growth reaches far beyond the Wasatch Front. Last year, I visited 28 of Utah’s 29 counties – and don’t worry, Daggett County, I am headed your way soon! In my travels, I have been amazed at the creativity and ingenuity of our rural employers. For example, in the tiny town of Grouse Creek, I met Heather Warr, who is here with her family tonight. To supplement her family’s ranching income, Heather started an e-commerce business, selling western apparel and footwear online. Her company, standupranchers.com, now employs seven people – making Heather a major employer in a community of 100 residents. From fiber optic communications providers, to hay exporters, to composite manufacturers, to online retailers – people are finding unique opportunities and advantages in rural Utah. And Heather Warr exemplifies the innovation and initiative inherent in Utah’s people.

The second criterion is growth prospects. Utah is a fertile field in which to grow a new company, or to relocate or expand an existing company. This past September, I went to New York to meet with executives from L-3 Communications – a $16 billion high-technology company with locations in 30 states and 20 countries. The purpose of my visit was to convince them to expand their Utah operations. And, I’ve got to admit, it wasn’t much of a “hard sell.” L-3 told me they love doing business in Utah. In fact, their Salt Lake City unit is one of their most successful and fastest-growing divisions. Not by coincidence, last month, L-3 announced it would be concentrating its growth here in Utah, building new office space and hiring hundreds of new employees. In the past year, expansions and new jobs have been announced not only by L-3, but by other international companies like eBay, Boeing, Morgan Stanley, IM Flash, and Pepperidge Farms, just to name a few.

I’m delighted to say something that not many Governors can say: Our state is growing now, and as we look to the horizon, Utah’s growth prospects are truly bright. Anyone who understands the free market knows that there are few things that hinder growth more than onerous taxation. As I did last year, and the year before that, in order to sustain our successful economic recovery, I say to you today and to the people of Utah – no new taxes!

And, in fact, I want to go one step further. Due to our wise trust fund management – and our nation-leading record of helping people move from unemployment back into the workforce – Utah is in a position to reduce our unemployment insurance tax rates. I call upon you, the Legislature, to support Senate Bill 129, sponsored by Senator Curt Bramble and Representative Jeremy Peterson, to provide this timely tax cut to all of Utah’s 85,000 employers, and allow them to create more jobs and hire more people.

The third criterion is labor supply, or, more aptly put, a skilled and educated workforce. I have said before – Utah is the best state for business because we have the best people for business. Utah has natural advantages with our young, fast-growing, tech-savvy, highly-educated, bilingual and industrious workforce. Utah is also a proud right-to-work state, and we are going to keep it that way. In today’s global marketplace, educating and graduating job-ready students is an economic imperative.

With the help of Representative Mel Brown and Senator Lyle Hillyard, we have expanded early intervention programs for our at-risk students, programs empirically proven to help reach our critical goal of reading proficiency by the end of the third grade. We will soon introduce additional online college courses, providing another avenue for high school students to earn college credit before graduation. We are also expanding utahfutures.org, which provides students with online career counseling to ensure the education they receive today will get them a job tomorrow. My message to students is simple: “If you want a good job, get a good education.” Now, it is up to us – assembled here – to make sure they can!

My top legislative priority is to fund the growth and continued innovation in our education system. My budget calls for maintaining base funding and for $111 million in NEW money for our public schools, including a modest, but well-deserved, pay increase for our teachers. Post-secondary education is also increasingly becoming a necessity in today’s global marketplace, so I have set a goal that 66% of Utah adults will have a degree or professional certification by the year 2020. This is an ambitious goal, but an essential one – remember 66 by 2020! And working together, we will reach it!

The fourth criterion the economic experts considered is the cost of doing business, particularly the cost of energy. Because Utah’s electricity costs are an impressive 31 percent below the national average, we have a major competitive advantage over other states. In order to protect that advantage for the future, we must secure Utah’s supply of stable, low-cost energy, and we must do it now.

With Utah’s first 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan that I put in place last year, we are creating the framework to secure our energy independence. My administration is aggressively promoting responsible energy development in Utah. We have demonstrated, in the Uintah Basin and elsewhere, that developing our energy resources and being good stewrds of the environment are not mutually exclusive propositions. One of the major challenges for energy development is that many of Utah’s natural resources must be extracted from federally-managed public lands. While we have made progress in persuading the federal government to site and permit oil and gas wells, there remain great challenges ahead. We cannot – and we will not – let the federal government halt responsible energy development in Utah.

And because we owe it to our children and their children, we must also innovate safer and cleaner ways to extract natural resources and utilize energy. As Governor, I am calling on the private sector and our major universities to lead out! Our goal is to create an “energy research triangle” that launches Utah into a new era of energy technology innovation! I firmly believe that all solutions and all opportunities must be based upon principles of free markets and free enterprise.

Therefore, we will partner with industry and caring citizens to tackle one of the greatest challenges we have with energy development in our state – the issue of air quality. We cannot control the weather, but neither can we ignore the human and economic consequences of poor air quality. I am taking the lead on this issue by building partnerships with Utah industries and households to set achievable and vital air quality goals. I will be announcing the details of my plan in the coming weeks. I can promise you this: The solutions to our unique Utah challenges with air quality will come from Utah. Together, we can all do something to improve Utah’s air.

The fifth category is state regulatory environment. Before they invest precious capital, entrepreneurs want a stable and predictable environment, and a responsible government. Utah boasts a long history of fiscally prudent governance. In contrast to the federal government, Utah has made the tough decisions to keep our fiscal house in order. We balance our budget and we save taxpayers millions every year by protecting our AAA credit rating. In addition, my budget proposal eliminates our remaining structural imbalance and calls for no additional borrowing. Those decisions provide the stable and steady environment the marketplace seeks and needs in order to thrive.

In my travels around the state, one of the most common concerns business owners share with me is the cost, complexity and uncertainty created by excessive government regulation. In last year’s State of the State address, you will remember I ordered a review of all of Utah’s business rules and regulations. It resulted in 368 proposed rule changes to improve Utah’s already laudable regulatory environment – and we will work with you, the Legislature, to modify or repeal those rules that no longer serve a compelling public interest. Now, frankly, the vast majority of regulations causing the most harm to Utah business come from Washington, D.C. – part of the regulatory colossus created by an overreaching, out-of-control, and out-of-touch federal government. I am firmly resolved to work with our Congressional delegation and my fellow Governors to tell the Washington bureaucrats to get out of the way of Utah’s economic recovery, and stop the senseless flow of onerous and misguided regulation from our nation’s capitol.

The last category by which Forbes judged Utah the best state for business is our quality of life. We are truly blessed to live in the Beehive State. Not only are we surrounded by unsurpassed natural beauty, we also enjoy the beauty of strong communities, strong families, and a culture of caring and service. Two months ago, a devastating wind storm tore through Davis and Weber counties leaving tons of debris and millions of dollars of damage in its wake. With a second storm threatening, local leaders were concerned debris could become airborne and cause even further damage. Tens of thousands of citizens sprang into action and fanned out across neighborhoods to assist in clean-up efforts. Volunteer crews accomplished in days what would have taken city and county crews months to do. It was a stunning and moving example of the spirit of volunteerism and love of neighbor which permeates Utah, and which contributes so greatly to Utah’s outstanding quality of life.

It is also an impressive example of another Utah trait – our self-sufficiency. In Utah, we do not expect others to solve our problems. As a sovereign state, we not only have an obligation to find Utah solutions to Utah problems, we have a right to do so. We will not capitulate to a federal government that refuses to be constrained by its proper and Constitutionally-limited role.

Whether fighting the federal government on ownership and control of our RS 2477 roads, restoring our mule deer population, defending multiple use of our public lands, ending the budget-busting drain of Medicaid, or challenging the constitutionality of mandatory nationalized healthcare in the Supreme Court, be assured that this Governor is firmly resolved to fortify our state as a bulwark against federal overreach. Last October, in a one-room schoolhouse in Grouse Creek, Utah, I met a young boy named Heston. He told me that he had been taking piano lessons for one year and two months, and that he was going to play something for me after we had lunch.

I asked Heston if he was named after Charlton Heston, the actor.

One of his classmates helpfully piped up and said, “No, he was named after the tractor.”

After lunch, Heston made his way to the piano. Frankly, I was expecting a simple diddy like “Chopsticks.” Instead, I got Beethoven-dynamic and intricate music emanating from an old upright piano in a town two hours from the nearest stop light.

After young Heston finished his piece, I asked one of his classmates, “Are you sure he’s only been playing for one year and two months?”

She assured me that was the case, adding, “He’s what they call a prodigy.”

And, by the way, this young prodigy will be playing for us in the Rotunda after my address.

Utah is a state full of gems like Heston. Gems that, when polished and made to sparkle through hard work and the desire to succeed, add brilliance to our landscape. In every corner of our state, Utah’s source of richness and strength is its people. I am optimistic about Utah’s future because I believe in Utah’s people. Utah’s best days still lie ahead because Utahns are willing to work hard to be the architects of our own destiny. Utah is leading the way and setting the example for the rest of the nation to follow. In the darkest days of the economic crisis, Utah stood true to the founding principles of our great nation, and we now see the fruits of our determination.

I have spoken tonight of some of my goals and plans for the state. Having these goals and plans is important, but frankly writing things down on paper is the easy part. Making it work – the implementation and the execution – is what counts. Hard work demands dedication, determination, and discipline. Everything I do as Governor is examined through the lens of whether it helps grow the economy and create opportunity for Utah’s citizens.

That continues to be my commitment to you. I will keep my eye on the ball, and I will fight for sound and correct principles of fiscal prudence, limited government, and individual liberty, coupled with personal responsibility. Whether preparing a household budget or a state budget, whether you are the Governor or a small business owner – and I have been both – the principles are the same. By adhering to sound principles now, we will build a bright future for tomorrow. Not only will Utah be the best state for business, we will continue to be a place where communities and families will thrive and prosper.

The State of our State is strong. I am committed to making it stronger. I am honored to serve as your Governor.

May God continue to bless you, our great nation, and the Great State of Utah.

As Prepared for Delivery –

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought — and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share — the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can’t bring back every job that’s left our shores. But right now, it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.

So let’s change it. First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.

Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

My message is simple. It’s time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.

We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal — ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration — and it’s made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you — America will always win.

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that — openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

That’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers — places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It’s time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning — the first time that’s happened in a generation.

But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies — just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury — it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn’t make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.

The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. It means we should support everyone who’s willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.

After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.

Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don’t gut these investments in our budget. Don’t let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right — eight years. Not only that — last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy — a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock — reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.

What’s true for natural gas is true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.

When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan, who said, “I’m proud to be working in the industry of the future.”

Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.

We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well tonight, I will. I’m directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history — with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.

Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

There’s never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren’t the only ones hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who’ve seen their home values decline. And while Government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them. That’s why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don’t destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.

There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense. We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill — because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.

I’m confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.

And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system’s core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.

So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail — because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again. And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.
A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.

When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference — like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.

I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt; energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now: Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?

The greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?

I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad — and it seems to get worse every year.

Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa — an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything — even routine business — passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

Finally, none of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas.

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.

On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about Government spending have supported federally-financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.

The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective Government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can’t achieve.

That is the lesson we’ve learned from our actions abroad over the last few years.

Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America.

From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.

As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana’a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qadhafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators — a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied.

How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings – men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.

And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs — and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.

That’s why, working with our military leaders, I have proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats.

Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. As they come home, we must serve them as well as they served us. That includes giving them the care and benefits they have earned — which is why we’ve increased annual VA spending every year I’ve been President. And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our Nation.

With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we are providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I’m proposing a Veterans Job Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her.

Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates – a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job — the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other – because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s someone behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

This was his acceptance speech at the nominating convention:

Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson Accepting Justice Party Nomination for Candidacy for President of the United States (website)

I am proud to accept the nomination of the Justice Party to run as its candidate for President of the United States.

This is not my campaign.  This is a campaign of, for, and by the people.  We join together in this endeavor for the sake of justice – social justice, environmental justice, and economic justice.   We pledge to organize and act, tenaciously and over the long haul, for the sake of the public interest, to enhance and protect freedom for all, and to vindicate the sacred promise of justice for all.

Those who understand that our great nation and its people have been harmed severely, and are at tremendous risk for even greater damage in the future, can be powerful agents of positive change.  We need not settle for governance by the Republican and Democratic parties, which thrive on the corrupt money machine, nor do we have to confine ourselves to voting for the lesser of two evils, if indeed there is a lesser evil among the common choices.

If we have the vision, the courage, and the will, we can, together, forge a very different way – a way that will lead to a future of fiscal responsibility and respectful regard for the economic burdens we leave for later generations; secure jobs and fair compensation; decency and rationality in our cruel, self-destructive criminal justice system that is largely based on an irrational rage to punish; an investment in our nation’s infrastructure, education, and innovation that is as substantial as our need to re-gain our global competitive edge; compassionate and rational immigration reform; respect for fundamental human and civil rights; victory over the stranglehold of the military-industrial-congressional complex; protection of our air, water, and wild lands; essential health care for all, as in every other nation in the industrialized world; protection against and condemnation of illegal wars of aggression, pursuant to the United Nations Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Pact; international leadership on the urgent challenge of climate change; and restoration of the rule of law, including full accountability for crimes, regardless of the wealth or status of the perpetrators.

Men, women, and children across the United States, and throughout the world, are suffering horrendously because of the corruption of our government, the timidity of much of the public, and criminality that is rewarded rather than rectified.  Lives have been taken, lifetime injuries inflicted, life savings decimated, essential health care rendered more elusive for millions of people, jobs lost, and the damage inflicted by our nation’s debt increased exponentially — all because of crimes committed with impunity, public policy guided by bribery, and a crooked two-tiered economic and justice system that rewards a narrow class of rich and powerful people while devastating the rest.

The root of this disaster is systemic corruption fed by money from the few who have benefited.  The public’s interest in catching up with the rest of the industrialized world and providing essential health care to every man, woman, and child has been undermined by the corrupting influence of money flowing from the medical and insurance industries.

The public’s interest in reducing the outrageous cost of prescription drugs has been frustrated by the corrupting influence of money flowing from the pharmaceutical industry.

The public’s interest in reducing our deficits and the crushing burden of our accumulated debt, as well as reprioritizing the ways in which our government spends our money, has been frustrated by the corrupting influence of money flowing from military contractors, the beneficiaries of the military-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned our nation in his last presidential address.

Perhaps most outrageous and tragic over the long-term, the public’s interest in energy independence and the avoidance of the most catastrophic impacts of climate disruption has been frustrated by the corrupting influence of money flowing from the fossil fuel industry – the coal, oil, and gas companies.

Whether these calamities continue is our choice. Bringing integrity and competence to our government is within our power. That’s why people across the nation are supporting our campaign, which limits contributions to $100 per person and engages in grassroots strategies rather than billion dollar television campaigns financed by the wealthy.

The American people can ensure that the public interest, not simply the interests of politicians and campaign contributors, is protected. We the people are powerful enough to end the perverse government-to-the-highest-bidder system sustaining, and sustained by, the two dominant parties.

With the complicity of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the Bush administration marched our nation off a cliff — morally, legally, and economically — by perpetrating a disastrous war of aggression against Iraq.  President Obama, for his political advantage, simply shrugged off war crimes committed in conjunction with that war, with the excuse that we “need to look forward not backward.”  It is a trademark reminder — in the spirit of President Ford’s ignominious pardon of Richard M. Nixon — that, in our two-tiered system of injustice, the rich and powerful are above the law, which is applied, often with a crushing vengeance, against the rest of us.

Wall Street criminals have raked in billions of dollars while eviscerating the U.S economy through their fraudulent schemes.  Goldman Sachs sold clients on perverse investments while secretly betting billions of dollars against them.  Several Wall Street firms bundled toxic mortgages and fraudulently sold them as top-rated investments, ultimately devastating the U.S. economy, including the housing market and the retirement plans of millions of men and women throughout the U.S. This was all aided and abetted by occupants of the White House and by a de-regulating Congress that have acted as if they are on retainer by Wall Street banks. Just recently, President Obama appointed a new Chief of Staff who was COO at CitiGroup and who oversaw investments in a hedge fund that bet on the housing market collapse.  We need a president who will surround himself not by the Goldman Sachs crowd, but by those who have a record of caring about, and acting to protect, the public interest.

Remarkably, some pundits are still puzzled about what the nation’s Occupiers – and now the international Occupiers – are angry about. The appropriate inquiry is “Why have we put up with this for so long?”

Most Americans are far less financially secure – some are wiped out and many have lost their homes – because of these crimes.  The plutocracy is now fully exposed.  While drug offenders are being incarcerated for decades under contemptible minimum-mandatory sentences, not one day has been served in prison by the perpetrators, who, along with their Wall Street colleagues, gave unprecedented contributions to President Obama’s last campaign. Goldman Sachs’s political action committee and individual contributors employed by Goldman Sachs donated over $1 million to Obama’s last election. They’ve enjoyed an enormous return on their investment, to the enormous detriment of the rest of us.

Please thoughtfully consider this fact, then be appropriately outraged:  22% of children are now living in poverty in the United States. The skids toward the economic disaster, including the resulting loss of jobs and skyrocketing poverty, were greased by the unconscionable deregulation of the financial industry, made possible through the collusion of Republicans and Democrats.  Again, that deregulation came about not because of the promotion of the public interest, but because of the corrupting influence of multi-national corporations that took us to the cleaners, then received bail-outs because they were considered by our economic policy-makers – themselves part of the corrupt financial class – as “too big to fail.”  The Republican Party pursues deregulation as a priority in its increasingly bizarre ideology, even when it puts most Americans at tremendous risk, while President Obama and most of Congress gorge themselves at the trough of special interest money, then act accordingly.

We will fight to make certain that, in the future, no banks will be “too large to fail” and that the only thing we will consider to be “too large to fail” is the interests of the American people.

We must set aside our fear-based notion that a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat can be a “spoiler” for the lesser of two evils and, instead, help make real change happen, for our good, for the good of our country, and for the good of our children and later generations.  We can be responsible, ethical stewards for the future by drawing the line now and committing to “no more” of what the two dominant parties have done to our nation.

Win or lose, we can, through this campaign, make a tremendous positive difference in our nation and our world.

Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, in their remarkable book That Used to Be Us, make the argument about the vast difference a third party or independent candidacy can make for our nation.  Here is what they say:

Now [the Democrats] have become the most conservative force in American politics. . . .Now the [Republicans] are the party of fiscal radicalism and recklessness, cutting taxes without reducing spending and thereby pushing the United States ever deeper into debt.  The two parties are, however, united on two things – unfortunately.  Neither has the courage to take the necessary serious steps to address the dangerously high budget deficit . . . : And neither has the courage to reduce America’s, and therefore the world’s, ruinous dependence on oil by raising the price of gasoline. . . .

Business as usual in American politics is a recipe for national decline. . .

The American political system does not need blowing up, but it does need shaking up. . . . It needs political shock therapy. . . .

We hope that [such a shock] will come from within – from a combination of grassroots and high politics.  We mean by this a serious independent presidential candidate. . . .

The only way around all these ideological and structural obstacles is a third-party or independent candidate, who can not only articulate a hybrid politics that addresses our major challenges and restores our formula for success but . . . does this in a way that enough Americans find so compelling that they are willing to leave their respective Democratic and Republican camps . . . Only that could change a political system that rewards our politicians for postponing hard decisions and blaming the other party rather than making those decisions.

Because third parties do not win elections, voters expect them not to win and thus do not vote for them so as not to waste their votes.  This calculation, a major reason for the weakness of third parties (and thus the strength of the Republicans and Democrats), can, however, be seriously mistaken.  A vote for a third-party presidential candidate can be an effective way to change the direction of American national policy – and that is the strategy we are advocating.[1]

Friedman and Mandelbaum then describe recent polls, reflecting that people in the United States will support a third-party candidate:  A Pew poll finding that more voters identify themselves as independents than as Democrats or Republicans; another Pew survey finding that 72 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the condition of our country; a Washington Post-ABC News poll reporting in 2010 that only 34 percent of the respondents believed that Democratic candidates deserved reelection, and only 31 percent believed that Republicans deserved reelection; and an Ipsos Public Affairs 2010 poll in which 71 percent of respondents said they would like to see more than just the Democratic and Republican Parties on the presidential ballot.[2]

Friedman and Mandelbaum continue as follows:

An independent presidential candidate who did all these things – describing, more vividly and accurately than the two major parties have yet done, the world in which its citizens are living and are destined to live in this century; prescribing the policies that will make it possible for Americans to thrive in that world and for America to exercise global influence in this century, as they did in the last one; and galvanizing the country to adopt these policies – could provide the shock therapy we need.

[I]t’s the best shot we have.  Sticking with the status quo, by contrast, is a sure thing – a sure pathway to decline.[3]

As Friedman and Mandelbaum conclude, win or lose, “an independent presidential candidacy can change America – and therefore the world – for the better. . . [O]ver the long term it would probably have a greater impact on the course of American history than the person who [won the election].”[4]

Let us embrace this historic opportunity.  For an end to the corruption and impunity for the privileged elite, and a fair shake for all Americans, we can reject the Republican/Democratic duopoly that has brought our nation to its current sad state.  We now have the choice to support a party and a candidate offering genuine hope for a safer, healthier, more just world.

[1] Friedman and Mandelbaum, That Used to Be Us, pp. 329, 330, 331, 334, 335.

[2] Id. at 340.

[3] Id. at 346.

[4] Id. at 347.

Please Donate (maximum contribution $100)

by Dan Froomkin

Barack Obama is heading back onto the campaign trail, running as a champion of the middle class and even hoping to harness the Occupy movement’s public anger at Wall Street.

But the higher he soars with his populist rhetoric, the more he calls attention to the enormous gap between the promise of hope and change that he campaigned on in 2008 and the actions he has taken as president — especially regarding the economy, which is still stagnating, and Wall Street, which remains unpunished and unbowed even after causing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

As a result, voters will inevitably be asking themselves: Who is this guy, really? Does he mean what he says? Will he do what he says? And would a second-term Obama be different?

One answer to why Obama underperformed is laid out in searing detail in Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Ron Suskind’s latest book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President.

In the book, Suskind describes how Obama made the conscious choice to staff his economic team with former Clinton appointees whose sympathies were with Wall Street — and that those men were unable to see how drastically out of whack the country’s financial system had gotten both because they helped create it and because it had served them so well.

This is an in depth review of Suskind’s hard hitting and penetrating observations of the dilemma that Obama faced when he took office. It shows that the tentacles of Wall Street are everywhere.

Obama’s populist viewpoints were compromised by the timing of the financial mess he inherited, which proscribed him from taking actions that he otherwise may have been able to implement.

Given the magnitude of the crisis, Obama opted to choose Wall Street veterans to help steer the ship through the icebergs. Hiring inexperience, non-Wall Street advisors would have left him open for wide criticism and may have exacerbated the problem. He was between a rock and a hard spot and it’s difficult, even in hindsight, to determine whether a different set of advisors would have made things better. Opting for seasoned leadership seemed the rational choice.

As it turned out the Wall Street insiders co-opted Obama’s vision, and Obama’s populist rhetoric of ‘hope’ was turned into ‘nope.’

Then, rather than forcefully impose his campaign’s populist vision on these men, Obama again consciously chose to defer to them repeatedly — and tolerated it even when they slow-walked, pushed back against, or simply ignored his instructions.

The White House launched an aggressive counterattack when the book came out in September, initially centered around nitpicking over a few minor factual errors.

In perhaps the broadest on-the-record denial from the White House, National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling told CNN: “The notion that this president was not leading and making the tough choices all along is just dead wrong, and I say that as somebody who’s been here every moment… This president has been focused and tough and decisive in leading us in this economic team and I think that is the story, and anything else really does a disservice to this administration and the real record that has been established.”

The White House pushback was followed by brickbats from some mainstream journalists — particularly Slate’s Jacob Weisberg.

But the attacks on the book only glanced off Suskind’s central theme — which is more subtle than his critics have made it out to be — because that theme was derived directly from on-the-record interviews with key players, internal documents that Suskind brought to light, and the outcomes we’ve all seen with our own eyes.

And though the book focuses on the first two years of Obama’s presidency, and a group of “confidence men” that is mostly gone now, the leadership style Suskind describes, and the strikingly similar makeup of Obama’s new economic team, suggest that Obama is still incapable of — or, alas, uninterested in — acting on his own words.

“You do have to start asking yourself a pretty tough set of questions about what his fundamental views actually are on so many of these issues,” says Suskind. “Did he ever believe that he was going to be doing many of those things that he inspired people with in the campaign?”

Mind The Gap

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama spoke eloquently and strikingly about the excesses of Wall Street.

In his September 2007 speech at the NASDAQ, Obama invoked FDR. “Amid a crisis of confidence Roosevelt called for a ‘re-appraisal of values,’ ” Obama said. FDR made clear “that in order for us to prosper as one nation, ‘…the responsible heads of finance and industry, instead of acting each for himself, must work together to achieve the common end.’”

This, he concluded, was “another moment that requires, in FDR’s words, a re-appraisal of our values as a nation.”

In the midst of the U.S. government’s September 2008 bank bailout, Obama told a Nevada audience: “Let me be perfectly clear. The fact that we are in this mess is an outrage. It’s an outrage because we did not get here by accident. This was not a normal part of the business cycle. This was not the actions of a few bad apples.

“This financial crisis is a direct result of the greed and irresponsibility that has dominated Washington and Wall Street for years.”

And although he said it wasn’t time yet, he promised: “There will be time to punish those who set this fire.”

In October 2008, he promise to “take on the corruption in Washington and on Wall Street to make sure a crisis like this can never, ever happen again.”

And one day before he was elected president, he told a Florida audience: “Tomorrow, you can turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.”

Obama’s most seminal speech on the crisis was his March 2008 address at Cooper Union. There, he laid part of the blame for the disaster on Clinton-era financial deregulation, including the 1999 repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. That repeal, which broke down barriers between commercial and investment banking, led to the growth of financial behemoths that were able to take enormous risks with impunity because they were “too big to fail.”

“[I]nstead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one, aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight,” Obama said. “In doing so we encouraged a winner take all, anything goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy.”

Among the foremost champions of that deregulatory regime were the key members of President Clinton’s economic team, including Robert Rubin, who was Clinton’s treasury secretary, Larry Summers, who succeeded Rubin, and Timothy Geithner, who worked directly under both of them.

But once Obama was elected, and was staring into the maw of staggeringly large financial crisis, he made a fateful decision: He left most of his progressive economic advisers behind — including such liberal luminaries as Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz — and chose to go with name brand Clinton officials instead. Summers became his chief economic adviser, Geithner became his Treasury secretary, and fellow Rubin protégé Peter Orszag became his budget director. (According to Suskind, Obama even offered Rubin himself an office in the White House.)

The “bold visions of the campaign season… resolved into the serious, often risk-averse business of actually governing,” Suskind writes. “In the midst of a battering economic storm, it no longer seemed like the right time to be making waves.”

While the appointments of these men and a slew of similarly pedigreed subordinates reassured the financial markets, their leadership undermined Obama’s populist promises.

Many of them had already spent their interregnum feeding at the Wall Street trough.

Summers was paid $5.2 million for his part-time work for a massive hedge fund in 2008 alone, according to financial disclosure forms that were released on a Friday night several months after his appointment. That same year, he also raked in more than $2.7 million in fees for speaking engagements at such places as Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs. For one speech alone, Goldman Sachs paid him a cool $135,000.

Rubin, whose influence remained enormous among the new Obama appointees, left Treasury to join Citigroup, a mega-bank that took on ever-riskier, life-threatening stances during his tenure while he managed to snare $126 million in cash and stock.

(How could all this money not be corrupting? Why did Obama trust these guys? Those were questions I was asking from my perch at the Washington Post at the time, and they were never answered.)

Although Geithner didn’t work directly for the banks, he regulated such firms as Citigroup and, as head of the New York Fed, helped engineer bailouts in the fall of 2008 that put billions of extra tax dollars in the coffers of major Wall Street firms, most notably Goldman Sachs.

Rather than give this team clear marching orders, Obama asked them what he should do, according to Suskind’s account. Not surprisingly, they were loath to suggest anything that would harm Wall Street, or, as they put it, spook the market.

Instead of “tough love”, the Obama White House showered the banks in cash and federal guarantees to make sure they could “earn their way back to health”. There was no “haircut”, no restructuring of the banks or the system that had done so much harm. Even the bankers were surprised, according to Suskind.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker — a relative progressive when compared to the advisers Obama chose to heed — told Suskind what his advice to Obama had been: “Well, right now, when you have your chance, and their breasts are bared, you need to put a spear through the heart of all these guys on Wall Street that for years have been mostly debt merchants.”

By late March 2009, public sentiment against the banks, which had been growing since the bailouts of the previous fall, had reached a fever pitch. But when the CEOs of the 13 largest banking institutions in the United States came to the White House, Obama’s own tone was conciliatory.

“I want to help,” he told them. “I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you. But if I’m going to shield you from public and congressional anger, you have to give me something to work with on these issues of compensation.”

The bankers offered a few empty promises about voluntary compensation limits and went on to book two of the most profitable years in Wall Street’s history

There were things Obama and his staff could have pushed for much more aggressively. That list included breaking up the big banks or forcing banks to come to terms with the toxic assets still lurking in their portfolios. The White House team could have listened to the people who saw the crisis coming or had a history of taking on Wall Street. They could have replaced Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve, rather than renominating him.

Instead, as Suskind describes, bold action was consistently thwarted by one means or another.

Obama’s management style made that easy. “He feels like he needs consensus to have the confidence of action,” Suskind told HuffPost.

Without the guiding star of Obama’s campaign promises, his economic team settled on what they called a “Hippocratic” motto: First, do no harm. Suskind writes that Volcker saw that as a formula for small, modest actions:

The “do no harm” school, he said, “always sounds reasonable” in that it calls for delay, until matters worsen to the point, “where they’ll be consensus that we need to act in a forceful way. But you never get that consensus, because many of the actors, the institutions and so forth, will follow their self-interest right off the cliff.” Every policy of consequence, meanwhile, is going to “do some harm, something government, mind you, can and should cushion.” But there’s no other way “to create the larger good, something you look back on with pride.”

For a young, new president “with a powerful intellect but little experience, this stance was always available as a sensible course,” Suskind writes. Over time, it “increasingly felt like a prudential path, rather than a backing away from history’s call to arms.”

Sometimes, despite all this, Obama seemed to be opting for more decisive action. That, Suskind writes, is when the staff became insubordinate, “relitigating” matters that had been settled, “slow-walking” decisions that had been made — and in at least one case, outright ignoring what they were told.

The most graphic of many illustrations of this is Suskind’s recounting of a March 15, 2009, meeting at which Obama expressed a desire to draw up plans to break up the banks, which he said would “strike a blow for prudence” and would “begin to change the reckless behavior of Wall Street and show that accountability flows in both directions.”

Instead, his team (led in this case by chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who from 1999 to 2002 made more than $18 million working for a financial services firm) wore down his request to a simpler directive: Draw up a plan for restructuring Citibank.

“Well, okay, so we do Citibank and we do it thoroughly and well,” Obama said, according to the book. “That would show everybody that they can trust those guys in government to do a hard job, and do it right. And then we go back to Congress and get the money to do the wider job that really needs to be done.”

Yet even that wouldn’t happen. Geithner simply never went ahead with it, according to the book, opting instead for his preferred strategy of applying “stress tests” to the banks — to find out how much capital they needed from the government and other sources to stay afloat.

That, in essence, is what Japan did for its two decades of stagnation, and we’re now three years along on that same path.

Liberals like Paul Krugman were aghast as the details began to leak. “It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street,” Krugman wrote in late March. “And by the time Mr. Obama realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.”

The Citibank incident and others like it, Suskind writes, reflected a “pernicious and personal dilemma emerging from inside the administration: that the young president’s authority was being systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers.”

“The president had lost control of his White House; he had almost no process to translate his will into policy on the occasions when he could decide on a coherent path,” Suskind writes. “But such decisions were rare.”

Back in March 2010, I wrote for HuffPost that “people looking for the reasons why the Obama presidency has not lived up to its promise won’t find the answer amid the minor rifts between key players….. The fact is that after a campaign that appealed so successfully to idealism, Obama hired a bunch of saboteurs of hope and change.”

I was thinking of Emanuel in particular. But when it comes to the economy, Suskind describes Summers as the guy who really tied Obama up in knots.

Here’s Suskind quoting Orszag — on the record, by name: “Larry just didn’t think the president knew what he was deciding,” Orszag said. “The question is why didn’t [Obama] stop it,” he told Suskind. “People realized the process wasn’t working, and they kept saying it…. but the president didn’t say, Goddammit!… He didn’t demand that it be changed . . . and that can’t be healthy.”

A few days after the book came out, Geithner publicly denied slow-walking any orders from Obama.

“I would never do that,” he said. “I have spent my life in public service. It’s my great privilege to serve this President, and I would never contemplate doing that. But, again, I lived the original, and the reality I lived, we all lived together, bears no relation to the sad little stories I heard reported from that book.”

Summers, who has never said publicly whether he actually read the book, issued a statement saying that the “the hearsay attributed to me is a combination of fiction, distortion and words taken out of context.”

Still, we don’t have to take Suskind’s word for it. Simply read the White House’s own extraordinary February 2010 “annual review” memo, which top Obama adviser Pete Rouse prepared for the president. Suskind excerpts it in the book and the White House has not challenged its authenticity:

First there is deep dissatisfaction within the economic team with what is perceived to be Larry’s imperious and heavy-handed direction of the economic policy process.
Second, when the economic team does not like a decision by the President, they have on occasion worked to re-litigate the overall policy.

Third, when the policy direction is firmly decided, there can be consideration/reconsideration of the details until to the very last moments.

Fourth, once a decision is made, implementation by the Department of the Treasury has at times been slow and uneven. These factors all adversely affect execution of the policy process.

Meet the New Team

Most of the members of Obama’s initial economic team — including Summers, Orszag and Emanuel — are gone, now.

Geithner, notably, remains.

And in the end, three white, male Clinton appointees with close ties to Wall Street were replaced by — you guessed it — three other white male Clinton appointees with ties to Wall Street.

Chief of Staff Bill Daley, formerly Clinton’s secretary of commerce, came back to the White House fresh off an $8.7 million-a-year job at JPMorgan Chase. His appointment, particularly delighted Wall Street.

National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, who held the exact same job under Clinton, made $2.2 million in 2008 alone, including $887,727 from Goldman Sachs for a part-time job advising it on its charitable giving and $158,000 for speeches mostly to financial companies.

New budget chief Jack Lew, who also had the exact same job under Clinton, made millions in between his White House stints at Citigroup, including a $950,000 bonus in 2009not long after the bank received billions of taxpayer dollars. (Lew told a Senate panel last year that deregulation didn’t lead to the financial crisis.)

By all accounts, they’re a nicer bunch than the men they replaced. None of them is anywhere near as “imperious and heavy handed” as Summers, who Suskind actually caught musing that “One of the challenges in our society is that the truth is kind of a disequalizer.” According to Summers, “One of the reasons that inequality has probably gone up in our society is that people are being treated closer to the way that they’re supposed to be treated.”

(Summers recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post describing ways the government should mitigate rising inequality. It was greeted skeptically by some progressives.)

But are the new guys really philosophically different? Do they similarly defer to Wall Street? And block bold action? Were they hired to do so?

Because not much seemed to change after the old team left. In fact, many progressives felt that White House economic policy in the months-long debt ceiling debate actually hit a new low.

Part of that may have been political necessity. But even after the 2010 Republican House takeover, there were a lot of ways Obama could have successfully pursued his campaign-era agenda, and there are still even now several things he could do to goose the economy without Congress. But the White House doesn’t act.

Edward Luce, the fearless Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times, recently wrote that the management problems continue.

Obama “remains unable to create a properly functioning White House,” he wrote. “Much of governing is about managing. No one, so far, has been given the authority to restrain Mr Obama’s inner circle. The effects have been sorely in evidence over the past 12 months.” And, Luce concluded: “The plain fact is that Mr Obama prefers to campaign than govern.”

The Bush White House famously had no real policymaking process at all — something Suskind first exposed in a prescient January 2003 article in Esquire. But once the decision was made (perhaps inexplicably, probably by Dick Cheney) there was no second-guessing. Stuff happened.

When it comes to economic policy, at least, the Obama White House would appear to be the exact opposite: A lot of process, a few timid decisions, and almost no action.

The early-November de facto demotion of Daley, with most of his duties going to Rouse — the writer of that memo, a veteran Obama aide with an unassuming demeanor and vast experience on the Hill — could mean some changes ahead. But it’s too soon to say, and Rouse is hardly considered the enforcer type.

The Suskind Factor

Like all of Suskind’s recent books, Confidence Men doesn’t just expose the secret goings-on that explain so much about how our government works. It also makes so much of the mainstream press coverage look shallow and credulous by comparison. That may go a long way toward explaining why his work sometimes gets a hostile reception in major media outlets.

Suskind’s 2004 book, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill, for instance, was the first truly damning expose of George W. Bush’s White House, putting its author years ahead of most of his media colleagues in recognizing the depths of its dysfunction and deceit in the Bush/Cheney administration.

Time and again, Suskind’s revelations have initially been pooh-poohed by reporters who couldn’t recreate his reporting — and then much later were recognized as being utterly correct.

In his 2006 book, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11, for instance, Suskind reported that terror suspect Abu Zubaida was a mentally disturbed minor al Qaeda functionary who, when tortured, made up plots against imaginary targets — and that, as a result “thousands of uniformed men and women” were sent on wild goose chases.

It took the Washington Post three years to finally catch up with his reporting — but in the meantime, the mainstream media had allowed Bush to routinely cite Zubaida as his Exhibit A that torture worked, unhampered by reality.

Now, the same press corps that Suskind showed up so many times seems to delight in pointing out minor errors in his nearly 500-page tome.

Leading the recent charge against Suskind was Jacob Weisberg, the editor in chief of the Washington Post Company’s Slate Group. In a column entitled Don’t Believe Ron Suskind, Weisberg repeated White House talking points and accused Suskind of fabrication.

But Weisberg’s stance is less surprising when one considers that Suskind’s book is basically one long evisceration of all things Rubin, and Weisberg is close to Rubin — having actually co-authored Rubin’s 2003 autobiography.

(Weisberg, in an e-mail, insisted he had no ulterior motive. “I’ve long mistrusted Suskind’s journalism. I picked up his new book and got even more suspicious,” he wrote. “I think the guy is a lousy reporter and decided to say so with evidence. It’s got nothing at all to do with Rubin or the White House. I did my own homework. I think you’ll find that most of the errors I found in the book weren’t caught by the White House or anyone else before me.” As for whether it was a mistake not to disclose his ties to Rubin in his article, Weisberg wrote that “it had nothing to do with my story. But obviously isn’t any kind of secret.”)

Meanwhile, in a more rigorous critique, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein, writing in the New York Review of Books, accused the book of “incoherence” largely based on what he called a contradiction between Suskind’s description of Summers as all-powerful — and Suskind’s own reporting about the several times Summers’ more progressive ideas were rejected as too radical.

But in the book, Suskind never suggested that Summers or Geithner won all their battles; what he described was an environment in which Summers or Geithner — or Emanuel — all won some and lost some; an environment in which any one of the old Clinton hands could shoot down a bold idea as untested, too radical, unsellable, or too likely to spook the markets.

The only consistent theme, especially when it came to dealing with Wall Street or job creation, was that whoever was most cautious tended to emerge the victor, either outright, by winning over the president, or because they could block the execution.

Klein also argued that, while Obama clearly underestimated the severity of the financial crisis, the insufficient response was largely the fault of Congress. “The president is but one actor in the drama of American politics, and he is quite constrained in his capacity to make — or remake — American policy,” Klein wrote.

But Suskind documents case after case in which the White House didn’t even try — and certainly never came even close to twisting arms the way, say, Lyndon Johnson might have.

Words And Deeds

Politically, Obama’s economic policy has been a disaster. There was enormous political will to make the banks pay for their mistakes back in 2009 — and judging by the Occupy movement, it’s still there. It remains unsatisfied.

Bolder action — especially when it comes to reducing the principal on underwater mortgages — would have hugely stimulated the economy. A larger stimulus, or a second one, would have created jobs.

Perhaps more than anything else, not living up to his word has hurt the president across the board.

“It’s about the connection between word and deed,” says Suskind. “At day’s end, what got George W. Bush re-elected was straight-shooter credit.”

Consider what progressive hero Elizabeth Warren told Suskind in a September 2009 interview:

“You can’t run a policy based on a misdirection, on a fiction,” she said. “I don’t know what the president is thinking. I don’t see the president. He meets with bankers. He doesn’t meet with me. But if he’s involved in this at all, he’s got to know that his angry words at Wall Street, at their recklessness and dangerous incentives in compensation, about how they do their business in ways utterly divorced from what’s actually good for the economy — that he can’t just say that sort of thing, and then dump money in their laps and be credible.”

So what does Obama need to do to persuade people that he means what he says? “Words are not enough,” says Suskind.

“Right now, after the record that has expressed itself across four years, the only thing that will be proof of change is deeds — meaning he takes on the assembled power of the financial capital in an ‘either them or me’ way.”

He could also level with the public about the errors he made, and what he’s learned from them.

He could fire Geithner — like some people have been suggesting for nearly three years. (Although the New York Times recently wrote, in a gushing profile, that “Mr. Geithner’s departure could signal additional instability to financial markets.”)

Ultimately, the biggest question for voters who are troubled by Obama’s failure to confront Wall Street despite his words is whether it reflects a weakness of character, a weakness of will, or a weakness in management style. Presumably the latter would be easier to correct in a second term.

But Suskind has no opinion — and wonders if there’s really much of a difference. Either way, it’s a reflection of how Obama wields power. And until something dramatic happens, there’s no reason to think it’s going to change. “This White House,” Suskind says, “is the one he constructed and presides over.”

© 2011 Dan Froomkin

Dan Froomkin is Washington Bureau Chief for the Huffington Post. Previously, he wrote the White House Watch column for the Washington Post’s website.

The Obama administration appears to have given a green light to an Israeli attack on an unarmed flotilla carrying peace and human rights activists — including a vessel with 50 Americans on board — bound for the besieged Gaza Strip. At a press conference on June 24, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the flotilla organized by the Free Gaza Campaign by saying it would “provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.”

Clinton did not explain why a country had “the right to defend themselves” against ships which are clearly no threat. Not only have organizers of the flotilla gone to great steps to ensure are there no weapons on board, the only cargo bound for Gaza on the U.S. ship are letters of solidarity to the Palestinians in that besieged enclave who have suffered under devastating Israeli bombardments, a crippling blockade, and a right-wing Islamist government. Nor did Clinton explain why the State Department suddenly considers the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of the port of Gaza to be “Israeli waters,” when the entire international community recognizes Israeli territorial waters as being well to the northeast of the ships’ intended route.

The risk of an Israeli attack on the flotilla is real. Israeli commandoes illegally assaulted a similar flotilla in international waters on May 31 of last year, killing nine people on board one of the vessels, including Furkan Dogan, a 19-year old U.S. citizen. Scores of others, including a number of Americans, were brutally beaten and more than a dozen others were shot but survived their wounds. According to a UN investigation, based on eyewitness testimony and analysis by a forensic pathologist and ballistic expert, Dogan was initially shot while filming the assault and then murdered while lying face down with a bullet shot at close range in the back of the head. The United States was the only one of the 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council to vote against the adoption of the report. The Obama administration never filed a complaint with the Israeli government, demonstrating its willingness to allow the armed forces of U.S. allies to murder U.S. citizens on the high seas.

As indicated by Clinton’s statement of last week, the administration appears to be willing to let it happen again.

Congressional Response

Last year, 329 out of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter that referred to Israel’s attack that killed Dogan and the others as an act of “self-defense” which they “strongly support.” A Senate letter — signed by 87 out of 100 senators — went on record “fully” supporting what it called “Israel’s right to self-defense,” claiming that the effort to relieve critical shortages of food and medicine in the besieged Gaza Strip was simply part of a “clever tactical and diplomatic ploy” by “Israel’s opponents” to “challenge its international standing.”

But not everyone in Congress believes the assaulting and killing human rights activists on the high seas is legitimate. Last week, on June 24, six members of Congress signed a letter to Secretary Clinton requesting that she “do everything in her power to work with the Israeli government to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens on board.” As of this writing, they have not received a response.

Earlier in the week, the State Department issued a public statement to discourage Americans from taking part in the second Gaza flotilla because they might be attacked by Israeli forces. Yet thus far neither the State Department nor the White House has issued a public statement demanding that Israel not attack Americans legally traveling in international waters. Indeed, on Friday, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland implied that the United States would blame those taking part in the flotilla rather than the rightist Israeli government should anything happen to them. Like those in the early 1960s who claimed civil rights protesters were responsible for the attacks by white racist mobs because they had “provoked them,” Nuland stated, “Groups that seek to break Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza are taking irresponsible and provocative actions that risk the safety of their passengers.” Again, The Obama administration didn’t offer even one word encouraging caution or restraint by the Israeli government, nor did it mention that the International Red Cross and other advocates of international humanitarian law recognize that the Israeli blockade is illegal.

Who’s On Board

Passengers of the U.S. boat, christened The Audacity of Hope, include celebrated novelist Alice Walker, holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, veteran foreign service officer and retired lieutenant colonel Ann Wright, Israeli-American linguistics professor Hagit Borer, and prominent peace and human rights activists like Medea Benjamin, Robert Naiman, Steve Fake, and Kathy Kelly. Ten other boats are carrying hundreds of other civilians from dozens of other countries, along with nearly three thousand tons of aid. Those on board include members of national parliaments and other prominent political figures, writers, artists, clergy from various faith traditions, journalists, and athletes.

Fifteen ships have previously sailed or attempted to sail to Gaza as part of the Free Gaza Campaign. None was found to contain any weapons or materials that could be used for military purposes. The current flotilla organizers have stated that their cargoes are “open to international inspection.” Despite this, however, the Obama State Department insists that the Israelis have the right to intercept the ships due to the “vital importance to Israel’s security of ensuring that all cargo bound for Gaza is appropriately screened for illegal arms and dual-use materials.”

Though the flotilla organizers have made clear that the U.S. boat is only carrying letters of support for the people of Gaza, the State Department has also threatened participants with “fines and incarceration” if they attempt to provide “material support or other resources to or for the benefit of a designated foreign terrorist organization, such as Hamas.”

As with many actions supporting Palestinian rights, the coalition of groups endorsing the flotilla includes  pro-Palestinian groups as well as peace, human rights, religious, pacifist and liberal organizations, including Progressive Democrats of America, Pax Christi, Peace Action, Nonviolence International, Jewish Voice for Peace, War Resisters League, and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Despite this, Brad Sherman (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade, has claimed that organizers of the flotilla have “clear terrorist ties” and has called upon U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute U.S. citizens involved with the flotilla and ban foreign participants from ever entering the United States.

Israel‘s Position

Largely as a result of last year’s flotilla, Israel has somewhat relaxed its draconian siege on the territory, which had resulted in a major public health crisis. The State Department has gone to some lengths to praise Israel for allowing some construction material into the Gaza Strip to make possible the rebuilding of some of the thousands of homes, businesses and public facilities destroyed in Israel’s devastating U.S.-backed 2008-2009 military offensive, which resulted in the deaths of over 800 civilians. At no point, however, has the Obama administration ever criticized Israel for destroying those civilian structures in the first place.

As with many potentially confrontational nonviolent direct actions, there are genuine differences within the peace and human rights community regarding the timing, the nature, and other aspects of the forthcoming flotilla. However, the response to the Obama administration’s position on the flotilla has been overwhelmingly negative. Many among his progressive base, already disappointed at his failure to take a tougher line against the rightist Israeli government as well as his reluctance to embrace human rights and international law as a basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace, feel increasingly alienated from the president.

More significantly, the Obama administration’s response may signal a return to the Reagan administration’s policies of defending the killing of U.S. human rights workers in order to discourage grassroots acts of international solidarity, as when Reagan officials sought to blame the victims and exonerate the perpetrators for the murder of four American churchwomen by the El Salvadoran junta and the murder of American engineer Ben Linder by the Nicaraguan Contras. Perhaps the Obama administration hopes that giving a green light to an Israeli attack on the U.S. ship and other vessels in the flotilla will serve as a warning. Perhaps they hope that Americans volunteering for groups like Peace Brigades International, Witness for Peace, Nonviolent Peaceforce, Christian Peacemaker Teams, International Solidarity Movement, and other groups operating in conflict zones like Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Sri Lanka, Palestine, Nepal, Indonesia and elsewhere will think twice, knowing that the U.S. government will not live up to its obligations to try to protect nonviolent U.S. activists from violence perpetrated by allied governments.

Indeed, nothing frightens a militaristic state more than the power of nonviolent action.

www.stephenzunes.org

Huntsman’s gushing letters to leaders simply follow the super-sweet Utah style.

(This satire by our modern day Mark Twain appeared in The City Weekly, April 28, 2011. The mind from which it came is brilliant, irreverent, and should be embalmed and admired alongside the world’s greatest works of art, and when that should be done depends on whether you are continually amazed, amused, or angered.)

By D.P. Sorensen

The Huntsman campaign is moving swiftly to counter the barrage of bad publicity in the wake of the leaked “love letters” to President Barack Obama and former president Bill Clinton. Political observers across the nation were cringing at the gushing ick of the aforesaid missives, in which the ambassador to China and former Republican governor of Utah ladled vast quantities of worshipful syrup upon those two Democratic worthies (with slobbery verbal kisses smacked in the direction of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton).

A few morsels from the Huntsman Jr. letters convey the calorie-laden epistolary meals delivered to messieurs Obama and Clinton. To Mr. Obama from Ambassador Huntsman: “You are a remarkable leader, and it has been a great honor getting to know you … I’m anticipating an extraordinary experience in Beijing.” To Mr. Clinton from Ambassador Huntsman: “I have enormous regard for your experience, sense of history and brilliant analysis of world events.”

Not content to perform a deep-tissue massage on Mr. Clinton’s well-upholstered ego, the ambassador proceeds to give a flirtatious squeeze to Mrs. Clinton’s delectable knee: Mrs. Clinton is “well-read, hard-working, personable, and has even more charisma than her husband! It’s an honor to work with her.”

Now, we Utahns are used to this style of over-the-top approbation. In fact, linguists have done detailed longitudinal studies cataloguing what they term Utah’s “hyperappreciative locutionary style.” The supreme maestro (one might say exceedingly exalted maestro) of this style was, of course, the late prophet, seer and revelator Gordon B. Hinckley, who dispensed superlatives like a parade grandmaster scattering Tootsie Rolls to the candy-bag- clutching kiddies. “It is remarkable! It is marvelous! It is extraordinary!”

Our ecclesiastical betters and public servants alike have long availed themselves of the hyperappreciative locutionary style, as anyone who has attended award banquets, civic ceremonies and religious services can attest. We know that remarkable, extraordinary, splendid, marvelous, wonderful et al. are nothing more than verbal packing peanuts.

But the rest of the world is unenlightened and reacted to Huntsman Jr.’s love letters with a sustained squirm and a very loud yuck! The Huntsman campaign, knowing that explaining Utah’s adjectival addiction would be an exercise in futility, has decided to release other letters that demonstrate that the former governor is an equal-opportunity gusher.

“We hope these letters will return Ambassador Huntsman to the good graces of the Republican faithful, a substantial portion of which has harbored doubts about our candidate’s political orientation,” said spokesman Jacob Pratt. “You’ll notice that compared to his fawning epistles to illustrious Republicans, his so-called love letters to Obama and Clinton come off as insignificant air kisses.”

The full texts of what are being called the Letters of Adoration can be found on the Huntsman campaign Website. What follows are excerpts from notes, cards, letters, text messages and Tweets from Mr. Huntsman to assorted Republican statesmen:

To Ronald Reagan,  August 1982: “Dear Mr. President: Who does your hair? My mom says you use a ton of Brylcreem, but I think your luxurious locks shine with natural oils. When I hear that velvety baritone of yours, every inch of my body tingles with total love! You are a remarkable leader!”

To George Bush, July 1992 or June 1993: “Dear Former First Son: I saw you throw out the first pitch for the Texas Rangers. What an arm! You are much better-looking than your dad or your pudgy brother. Plus,  you have a ton more charisma! I notice you have the same accent as Ross Perot and the actor Slim Pickens. I heard you interviewed by Dan Rather, and it’s clear as day that you have a stupendous intellect!” [Mr. Bush wrote back an angry letter to the young Huntsman, saying, “I is not dumb! How dare you call me stupendous!”

To Dick Cheney, April 2004: “Dear Mr. Vice President: I have come to the conclusion that you are simply the manliest vice president in the history of our republic. Your charm blows me away! That darling thing you do when you curl your upper lip reminds me of Elvis and I get all rubbery in my knees. In memory of the extraordinary Dick Nixon, I just want to say, you are a remarkable Dickhead!”

In the event the Letters of Adoration fail to restore Mr. Huntsman to Republican graces, his campaign is prepared to release his anonymous letters to Mit Romney, whom they suspect of leaking the Obama love letters. A random example: “Go f–k thyself, Mit, thou remarkable flip-flopping phony.”

The following letter written by Dave Coupal of Cottonwood Heights was published in The Salt Lake Tribune Public Forum Section, March 2, 2011.

by Dave Coupal, Cottonwood Heights

Those who engage in civil disobedience must be willing to pay the price and serve their time in jail (“Jury is set for DeChristopher trial,” Tribune, Feb 28). If convicted, perhaps Tim DeChristopher can share a cell with that other Utah agitator who disobeyed a law: state Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab. They both would surely benefit from a little time hearing from someone on the opposite side of the environmental issue.

I assume Noel will have a longer stay, since his illegal protest stunt of driving his all-terrain-vehicle up the restricted Wilderness Study Area of the Paria River did permanent damage to our publicly owned lands; whereas, DeChristopher just annoyed some energy producers.

By the way, when will the jury be set for the Noel trial?

Dave Coupal

Published: February 25, 2011 07:38AM

In his recent guest column (“Anti-science views of faith leaders cause concerns,” Opinion, Feb. 8), R. Dennis Hansen correctly points out that religion and science need not be at odds, but in our view draws the wrong conclusion that they are at odds to begin with, or that religion is the problem.

Alert! Alert! There is so much drivel in this ‘thesis’ that it isn’t worthy of point-by-point rebuttal. These three authors are involved with what they call the Foundation for Attraction Research. It is a transparent fraud. Go to its web page and it is readily seen that it is a very small and tight knit group of pseudo scientists who begin with a predetermined belief and set out to prove their hunches right. The problem with their hunches is that they are all based on religious fables.

They are not seeking riches or gold or the praise of the world. They are seeking the adoration of their church apostles and their devout neighbors and friends. They are looking to get praised in church every Sunday morning. They particularly want to come to the defense of one of The Twelve, Boyd K. Packer, to try to restore some dignity to his earthly  sojourn. This trio of lost souls is trying to find justification for the litany of sins their church has committed against gays.

These are scientists who believe that Joseph Smith saw God and that he was led to ancient Gold Plates and translated them into the Book of Mormon. They believe their church is the only true church in the world and that all the others are wrong. They believe that Three Nephites (Book of Mormon characters) are wandering the earth helping people until Christ returns, and that blacks were given a dark skin because they sinned in a pre-existent world. They believe in the superiority of males and that females should be submissive to their husbands. They believe the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of any book ever published, but the ‘most corrected’ book would be closer to reality.

The ‘prophets’ that taught them this stuff also taught them that homosexuality was a sin, and for some unknown reason, this is the point they have decided to prove as true. Of all the problems with the truthfulness of their religion, this is the one they feel compelled to defend.

Go at it boys. When you get that burning in the bosom be very, very careful what it might mean.

We suggest that true religion and true science, when they are found, are never at odds. While such a hypothesis may seem implausible to some, we can find a glimmer of this universally hoped-for condition in, of all places, the debate over homosexuality. True religion teaches a love for all people, including those who identify themselves as gay. Some people who experience same-sex attraction, however, do not wish to practice homosexuality or adopt a gay identity. And fortunately for such people, hope can be found in both true science and true religion.

As to science, contrary to a source cited by Hansen that same-sex attractions are of purely biological origin, Dr. Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and the current director of the National Institutes of Health, reached a very different conclusion. Collins, in addressing the etiology of homosexuality in his book, The Language of God, offers the conclusion that homosexuality is “genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.”

Interestingly, this scientific statement is remarkably similar to and supportive of Elder Boyd K. Packer’s recent statement

about homosexuality not being “preset.” Elder Packer, president of the LDS Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, also has a very long and well-documented history of teaching love for people with homosexual attractions. Contrary to media reports that sought to portray Elder Packer as intolerant and uninformed, he actually had the right religion and the right science, if people cared to look beyond the hype and headlines and consider his remarks in context.

Even the American Psychological Association, after a long period of supporting a purely biological view of the origin of homosexuality, recently adopted a position supported by Collins’ observations that homosexuality, like other traits, emerges from some combination of nature and nurture. As scientists would say, all human behavioral traits are polygenic and multifactorial. Janet Cummings eloquently summarized the evolution perspective on homosexuality: “The belief that homosexuality is always inbred flies in the face of available evidence that genetics, childhood environment, and personal choice are all factors. Granted, some may be more salient than others, but from a genetic standpoint alone, the genes responsible would have disappeared throughout the millennia from lack of reproductive activity.”

Collins offers the following additional insight on homosexuality: “There is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive. Environment, particularly childhood experiences, and the prominent role of individual free will choices have a profound effect on us. Scientists will discover an increasing level of molecular detail about the inherited factors that undergird our personalities, but that should not lead us to overestimate their quantitative contribution. Yes we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us.”

Other reputable scientists, some of whom personally support gay rights, have concluded that homosexuality is not invariably fixed in all people, including Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist who is credited by some for spearheading the effort to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.

Spitzer offers the following: “Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could only be resisted, and that no one could change their [sic] sexual orientation. I now believe that to be false. Some people can and do change.”

It should also be observed that the type, degree, and potential for change vary with each individual, and many debates about change could be avoided by a more nuanced discussion about it.

Unfortunately, the dialogue about homosexuality has too often been reduced to a simplistic and divisive us-versus-them, religion-versus-science debate. When we bring true science and true religion together, however, they can and should unite us.

Dennis V. Dahle, John P. Livingstone and M. Gawain Wells are board members of the Foundation for Attraction Research. Dahle is a a Salt Lake City attorney and a FAR founder. Livingstone is an associate professor of Church History and Doctrine in Religious Education at Brigham Young University. Wells is a retired professor of psychology at BYU.

---

© 2011 The Salt Lake Tribune

I was reminded of a spring day in Atlanta almost five years earlier when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld strutted onto a similar stage to loud acclaim from another enraptured audience.

Introducing Rumsfeld on May 4, 2006, the president of the Southern Center for International Policy in Atlanta highlighted his “honesty.” I had just reviewed my notes for an address I was scheduled to give that evening in Atlanta and, alas, the notes demonstrated his dishonesty.

I thought to myself, if there’s an opportunity for Q & A after his speech I might try to stand and ask a question, which is what happened. I engaged in a four-minute impromptu debate with Rumsfeld on Iraq War lies, an exchange that was carried on live TV.

That experience leaped to mind on Feb. 15, as Secretary Clinton strode onstage amid similar adulation.

The fulsome praise for Clinton from GWU’s president and the loud, sustained applause also brought to mind a phrase that – as a former Soviet analyst at CIA – I often read in Pravda. When reprinting the text of speeches by high Soviet officials, the Communist Party newspaper would regularly insert, in italicized parentheses:  “Burniye applaudismenti; vce stoyat” —  Stormy applause; all rise.

With the others at Clinton’s talk, I stood. I even clapped politely. But as the applause dragged on, I began to feel like a real phony. So, when the others finally sat down, I remained standing silently, motionless, with my eyes fixed narrowly on the rear of the auditorium and my back to the Secretary.

I did not expect what followed: a violent assault in full view of Secretary Clinton by what in Soviet parlance were called the “organs of state security.”  The rest is history, as they say.  A short account of the incident can be found here.

Callous Aplomb

As the video of the event shows, Secretary Clinton did not miss a beat in her speech as she called for authoritarian governments to show respect for dissent and to refrain from violence. She spoke with what seemed to be an especially chilly sang froid, as she ignored my silent witness and the violent assault that took place right in front of her.

The experience gave me personal confirmation of the impression that I had reluctantly drawn from watching her behavior and its consequences over the past decade. The incident was a kind of metaphor of the much worse violence that Secretary Clinton has coolly countenanced against others.

Again and again, Hillary Clinton – both as a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State – has demonstrated a nonchalant readiness to unleash the vast destructiveness of American military power. The charitable explanation, I suppose, is that she knows nothing of war from direct personal experience.

And that is also true of her husband, her colleague Robert Gates at the Defense Department, President Barack Obama, and most of the White House functionaries blithely making decisions to squander the lives and limbs of young soldiers in foreign adventures — conflicts that even the top brass admit cannot be won with weapons.

The analogy to Vietnam is inescapable. As White House tapes from the 1960s show, President Lyndon Johnson knew that the Vietnam War could not be “won” in any meaningful way. Nonetheless, he kept throwing hundreds of thousands into the battle lest someone accuse him of being soft on communism.

I had an inside seat watching Johnson do that. And I did nothing.

Now, with an even more jittery president, a hawkish Secretary of State, General David they-injure-their-own-children-to-make-us-look-bad Petraeus, and various Republican presidential hopefuls – all jockeying for political position as the 2012 election draws near – the country is in even deeper trouble today.

No one on this political merry-go-round can afford to appear weak on terrorism. So, they all have covered their bets. And we all know who pays the price for these political calculations.

This time, I would NOT do nothing.

My colleagues in Veterans for Peace and I have known far too many comrades-in-arms and families whose lives have been shattered or ended as a result of such crass political maneuvering. Many of us know far more than we wish to know about war and killing. But — try as we may with letters and other appeals — we cannot get through to President Obama. And Secretary Clinton turns her own deaf ear to our entreaties and those of others who oppose unnecessary warfare. It is a pattern that she also followed in her days as a U.S. senator from New York.

See No Evil

In the summer of 2002, as the Senate was preparing to conduct hearings about alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and the possibility of war, former Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq and U.S. Marine Major, Scott Ritter, came down to Washington from his home in upstate New York to share his first-hand knowledge with as many senators as possible.

To those that let him in the door, he showed that the “intelligence” adduced to support U.S. claims that Iraq still had WMD was fatally flawed. This was the same “intelligence” that Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller later branded “unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton would not let Ritter in her door. Despite his unique insights as a U.N. inspector and his status as a constituent, Sen. Clinton gave him the royal run-around. Her message was clear: “Don’t bother me with the facts.” She had already made up her mind. I had a direct line into her inner circle at the time, and was assured that several of my op-eds and other commentaries skeptical of George W. Bush’s planned invasion were given personally to Clinton, but no matter.

Sen. Clinton reportedly was not among the handful of legislators who took the trouble to read the National Intelligence Estimate on WMD in Iraq that was issued on Oct. 1, 2002, just ten days before the she voted to authorize war.

In short, she chose not to perform the due diligence required prior to making a decision having life-or-death consequences for thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. She knew whom she needed to cater to, and what she felt she had to do.

But, bright as she is, Hillary Clinton is prone to willful mistakes — political, as well as strategic. In dissing those of us who were trying to warn her that an attack on Iraq would have catastrophic consequences, she simply willed us to be wrong. Clearly, her calculation was that she had to appear super-strong on defense in order to win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency in 2008.

Just as clearly, courting Israel and the Likud Lobby was also important to her political ambitions.

Tony Blair Admits Israeli Role

Any lingering doubt that Israel played a major role in the U.S.- U.K. decision to attack Iraq was dispelled a year ago when former Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke publicly about the Israeli input into the all-important Bush-Blair deliberations on Iraq in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.

Inexplicably, Blair forgot his usual discretion when it comes to disclosing important facts to the public and blurted out some truth at the Chilcot hearings in London regarding the origins of the Iraq War:

“As I recall that [April 2002] discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us [Bush and Blair], whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this.”

According to Philip Zelikow – a former member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and later counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – the “real threat” from Iraq was not to the United States.

Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002, the “unstated threat” from Iraq was the “threat against Israel.” He added, “The American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

But it wasn’t as though leading Israelis were disguising their hopes or an attack on Iraq. The current Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu published a pre-invasion piece titled “The case for Toppling Saddam” in the Wall Street Journal, in which he wrote:

“Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do … I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.”

The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, “the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.” And, as a retired Israeli general later put it, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional [WMD] capabilities.” In the United States, neoconservatives also pushed for war thinking that taking out Saddam Hussein would make Israel more secure.

Those Israeli leaders and their neocon allies got their wish on March 19, 2003, with the U.S.-U.K. invasion.

Of course, pressure from Israel and its Lobby was not the only factor behind the invasion of Iraq — think also oil, military bases, various political ambitions, revenge, etc. — but the Israeli factor was a central one.

A Calculating Senator

I’m afraid, though, that these calculations aimed at enhancing Israeli security may ultimately have the opposite effect. The Iraq War and the anti-Americanism that it has engendered across the Middle East seem sure to make Israel’s position in the region even more precarious.

If the Iraq War does end up making the region more dangerous for Israel, the fault will lie primarily with Israel’s hard-line leaders, as well as with those American officials (and media pundits) who so eagerly clambered onboard for the attack on Iraq.

One of those U.S. officials was the calculating senator from New York.

In a kind of poetic justice, Clinton’s politically motivated warmongering became a key factor in her losing the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, who as a young state senator in Illinois spoke out against the war.

Although she bet wrong in 2002-03, Clinton keeps doubling down in her apparent belief that her greater political vulnerability comes from being perceived as “weak” against U.S. adversaries. So, she’s emerged as one of the Obama administration’s leading hawks on Afghanistan and Iran.

I suspect she still has her eye on what she considers the crucial centers of financial, media and other power that could support a possible future run for president, whether in 2012 if the Obama administration unravels or in 2016.

Another explanation, I suppose, could be that the Secretary of State genuinely believes that the United States should fight wars favored by right-wing Israelis and their influential supporters in the U.S.

Whichever interpretation you prefer, there’s no doubt that she has put herself in the forefront of American leaders threatening Iran over its alleged “nuclear weapons” program, a “weapons” program that Iran denies exists and for which the U.S. intelligence community has found little or no evidence.

Bête Noire Iran

As a former CIA analyst myself, it strikes me as odd that Clinton’s speeches never reflect the consistent, unanimous judgment of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, issued formally (and with “high confidence”) in November 2007 that Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon in the fall of 2003 and had not yet decided whether to resume that work.

Less than two weeks ago (on Feb. 10), in a formal appearance before the House Intelligence Committee, National Intelligence Director James Clapper testified:

“We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons….

“We continue to judge Iran’s nuclear decisionmaking is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran.”

Who’s in Charge Here?

Yet, in her determination to come across as hard-line, Clinton has undercut promising initiatives that might have constrained Iran from having enough low-enriched uranium to be even tempted to build a nuclear arsenal.

Last year, when – at the urging of President Obama – the leaders of Turkey and Brazil worked out an agreement with Iran, under which Iran agreed to ship about half of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) out of country, Clinton immediately rejected it in favor of more severe economic sanctions.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva were left wondering who exactly was in charge in Washington — Hillary Clinton and her pro-Israel friends, or Obama.

Brazil released a three-page letter that Obama had sent to Lula da Silva a month earlier in which Obama said the proposed uranium transfer “would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s” stockpile of low-enriched uranium.

The contrast between Obama’s support for the initiative and the opposition from various hardliners (including Clinton) caused “some puzzlement,” one senior Brazilian official told the New York Times. After all, this official said, the supportive “letter came from the highest authority and was very clear.”

It was a particularly telling episode. Clinton basked in the applause of Israeli leaders and neocon pundits for blocking the uranium transfer and securing more restrictive UN sanctions on Iran – and since then Iran appears to have dug in its heals on additional negotiations over its nuclear program.

Secretary Clinton is almost as assiduous as Netanyahu in never missing a chance to paint the Iranians in the darkest colors – even if that ends up painting the entire region into a more dangerous corner.

More Hypocrisy

On Feb. 15, Clinton continued giving hypocrisy a bad name, with her GWU speech regarding the importance of governments respecting peaceful dissent.

Five short paragraphs after she watched me snatched out of the audience Blackwater-style, she said, “Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people.” It was like something straight out of Franz Kafka.

Today, given the growing instability in the Middle East – and Netanyahu’s strident talk about Iran’s dangerous influence – it may take yet another Herculean effort by Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen to disabuse Netanyahu of the notion that Israel can somehow provoke the kind of confrontation with Iran that would automatically suck the U.S. into the conflict on Israel’s side.

At each such turning point, Secretary Clinton predictably sides with the hard-line Israeli position and shows remarkably little sympathy for the Palestinians or any other group that finds itself in Israel’s way.

It is now clear, not only from the WikiLeaks documents, but even more so from the “Palestine Papers” disclosed by Al Jazeera, that Washington has long been playing a thoroughly dishonest “honest-broker” role between Israel and the Palestinians.

But those documents don’t stand alone. Clinton also rejected the Goldstone Report’s criticism of Israel’s bloody attack on Gaza in 2008-09; she waffled on Israel’s fatal commando raid on a Turkish relief flotilla on its way to Gaza in 2010; and she rallied to the defense of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak this month when Israeli leaders raised alarms about what kind of regime might follow him.

Just last week, Clinton oversaw the casting of the U.S. veto to kill a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to stop colonizing territories it occupied in 1967. That vote was 14 to 1, marking the first such veto by the Obama administration. Netanyahu was quick to state that he “deeply appreciated” the U.S. stance.

Silent Witness

In the face of such callous disregard for what the Founders called “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,” words failed me — literally — on Feb. 15.

The op-eds, the speeches, and the interviews that others and I have done about needless war and feckless politicians may have done some good but, surely, they have not done enough. And America’s Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) is the embodiment of a Fourth Estate that is dead in the water.

I counted about 20 TV cameras at the Clinton speech and reporters galore. Not one thought to come outside to watch what was happening to me, and zero reporting on the incident has found its way into the FCM, save a couple of brief and misleading accounts.

A Fox News story claimed that “a heckler interrupted” Clinton’s speech and then “was escorted from the room.” Fox News added that I “was, perhaps, trying to hold up a sign.” CNN posted a brief clip with a similar insistence that I had “interrupted” Clinton’s speech, though the video shows me saying nothing until after I’m dragged away (or “escorted”) when I say, “So this is America.” There also was no sign.

Disappointing, but not surprising. But I guess I really do believe that the good is worth doing because it is good. It shouldn’t matter that there is little or no guarantee of success — or even of a truthful recounting of what happened.

Jail

One of my friends, in a good-natured attempt to make light of my arrest and brief imprisonment, commented that I must be used to it by now.

I thought of how anti-war activist Dan Berrigan responded to that kind of observation in his testimony at the Plowshares Eight trial 31 years ago. I feel blessed by his witness and fully identify with what he said about “the push of conscience”:

“With every cowardly bone in my body, I wished I hadn’t had to do it. That has been true every time I have been arrested. My stomach turns over. I feel sick. I feel afraid. I hate jail. I don’t do well there physically.

“But I have read that we must not kill. I have read that children, above all, are threatened by this. I have read that Christ our Lord underwent death rather than inflict it. And I’m supposed to be a disciple.

“The push of conscience is a terrible thing.”

As Fr. Berrigan clearly understood, the suffering of the victims of war is so much worse than the shock and discomfort of arrest.

For her part, Sen. and/or Secretary Clinton seems never to have encountered a war that she didn’t immediately embrace on behalf of some geopolitical justification, apparently following Henry Kissinger’s dictum that soldiers are “just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

For us Veterans for Peace, we’ve been there, done that. And so, enough already!

Moreover, beyond the human suffering of those caught up in war, there’s what’s in store for the rest of us. As recent rhetoric and disclosures of leaked documents have made clear, what lies ahead is a permanent warfare state, including occupation of foreign lands and new military bases around the globe — unless we have the courage to stand up this time.

Already well under way is creeping curtailment of our rights at home. “A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny,” wrote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn — one who knew.

I think we need to bear in mind that we are part of a long line of those who have taken a stand on these issues. As for those of us who have served abroad to safeguard the rights of U.S. citizens — well, maybe we have a particular mandate now to keep doing what we can to keep protecting them.

An earlier version of this article appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President’s Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

——————————————————————————–

How Bad Is It?

by Robert Freeman
This must be what it’s like when a country goes insane, when it falls down a rabbit hole and tries to pretend that everything is normal.

It can’t tell truths from lies. Hucksters pose as upright men, and people imagine they are Solons, avatars of insight come down from the ages. Sleazy operators pass themselves off as statesmen, as thinkers of deep gravitas, and the crowds, unable to distinguish sanctimony from sincerity, bravado from bullshit, lap it up.

Let’s be clear. It was the Republicans who wrecked the economy. Both their people and their policies drove the economy into the ditch. They wrecked the economy not once, but twice in the last eighty years.

So Republicans condescending to instruct Americans about how to fix the economy is like the captain of the Titanic lecturing shipping operators about safe procedures for navigating the north Atlantic. No sane society would tolerate it. But this one does.

How bad is it this time?

Six million people have lost their jobs. Twenty five million are underemployed. Many will never work again. Eight trillion dollars of middle class wealth has been destroyed in the housing collapse. One out of four mortgage holders are under water, owing more on their home than it’s worth. Fifty million people are living in poverty. One out of eight Americans are on food stamps. One of every two children will be on food stamps at some point in their lives.

How much worse can it get?

And the rich? Corporate profits are at an all-time high. But corporate taxes — not the imaginary “nominal” rates they whine so bitterly about, but the taxes actually paid — are among the lowest in the industrial world. Income inequality is at its highest level since 1917. Between 2000 and 2006, two thirds of all the growth in the entire economy went to the top 1%. And the “too big to fail” banks, those that wrecked the economy and extorted trillions of dollars from the government to rescue them? They are now even bigger.

How much better can it get?

And the Republicans’ response? The working and middle class need to pay. Never mind that it was Reagan and Bush I who quadrupled the national debt in only 12 years, and Bush II who doubled it again in only eight, all to grease the pockets of their wealthy base. It’s the working and middle class who need to be bled. They still have assets that can be milked from them. They can still be made more subservient, more docile.

They need to give up the union protections that have afforded them the slightest bargaining power against the largest organizations on earth. They need to give up environmental protections, even though every one of them have rocket fuel in their bodies from water contamination. They need to give up the mortgage interest deductions that allowed them to buy and own their own homes.

They need to give up government help with college loans that allowed their children to get the education they could never have. They need to give up any expectation of extended unemployment insurance, even though there are five people looking for every job available. They need to give up the retirement protections that Social Security has promised them for the past 75 years.

In other words, they need to give up any expectation of security, or dignity. They need to give up any childish illusions that they have any say in the government, that it is operated for any such quaint Madisonian ends as “the general welfare.” They need to put on their kneepads and accustom themselves to being grateful servants to their new feudal masters, assuming their masters will have them. It’s sickening.

Even though it was trillions of dollars of government bail-outs that saved the banks and their shareholders from bankruptcy… Even though it was government stimulus that reversed the 750,000 monthly job losses that were savaging the economy when Obama took office… Even though it was government FDIC insurance that protected millions of savers from being wiped out, and unemployment insurance that mitigated the collapse of aggregate demand, staving off another Great Depression…

It’s the poor, the working, and the middle classes that must be made to pay, for in the Republicans’ psychotic world government is existentially bad because it is through government that democracy tries to modulate the worst excesses of capitalism, which is existentially good.

It’s almost surrealistic. But decades of relentless Republican hate-mongering against the government has done its job.

Never mind that it was government that pulled off the greatest feat of social engineering in history. In 1900, only 4% of Americans graduated from high school. By 2000, more than 80% did. It was this mass educated public that made possible the most technically sophisticated economy in the history of the world.

It was government that won both World War I and World War II, leaving the U.S. economy astride the world like a colossus, able to harvest the fruits for decades. It was the government GI Bill program that educated a generation of young people to ultimately defeat the Soviet Union.

It was the government that wired every house in the country for electricity during the Great Depression, setting up the largest household consumer-goods market in the world in the 1950s: home appliances. And it was government guarantees for home loans that set off the greatest building boom in the history of the world: suburbia.

It was government that paved more than 3 million miles of road between 1930 and 1960, making possible the massive economic boom associated with automobiles, mass mobility, and more. It was government research that invented the graphical user interface and the Internet.

None of that matters.

Hate is stronger than logic and more than anything else, Republicans love their hate. It’s the only thing that gives them power. The more vicious, the more loony they are, the more they are treated like savants, like prophets channeling some higher wisdom, come though it may from the self-loathing gutter of political prostitution. They pull stuff out of their ass and brazenly pass it off as stone tablets. And people swoon.

Of course, you can understand why. The media genuflect before gibberish and idolize idiocy. They are the media-tors of a Gresham’s Law of public discourse where bad information drives out good. For their own slick whoring they become “players,” while everybody else is left with a debauched civic currency, a crushed economy, and a collective impotence that makes true democracy and true prosperity impossible.

Alice in Wonderland would be amazed, even repulsed, that such cultural pathology passes for intelligence, even civilization. At least she stood up to the inanities of the Mad Hatter, the insanities of the Queen of Hearts, the arrogant deceits of Humpty Dumpty. But she didn’t live in today’s America.

Robert Freeman writes on economics, history and education. He teaches history and economics at Los Altos High School in Los Altos, CA. and is the founder of One Dollar For Life, a national non-profit that helps American students build schools in the developing world through contributions of one dollar. He can reached at robertfreeman10@yahoo.com.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression, 71-year-old Ray McGovern was grabbed from the audience in plain view of her by police and an unidentified official in plain clothes, brutalized and left bleeding in jail. She never paused speaking. When Secretary Clinton began her speech, Mr. McGovern remained standing silently in the audience and turned his back. Mr. McGovern, a veteran Army officer who also worked as a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years, was wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt.

Blind-sided by security officers who pounced upon him, Mr. McGovern remarked, as he was hauled out the door, “So this is America?” Mr. McGovern is covered with bruises, lacerations and contusions inflicted in the assault.

Mr. McGovern is being represented by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). “It is the ultimate definition of lip service that Secretary of State Clinton would be trumpeting the U.S. government’s supposed concerns for free speech rights and this man would be simultaneously brutalized and arrested for engaging in a peaceful act of dissent at her speech,” stated attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the PCJF.

Mr. McGovern now works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: February 18, 2011 07:13PM (Part of series on MLM)

Washington • For federal regulators, the idea seemed like a no-brainer.

People thinking of selling Avon, Utah-based Nu Skin or some other multilevel marketing (MLM) products should know how likely they are to make a profit. They should know about any lawsuits against the company and the number of independent sellers who ended up demanding a refund.

After years of study, the Federal Trade Commission in 2006 formally proposed a “business opportunity rule” to protect people from fraud by requiring such disclosures of MLMs, also known as direct sellers, along with companies pitching vending machine routes and letter-stuffing campaigns.

Then regulators asked the public to comment. And they did. First by the hundreds, then by the thousands, almost all of which were sent by direct selling companies or their distributors clamoring that the rule would hurt their home-to-home business, if not kill it all together.

Two years later the FTC dropped any reference to MLMs and forged ahead with its proposal. The commission expects to finalize the business opportunity rule sometime later this year.

So what happened? That depends on your vantage point.

The direct selling industry says it demonstrated that the proposal was unnecessarily onerous and persuaded federal regulators to back off.

The FTC’s staff say they decided the rule wouldn’t help consumers determine if a MLM was a good bet.

And then there’s a small group of critics who believes the FTC caved to political pressure from a questionable industry.

“It defies reason and the experience of millions of people to take the most common form of business-opportunity solicitation and exclude it,” said Robert FitzPatrick, president of Pyramid Scheme Alert, based in Charlotte, N.C. “This rule was snuffed out with a political lobbying campaign.”

That campaign was waged largely by the Direct Selling Association (DSA), which counts 16 Utah businesses as members. And the group doesn’t hide that it helped direct most of the 17,000 comments the FTC received.

“We certainly facilitated those communications. I’m not abashed about that at all,” said Joseph Mariano, the incoming president of the DSA. “We felt that the regulatory burdens they were going to place on legitimate businesses in an effort to weed out the scams were just too high.”

The drawn-out debate over the business opportunity rule shows how aggressive direct sellers respond to regulations they find threatening, but also how the government has struggled to fashion rules for an industry that regulators regard skeptically.

Such regulatory dust-ups are of particular interest for Utah, which has more MLM companies per capita than anywhere else in the nation. Companies like Nu Skin, USANA and XanGo employ thousands and rack up annual revenues of $4 billion. They also enjoy the support of Utah’s political elite. Sen. Orrin Hatch, Reps. Jim Matheson and Rob Bishop and former Rep. Chris Cannon sent letters to the FTC questioning the business opportunity rule and how it applies to direct sellers.

The thousands of comments, including those from Utah political leaders, almost exclusively focused on three areas: a seven-day waiting period to sign up, the financial and legal disclosures and a required list of references.

The companies felt a weeklong waiting period would zap the excitement of potential distributors, making it harder to recruit new people into their sales force. They also felt the earnings and lawsuit disclosures would make it look like the company was sketchy.

“There is sort of a feeling like ‘Why do you have to do this? Have you done something wrong?’” said James Bramble, general counsel for USANA Health Sciences, based in Salt Lake City.

As for the list of references, their complaints covered both privacy concerns and issues unique to the MLM world.

Distributors get more money when they add new distributors to their “downline,” so encouraging someone to call independent sellers to check on the validity of the business could start a recruitment war.

“We were ultimately able to persuade the FTC that the direct sellers should not be covered,” said Nu Skin General Counsel Rich Hartvigsen. “There are several million independent direct sellers in the United States. When they get involved in an issue that impacts their business, they have a fairly loud voice.”

Monica Vaca of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection said the 17,000 comments were far more than the commission normally receives on a proposed rule, but she didn’t believe the industry arguments resulted in the policy change.

“At its core what the business opportunity rule does is provide prospective purchasers with disclosures. Things we think are important for people to know before they invest money,” said Vaca. “Some of those disclosures are going to be more difficult to apply in the MLM context.”

She said the big one is the earnings disclosure. According to Vaca, MLM companies and even their distributors have an incentive to exaggerate annual earnings, making it easier to recruit others into the business.

“If they are engaged in some kind of collusion to inflate these earnings, then the earnings disclosure is not going to be really that useful,” she said.

Vaca did agree that providing references to other MLM distributors could be counterproductive.

“If they have an incentive to recruit you into their downline, then you don’t have somebody who is necessarily giving you the full, honest picture,” she said.

Beyond the details of the regulation, Vaca said the commission had a change in heart through the rule-making process.

“Initially, we felt like there was really quite a lot of evidence there, that there are some bad practices in this industry. However, identifying bad practices of 14 companies is a little bit different than identifying that as a prevalent problem affecting the entire industry,” she said, referring to past FTC lawsuits against 14 direct selling companies, none of which was from Utah.

The FTC decided that it would continue its case-by-case approach to rooting out the bad companies from the legitimate ones, focusing on how much of the money is made by recruiting others rather than selling products.

FitzPatrick, the vocal MLM critic, called that “absurd.”

“The original rule was not to prove that each scheme was a fraud,” he said. “The point of the rule was to provide disclosure so the consumer could know if it was a viable business opportunity.”

He said the biggest need is for more information on potential earnings, because he said people envision making big money selling the products and recruiting other distributors, but the overwhelming majority makes little or no money at all. He thinks the FTC should have tried to tweak the disclosure, not jettison it entirely.

FitzPatrick also lamented the political involvement in the rule making, including a direct selling company in Georgia that hired past FTC Chairman Timothy Muris and former Consumer Protection Bureau Director Howard Beales to argue on its behalf.

Vaca rebuffed the claim that the FTC caved to industry pressure, saying: “I think our report really stands on its own. We talk about all the reasons why it was not a good fit.”

But she also promised that the FTC would keep a vigilant eye on direct sellers.

“We are going to be active in the MLM world for a long time,” she said. “The two main issues are the potential for a possible pyramid scheme, and the making of false or unsubstantiated earnings claims.”

mcanham@sltrib.com

Business opportunities

The FTC’s proposal was a play off the already established franchise rule, which requires chains to provide lengthy disclosures to a prospective buyer. This time, the FTC wanted to target much less expensive ventures such as at-home work companies and multilevel marketing.

Disclosures required

Any earnings claim made by the company

A list of lawsuits concerning fraud or deceptive practices

Description of any refund policy

The number of purchasers in the past two years and the number who sought a refund

A list of references, usually the 10 geographically closest to the new recruit

—————————————————-

Waking Up in Wisconsin

by David Michael Green

Whodathunkit, eh?

Insignificant, backwater, third world banana republics like Tunisia and Egypt pioneering the way for the greatest superpower and richest country on the planet.

That’s not supposed to happen.

I mean, we pay for a military that costs as much as every other one in the world, combined, even though it can’t win endless wars against insignificant, backwater, third world banana republics.  They can’t say that about their militaries!  We’ve got annual deficits that are bigger than their entire economies.  The size of our economy is half-again bigger than the number two in the world (with one-fourth the population), and we’ve managed to produce a health care system that ranks 39th globally.  Who else can claim that badge of honor?  No doubt that ranking partially explains why our life expectancy figures are lower than just about every country in the developed world.  Our education system, once the envy of the world, is crumbling, along with the size of our college enrollments.  Ditto our infrastructure, much of which hasn’t been maintained in decades.  Who can touch that?  We have the highest polarization of wealth in the entire developed world, and more than any country in the Arab world too.  Sweet!  Another cool thing is our incarceration rate.  It’s 743 per hundred thousand people.  The next highest country has less than half that figure.  Our use of torture and rendition and the remote-controlled aerial bombings of civilians has earned us the scorn and hatred of the world, while our political leaders, unmatched in their capacity for hypocrisy and buffoonery, have made us a laughingstock that few puffy-chested, medal-covered third world dictators can match.  You got Mugabe?  We got Palin.  You got Charles Taylor?  We got George W. Bush, in a democracy no less.

So, with a record like that, who in the world are these punky backwater countries to teach high and mighty America anything about anything?!?!

Darned if it hasn’t happened, though.  I mean, you can say it’s a coincidence if you want, and you may even be right.  But I can’t help thinking that the people of Wisconsin have been inspired by the people of Egypt.  Who were themselves inspired by the people of Tunisia.  Both of whom have inspired the people of Bahrain, Jordan, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and beyond.  Meanwhile, Wisconsin seems to be inspiring Americans in other states finally to fight back.

It would seem that people power is in the air in early 2011, and that it’s quite contagious.

Whatever is the explanation for the Cheesehead version of Tahrir Square, it is unbelievably welcome, and just barely in time.

It’s crucial to understand what the regressive initiative that our brothers and sisters in Wisconsin are right now fighting is really all about, and how that fits into the context of our era.  This is just the latest, and nearly the last, in a succession of efforts in America over the last three decades to move money from the hands of non-elites to those of oligarchs. Make no mistake, that program constitutes essentially the sum total of American politics at its core over the last generation.  All else is a sideshow or, more likely and more ominously, an intentional diversion, just as a skilled magician is careful to give your eye something else to focus on as he moves the ball from under the cup.

That money-shifting effort has been relentless, and it has been fantastically successful.  We have witnessed the greatest transfer of wealth in human history over this period of time.  More astonishing, here in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, is that it went the wrong way – from ordinary folk who need the money to wealthy elites, many of whom actually couldn’t even find ways to spend those enormous quantities flooding their accounts if they wanted to.  Most astonishing of all is that this happened in a functioning democracy, where the votes of rip-offees vastly outnumber the votes of rip-offers.  If anyone you meet ever doubts the capacity of human stupidity, tell them this tale.  It’s an amazing story.  It’s also the most significant single fact of American politics in our time. And we don’t even talk about it.

That’s because of the stunning success of the thieves in executing their heist.  As oft-noted, the perfect crime is one that is not even detected.  Welcome to America.

You gotta hand it to these guys.  They have been smart, thorough, ruthless, tenacious, patient and ruthless.  Did I mention ruthless?  They have attacked New Deal America – the set of policies that created a vast middle class for the first time and dramatically improved people’s quality of life en masse – in every way possible, and have managed to beat it into near submission.

They’ve been very clever about it, too.  They fabricated think tanks whose product at any other time would have seemed absurdly laughable.  They created a whole new media for themselves, and intimidated the parts they didn’t outright own.  They dumbed down education, making sure that any knowledge of history or civics or – god forbid – comparative politics was eliminated from the curriculum, thus producing nice, docile worker bees who know just enough to do their ill-paid jobs, but not enough to even know that they’re ill-paid.  They allied with regressive forces like religious institutions, the military and the Republican Party.  Then they bought the Democrats too, not least of which including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, whose economic policies are fundamentally indistinguishable from the GOP’s.  They infiltrated the courts with corporate hacks so corrupt that they steal elections and sit on cases even when they’ve received contributions from litigants in the matter.  They smashed labor unions at every opportunity.  They drove the country deep into debt with the express purpose of making it then seem that any further social spending was no longer sustainable.  They tore down even the thin veneer of campaign finance reform from the prior era.  They shredded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and have bullied any opponents with thuggish acts of verbal and other forms of personal assault.  They made voting more difficult, wrongly purged masses of voters from the rolls, and used rigged machines to steal elections.  They have poisoned the minds of Americans with diversionary bogeymen ranging from Saddam Hussein to marrying gays to the War on Christmas.

And so on.  The complete list is extensive enough to fill the pages of this essay and several more.  The upshot of the story is that there has been a concerted, multipronged attack on a system of political economy that was, when they began, already just about the least fair to working people of any in the developed world, but nevertheless a whole lot more fair than it ever had been previously.  Or is now.

The purpose of all these efforts, however, was always the same, and typically had little to do with culture conflicts, endless Middle Eastern wars, or televised Hannity and Colmes style pissing matches.  It was always about the money.  Always.  It remains about the money today.

That’s why the malignant disease better known as Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker is now doing what he is doing.  He claims that the state is broke and that he has no choice but to roll back public sector salaries and benefits.  Everything about that claim is a lie. The state is not nearly as far in the red as other states that are not doing what he is doing.  The state could increase taxes if it wanted to solve its problem, rather than exploiting workers. In fact, the state just got done creating the very deficit Walker claims to be the problem by slashing $177 million from its tax rolls. State employees are underpaid compared to equivalent private sector workers, not overpaid as he claims.  And despite all this, the unions have nevertheless publicly agreed to negotiate givebacks with the Governor.  And so on.

But, of course, the biggest lie of all is the biggest lie of all.  That is that the premise for what he is doing is the pursuit of fiscal rectitude.  Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that, nationally, the same party that claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility is precisely the gang of folks who got us into the mess we’re in. Of the fourteen trillion dollars or so of current national debt, almost all of it was created under Republican presidents, including the saintly Ronald of Nazareth, who tripled the national debt and started the process of dismantling America’s middle class (with a jaunty smile, of course, so it felt better and was less noticeable). It is true that borrowing has gone up under Barack Obama (who, anyhow, is one of them, not one of us), but how much would that have been the case had he not inherited Bush’s wars, Bush’s ‘defense’ budget, Bush’s non-defense discretionary spending increases, Bush’s unfunded prescription drug bill, Bush’s decimation of incoming federal revenue in the form of tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush’s TARP, and Bush’s recession, the biggest since the Great Depression and therefore requiring massive stimulus spending? To answer that question, just look at what spending looked like on the day Bush was inaugurated.  In fact, he inherited the greatest budget surplus in all of history.

These are the folks who bill themselves as the grownups in the room, the ones who are being responsible, the ones who are slashing social spending because we absolutely have to do so, even while further fattening a military already bloated on useless spending, even while continuing completely unabated lavish corporate welfare programs for Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Pharma and the rest, and even while slashing taxes on the wealthy down to nearly zero, transferring those liabilities to the rest of us.  That’s what the Scott Walkers of this country have been doing in Washington for three decades now.

But even if Governor Walker is not responsible for the lies and destruction of his party at the national level, he is practicing precisely the same behavior in Wisconsin (while, no doubt, licking his chops at his prospects for a subsequent presidential bid, based on making this name for himself at the state level).  This is not about balancing the state budget, anymore than Republicans can be the party of fiscal responsibility anywhere other than in the Alice’s-Wonderland-on-steroid-laced-irradiated-hyper-concentrated-LSD that calls itself America. This is about completing the piracy mission, knocking down one of the last remaining barriers preventing the wholesale transfer of middle class wealth to the oligarchy.  This initiative is entirely about breaking public sector unions.

You can tell that’s true because those provisions in the bill have absolutely zero impact on the state’s budget.  Whether unions have to be recertified every year, whether their dues are collected from paychecks, and whether they can bargain over non-salary issues – none of these factors alter Wisconsin’s fiscal condition by a single penny.  You can tell that’s true because the unions are willing to talk with the governor about givebacks – and thus address the problem he claims the legislation is meant to solve – if he’ll strip out the union-busting language.  And you can tell that’s true because he’s not even slightly interested in their offer.  By refusing to take yes for an answer from the unions on the question that he offers as a pretext for the legislation, he reveals the pretext to be just that.  This is entirely about breaking public sector unions.

It is, once again, clever in its staging.  Having driven the American people to the wall through the use of job-exporting trade policy, unfair taxation policy, wage-undermining private sector union-busting, and budget-busting deficit spending, the Klepto-Plutocracy has now positioned itself quite handsomely for purposes of presenting the next and near-final act in its multi-decade play.  First they put economic pressure on all Americans by shipping jobs overseas.  Then they enact policies that bring on massive levels of state and federal debt.  Then they give us a devastating recession to ratchet up economic insecurity.  Then they make sure the Democratic alternative to the Republican recession-makers is in fact no alternative at all, bringing no relief to workers whatsoever.  This then clears the way, a mere two years later, for a Lazarus-like resuscitation of the nearly-dead recession-creating Republican Party.  But an even worse version this time, sending tea party social spending slasher freaks to Congress and producing aggressive predatory monsters like Chris Christie and Scott Walker at the state level.  Then they argue to a bunch of politically illiterate American voters the all these fat gubmint workers have got it too goddam good, what with their wages that people can sorta actually live off of an’ all.  Worse, these lazy bums are not only living high on the hog, but they’re living high on your nickel, Mr. Taxpayer Moron!  As storms go, that recipe is good for producing a near perfect one in order to crush public sector unions.

We’ll see if it works.  There are reasons not to be hopeful.  Right now, as of this writing, success for the predators requires just one of fourteen Democrats in the state Senate to come in from hiding out-of-state, giving Republicans a quorum, and sealing the deal.  Moreover, Wisconsin – a state that pioneered unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, the eight hour work week, the weekend, and other triumphs of actual humane treatment for humans, appears to have taken a big deep dive into Lake Stupidity of late.  Once a bastion of progressivism, more lately a purple state, in 2010 it went overwhelmingly Republican, not least by producing the nation’s single most shameful act of that election cycle, the purging of Russ Feingold from the US Senate.

But there are also reasons to be hopeful, too.  It seems that this may just be the Basta! moment for middle class Wisconsinites sick of being ground into poverty.  Every day, the crowds of demonstrators grow larger, at last count up to 70,000.  They seem really pissed off.  When was the last time we saw this?

And maybe this is the Basta! moment for the country, too.  Maybe people have finally had Enough! not just in Wisconsin, but elsewhere too.  Already there are similar reactions in other states, as other Republicans attempt the same fiscal coup strategy.

Altogether, it may not be hyperbolic to say that Wisconsin’s fate is the country’s fate.  If the thieves win, it will empower and encourage thieves nationally.  If the people win, that victory may produce a Tunisia effect, getting folks to realize, as Egyptians did, that you’re really only captive to the power of thugs for precisely as long as you believe yourself to be captive to the power of thugs.

This could be the first step of an American awakening.  But even if it does occur, it will only be the first step.  There is so much more to be done.  Most of the initial work is purely in the domain of framing.  People need to understand what Warren Buffett understands, that there has been a class war going on for three decades now, and that his team is winning.  People need to understand that all the other nonsense that forms the content of American politics is diversionary bullshit.  People need to understand that, yes, American exceptionalism is alive and well in 2011, only it is alive and well in how poorly the country does on almost every measure of quality of life.  Especially compared to those horrid socialists in Europe and elsewhere, who suffer every day under the crushing burdens of better health, longer life, higher quality education, more equal distribution of wealth, better working conditions, less crime, less stress, less war and more happiness.

From there, once the Zeitgeist is changed, the policy changes can fall like dominos.  It’s not that hard to figure what to do.  We had it mostly right before the Reagan Era began.  2011 is not 1981, so some things will have to change, but most will not.  You either provide Social Security or you don’t.  You either protect worker safety or you don’t.  You either respect unions and the environment or not.  You either protect people’s civil rights or you don’t.

Things can also get better than they were thirty years ago.  We never had a national health care system, and we still don’t.  The one we’re slated to get in 2014 is lame, brought to us by our fake-progressive DINO corporate shill of a president.  We can do lots better.  Ditto on taxation, spending, industrial policy, workers rights and benefits, foreign policy and so on.  The great news about the multi-headed, cataclysmic, across-the-board disaster of policymaking in the United States today is that it leaves you plenty of room for improvement.  It will be a long time before we run out of ideas for how to make things better here in Ronald Reagan’s America.

I don’t know if this is finally the moment when America wakes up and turns the corner to emerge from this long national nightmare.  That’s probably too much to ask when tea party Republicans dominate the Congress, a faux Democratic president, just like the last one, does the bidding of the national oligarchy, and not a single prominent political figure is out there pitching the narrative that would help Americans to understand who their real enemies are.

On the other hand, who could have imagined a month or two ago that the thirty year-old Mubarak dictatorship would be swept away over the period of a couple of weeks, and with minimal bloodshed to boot?

If that can happen, anything can happen.

Wake up, America!

On, Wisconsin.

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers’ reactions to his articles (mailto:dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.

The New York Post

Likely Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been out on the pre-campaign trail this month saying he is the man to get Americans back to work, despite a spotty jobs record while on Wall Street.

However, the former private equity firm chief’s fortune — which has funded his political ambitions from the Massachusetts statehouse to his unsuccessful run for the White House in 2008 — was made on the backs of companies that ultimately collapsed, putting thousands of ordinary Americans out on the street. That truth if it becomes widely known could become costly to Romney, who, while making the media rounds recently, told CNN’s Piers Morgan that “People in America want to know who can get 15 million people back to work,” implying he was that person.

Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, bought companies and often increased short-term earnings so those businesses could then borrow enormous amounts of money. That borrowed money was used to pay Bain dividends. Then those businesses needed to maintain that high level of earnings to pay their debts.

Romney in 2007 told the New York Times he had nothing to do with taking dividends from two companies that later went bankrupt, and that one should not take a distribution from a business that put the company at risk.

Yet Geoffrey Rehnert, who helped start Bain Capital and is now co-CEO of the private equity firm The Audax Group, told me for my Penguin book, “The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy,” that Romney owned a controlling stake in Bain Capital between approximately 1992 and 2001. The firm under his watch took such risks, time and time again.

Bain and Goldman Sachs, for example, put $85 million down in a $415 million 1994 leveraged buyout of Baxter International’s medical testing division (renamed Dade Behring), which sold machines and reagents to labs.

Former Dade CEO Scott Garrett, who managed the business for the first few years after the takeover, said Romney “was far more in tune with what was going on throughout his firm, and even the portfolio companies, than you might expect.”

Bain reduced Dade’s research and development spending to 6 to 7 percent of sales, while its peers allocated between 10 and 15 percent. Dade in June 1999 used the savings as part of the basis to borrow $421 million. Dade then turned around and used $365 million from the loan to buy shares from its owners, giving them a 4.3 times return on their investment.

A Dade executive, who requested anonymity, said he confronted new CEO Steven Barnes after a boardroom meeting within a week of the distribution.

“You really think it’s a good idea to borrow, you know, one times sales?” he asked.

“Oh. Yeah. Yeah. You know, that’s fine,” Barnes responded. “You know companies do that all the time.”

The executive then told Barnes, “Well, that’d be like me going out and borrowing the amount of money I make in a year and then trying to pay it off and pay for my house and feed myself and everything else. That doesn’t make sense.” The executive said he let it drop after that.

In August 2002, Dade filed for bankruptcy.

This was not an isolated case.

* Bain in 1988 put $5 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-’90s took it public, collecting $100 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

* Bain in 1992 bought American Pad & Paper (AMPAD), investing $5 million, and collected $100 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

* Bain in 1993 invested $60 million when buying GS Industries, and received $65 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

* Bain in 1997 invested $46 million when buying Details, and made $93 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

Romney’s Bain invested 22 percent of the money it raised from 1987-95 in these five businesses, making a $578 million profit.

While I have not investigated all of Romney’s Bain investments and there may be cases where he made money and improved businesses, there’s little question he made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy.

Mitt Romney, through his spokesman, did not return calls. Bain declined comment.

Bain of his existence

Romney said:

He was not involved in decisions to take distributions from two Bain Capital businesses that later failed. New York Times, June 3, 2007

“People in America want to know who can get 15 million people back to work.”

Romney did:

Owned a controlling interest in Bain Capital when it took payments from five companies that later failed.

Made fortunes by bankrupting five profitable businesses that ended up firing thousands of workers.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ad_mitt_mistakes_jRmd2LHaPIb0bbNn1ZkgaJ#ixzz1EeDPm38F

The Utah Legislature has a history of starving public schools and then criticizing them for failures. Bills in the current session would label struggling schools with D or F grades but offer no resources to help them improve and would funnel scarce public funds to private online schools.

Thus, legislators continue to encourage parents to abandon traditional public schools for private or charter schools. Obviously, despite the resounding defeat in 2007 of a voucher law that would have sent public money to private schools, the Legislature has not given up that battle.

In Senate Bill 65, Sen. Howard Stephenson would set up a statewide online education program that would direct taxpayer money to private providers of online courses. It has passed the Senate.

Sen. Wayne L. Niederhauser and Rep. Greg Hughes are sponsoring a bill to have public schools graded, based on statewide assessments, and for high schools, the graduation rate. They are modeling this legislation on a similar program in Florida. It would provide parents with information to justify abandoning those schools.

That is the Republican agenda–do away with government! And the biggest part of local government is public education! And it has been systematically dismantled by the Republican legislature for the past two decades. If we keep electing them the demise of public education is inevitable. The for-profit scavengers are already groveling up the pieces, hawking their wares and wiles without any regulation. They make glorious offers and promises and leave their innocent, gullible students drowning in debt.

This might be useful, provided that, once these struggling schools are identified, they at least can plead their case for funding to implement remedial courses or in other ways improve. Florida, after all, offers financial incentives to schools. Florida also has a constitutional amendment limiting class sizes. In Utah teachers must deal with the largest class sizes in the nation.

Florida also spends nearly twice as much per student on education as Utah, which sits dead last in that category. If we’re looking at Florida as a model, let’s start with financial commitment.

Legislators know that Utahns are devoted to their neighborhood public schools, and so, during election campaigns, candidates proclaim they are pro-education. But what many of them mean is that they support education only as long as educators and school officials do as the Legislature demands.

Thus we get a proposed constitutional amendment to take the election of Utah State Board of Education members away from voters and put the board under control of the governor and state Senate. Then there are bills that dictate the smallest details of school curriculum, such as mandating that schools teach that the United States is a republic, not a democracy, and requiring “civic and character” education.

Legislators’ penchant for micro-managing education and undermining public schools is not the way to help Utah’s youth prepare for jobs and help Utah prepare for the future.

——————————————————————————–
© 2011 The Salt Lake Tribune

by The Independent/UK

These Are Secular Popular Revolts – Yet Everyone is Blaming Religion
(Our writer, who was in Cairo as the revolution took hold in Egypt, reports from Bahrain on why Islam has little to do with what is going on.)
by Robert Fisk
Mubarak claimed that Islamists were behind the Egyptian revolution. Ben Ali said the same in Tunisia. King Abdullah of Jordan sees a dark and sinister hand – al-Qa’ida’s hand, the Muslim Brotherhood’s hand, an Islamist hand – behind the civil insurrection across the Arab world. Yesterday the Bahraini authorities discovered Hizbollah’s bloody hand behind the Shia uprising there. For Hizbollah, read Iran. How on earth do well-educated if singularly undemocratic men get this thing so wrong? Confronted by a series of secular explosions – Bahrain does not quite fit into this bracket – they blame radical Islam. The Shah made an identical mistake in reverse. Confronted by an obviously Islamic uprising, he blamed it on Communists.

Bobbysocks Obama and Clinton have managed an even weirder somersault. Having originally supported the “stable” dictatorships of the Middle East – when they should have stood by the forces of democracy – they decided to support civilian calls for democracy in the Arab world at a time when the Arabs were so utterly disenchanted with the West’s hypocrisy that they didn’t want America on their side. “The Americans interfered in our country for 30 years under Mubarak, supporting his regime, arming his soldiers,” an Egyptian student told me in Tahrir Square last week. “Now we would be grateful if they stopped interfering on our side.” At the end of the week, I heard identical voices in Bahrain. “We are getting shot by American weapons fired by American-trained Bahraini soldiers with American-made tanks,” a medical orderly told me on Friday. “And now Obama wants to be on our side?”

The events of the past two months and the spirit of anti-regime Arab insurrection – for dignity and justice, rather than any Islamic emirate – will remain in our history books for hundreds of years. And the failure of Islam’s strictest adherents will be discussed for decades. There was a special piquancy to the latest footage from al-Qa’ida yesterday, recorded before the overthrow of Mubarak, that emphasised the need for Islam to triumph in Egypt; yet a week earlier the forces of secular, nationalist, honourable Egypt, Muslim and Christian men and women, had got rid of the old man without any help from Bin Laden Inc. Even weirder was the reaction from Iran, whose supreme leader convinced himself that the Egyptian people’s success was a victory for Islam. It’s a sobering thought that only al-Qa’ida and Iran and their most loathed enemies, the anti-Islamist Arab dictators, believed that religion lay behind the mass rebellion of pro-democracy protesters.

The bloodiest irony of all – which dawned rather slowly on Obama – was that the Islamic Republic of Iran was praising the democrats of Egypt while threatening to execute its own democratic opposition leaders.

Not, then, a great week for “Islamicism”. There’s a catch, of course. Almost all the millions of Arab demonstrators who wish to shrug off the cloak of autocracy which – with our Western help – has smothered their lives in humiliation and fear are indeed Muslims. And Muslims – unlike the “Christian” West – have not lost their faith. Under the stones and coshes of Mubarak’s police killers, they counter-attacked, shouting “Allah akbar” for this was indeed for them a “jihad” – not a religious war but a struggle for justice. “God is Great” and a demand for justice are entirely consistent. For the struggle against injustice is the very spirit of the Koran.

In Bahrain we have a special case. Here a Shia majority is ruled by a minority of pro-monarchy Sunni Muslims. Syria, by the way, may suffer from “Bahrainitis” for the same reason: a Sunni majority ruled by an Alawite (Shia) minority. Well, at least the West – in its sagging support for King Hamad of Bahrain – can point to the fact that Bahrain, like Kuwait, has a parliament. It’s a sad old beast, existing from 1973 to 1975 when it was dissolved unconstitutionally, and then reinvented in 2001 as part of a package of “reforms”. But the new parliament turned out to be even more unrepresentative than the first. Opposition politicians were harassed by state security, and parliamentary boundaries were gerrymandered, Ulster-style, to make sure that the minority Sunnis controlled it. In 2006 and 2010, for example, the main Shia party in Bahrain gained only 18 out of 40 seats. Indeed, there is a distinctly Northern Ireland feel to Sunni perspectives in Bahrain. Many have told me that they fear for their lives, that Shia mobs will burn their homes and kill them.

All this is set to change. Control of state power has to be legitimised to be effective, and the use of live fire to overwhelm peaceful protest was bound to end in Bahrain in a series of little Bloody Sundays. Once Arabs learnt to lose their fear, they could claim the civil rights that Catholics in Northern Ireland once demanded in the face of RUC brutality. In the end, the British had to destroy Unionist rule and bring the IRA into joint power with Protestants. The parallels are not exact and the Shias do not (yet) have a militia, although the Bahraini government has produced photographs of pistols and swords – hardly a major weapon of the IRA – to support their contention that its opponents include “terrorists”.

In Bahrain there is, needless to say, a sectarian as much as a secular battle, something that the Crown Prince unwittingly acknowledged when he originally said that the security forces had to suppress protests to prevent sectarian violence. It’s a view held all too savagely by Saudi Arabia, which has a strong interest in the suppression of dissent in Bahrain. The Shias of Saudi Arabia might get uppity if their co-religionists in Bahrain overwhelm the state. Then we’ll really hear the leaders of the Shia Islamic Republic of Iran crowing.

But these interconnected insurrections should not be seen in a simple ferment-in-the-Middle-East framework. The Yemeni uprising against President Saleh (32 years in power) is democratic but also tribal, and it won’t be long before the opposition uses guns. Yemen is a heavily armed society, tribes with flags, nationalist-rampant. And then there is Libya.

Gaddafi is so odd, his Green Book theories – dispatched by Benghazi demonstrators last week when they pulled down a concrete version of this particular volume – so preposterous, his rule so cruel (and he’s been running the place for 42 years) that he is an Ozymandias waiting to fall. His flirtation with Berlusconi – worse still, his cloying love affair with Tony Blair whose foreign secretary, Jack Straw, praised the Libyan lunatic’s “statesmanship” – was never going to save him. Bedecked with more medals than General Eisenhower, desperate for a doctor to face-lift his sagging jowls, this wretched man is threatening “terrible” punishment against his own people for challenging his rule. Two things to remember about Libya: like Yemen, it’s a tribal land; and when it turned against its Italian fascist overlords, it began a savage war of liberation whose brave leaders faced the hangman’s noose with unbelievable courage. Just because Gaddafi is a nutter does not mean his people are fools.

So it’s a sea-change in the Middle East’s political, social, cultural world. It will create many tragedies, raise many hopes and shed far too much blood. Better perhaps to ignore all the analysts and the “think tanks” whose silly “experts” dominate the satellite channels. If Czechs could have their freedom, why not the Egyptians? If dictators can be overthrown in Europe – first the fascists, then the Communists – why not in the great Arab Muslim world? And – just for a moment – keep religion out of this.

© 2011 The Independent
Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper.  He is the author of many books on the region, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.

by The Guardian/UK

Palestinians Plan ‘Day of Rage’ after US Vetoes Resolution on Israeli Settlements

US decision to use UN security council veto sparks furious reaction in West Bank and Gaza

by Harriet Sherwood

Palestinians are planning a “day of rage” on Friday in response to the US wielding its veto against a UN security council resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

Palestinians are planning a “day of rage” on Friday in response to the US wielding its veto against a UN security council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. The US decision to use its veto has sparked a furious reaction in the West Bank and Gaza.

Anti-US rallies took place in the West Bank towns of Bethlehem, Tulkarem and Jenin this weekend after the 14-1 vote on the resolution, in which the US stood alone against the rest of the security council, including Britain, Germany and France. It voted in contradiction of its own policy.

This is not a good time for the United States to be antagonizing the Arab world—which is certainly what Obama’s veto did. Obama’s veto is a public embarrassment, a clear cut exposure of our hypocrisy in dealing with Israel.

We vetoed a policy that we have publicly been supportive of, and we stand absolutely alone in the entire world. The vote was 14-1. There is no credit in being number one in this instance.

The biggest mistake of the past century was the establishment of the State of Israel. There has not been a day of peace since that decision. Israel has proven to be the most intransigent partner anyone could possibly have.

In Gaza, Hamas described the US position as outrageous and said Washington was “completely biased” towards Israel.

Ibrahim Sarsour, an Israeli-Arab member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, said it was time to tell the US president, Barack Obama, to “go to hell”.

“Obama cannot be trusted,” he wrote in an open letter to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. “We knew his promises were lies. The time has come to spit in the face of the Americans.”

The Egyptian foreign ministry said the US veto would “lead to more damage of the United States’ credibility on the Arab side as a mediator in peace efforts”.

The use of the veto for the first time under Obama will strengthen perceptions in the Arab world that for the US, protection of its ally Israel overrides its desire for a just outcome for Palestinians in the decades-old conflict.

The move is likely to impede US efforts to persuade the parties to return to peace negotiations, which stalled in September over the issue of settlement expansion.

With protests raging across the Middle East against repression, corruption, food prices and dismal economic prospects, Washington is acutely aware that distrust of the US is widespread in the region.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyhu, said his country “deeply appreciated” the US use of its veto.

However, some Israeli commentators warned that the vote served to reinforce Israel’s international isolation and said Washington would expect a payback from its ally. They suggested the US would be unwilling to use its veto in similar circumstances again.

The opposition leader, Tzipi Livni, said Israel was “now in political collapse”.

“We now find that Germany, Britain and France – all friends of Israel who want to help it defend itself – voted against the positions of Israel, and the US is being pushed into a corner and finds itself with Israel against the world,” she said.

The vote, on Friday night, followed frantic diplomatic efforts to prevent the tabling of the resolution, which was carefully worded to reflect official US policy on settlements.

Obama spoke to Abbas on the phone for 50 minutes on Thursday, offering a package of inducements, including public statements, to withdraw the resolution.

According to the Palestinian press, Obama also suggested US aid to the Palestinian Authority could be halted if the resolution went ahead.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, made a further telephone call to Abbas on Friday to put pressure on him to abandon the resolution.

However, the Palestinian president – aware of the volatile mood in the region and the backlash he would face if he acceded to Obama’s demands – refused to withdraw. One Palestinian official told Reuters that “people would take to the streets and topple the president” if he backed down.

After the vote, the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, told the security council that Washington agreed with “our fellow council members, and indeed with the wider world, about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israel settlement activity”.

But she added: “We think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians.”

Underlying the growing gap between the US and Europe on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Britain, France and Germany issued a joint statement saying settlement construction was against international law.

The veto served to unite the political rivals Hamas and Fatah in condemnation. Palestinian leaders are considering whether to take a resolution on Israel’s settlement policies to the UN general assembly.

© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited