check out Congressional Progressive Caucus People's Budget, ND state bank!...

[call Congress: 866-338-1015!....(re: state bank for NY like ND, see below; call Albany: 877-255-9417!)]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From http://www.cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70 ...

Eliminates National Deficit by 2021


Read the People's Budget


The Congressional Progressive Caucus proposal:


* Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021
* Puts America back to work with a "Make it in America" jobs program
* Protects the social safety net
* Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
* Is FAIR (Fixing America's Inequality Responsibly)
What the proposal accomplishes:
* Primary budget balance by 2014.
* Budget surplus by 2021.
* Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.1% by 2021, down 16.5 percentage points from
a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch.
* Reduces deficits by $5.6 trillion over 2012-21, relative to this adjusted baseline.
* Outlays equal to 22.2% of GDP and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021.

Support for the People's Budget
Paul Krugman
"genuinely courageous"
"achieves this without dismantling the legacy of the New Deal"
Dean Baker
"if you want a serious effort to balance the budget, here it is."
Jeffrey Sachs
"A bolt of hopeŠhumane, responsible, and most of all sensible"
The Economist
"Courageous"
"Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people."
The New Republic
"In passing, Miller also draws attention something that's gotten far too little attention in this debate. The most fiscally responsible plan seems to be neither the Republicans' nor the president's. It's the Congressional Progressive Caucus planŠ"
The Washington Post
"It's much more courageous to propose taxes on the rich and powerful than spending cuts on the poor and disabled."
Rachel Maddow
"Balances the budget 20 years earlier than Paul Ryan even tries to"
The Guardian
"the most fiscally responsible in townŠ would balance the books by 2021"
The Nation
"the strongest rebuke...to the unconscionable 'Ryan Budget' for FY 2012."
Center for American Progress
"once again put[s] requiring more sacrifice from the luckiest among us back on the table"
Economic Policy Institute
"National budget policy should adequately fund up-front job creation, invest in long-term economic growth, reform the tax code, and put the debt on a sustainable path while protecting the economic security of low-income Americans and growing the middle class. The proposal by the Congressional Progressive caucus achieves all of these goals."
The Washington Post
"The Congressional Progressive Caucus plan wins the fiscal responsibility derby thus far."
Rolling Stone
"This is more than a fantasy document. It's sound policy."
Forbes
"instead of gutting programs for the poor like Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, and the new healthcare law, the People's Budget focuses on cuts in defense. It also doesn't scrap new financial regulations designed to at least partly stave off another massive financial collapse like the one that put us in this mess in the first place."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From http://www.RobertReich.org ...


Published on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 by RobertReich.org
The Battle is Squared, and Why We Need Budget Jujitsu
by Robert Reich

Technically, the federal government has now reached the limit of its capacity to borrow money.
Raising the debt ceiling used to be a technical adjustment, made almost automatically. Now it's a political football.
Democrats should never have agreed to linking it to an agreement on the long-term budget deficit.
But now that the debt ceiling is in play, there's no end to what the radical right will demand. John Boehner is already using the classic "they're making me" move, seemingly helpless in the face of Tea Party storm troopers who refuse to raise the ceiling unless they get their way. Their way is reactionary and regressive - eviscerating Medicare, cutting Medicaid and programs for the poor, slashing education and infrastructure, and using most of the savings to reduce taxes on the rich.
If the only issue were cutting the federal deficit by four or five trillion dollars over the next ten years, the President and Democrats wouldn't have to cave in to this extortion. That goal can be achieved by doing exactly the opposite of what radical Republicans are demanding. We can reduce the long-term budget deficit, keep everything Americans truly depend on, and also increase spending on education and infrastructure - by cutting unnecessary military expenditures, ending corporate welfare, and raising taxes on the rich.
I commend to you the "People's Budget," a detailed plan for doing exactly this - while reducing the long-term budget deficit more than either the Republican's or the President's plan does. When I read through the People's Budget my first thought was how modest and reasonable it is. It was produced by the House Progressive Caucus but could easily have been generated by Washington centrists - forty years ago.
But of course the coming battle isn't really over whether to cut the long-term deficit by trillions of dollars. It's over whether to shrink the government we depend on and to use the savings to give corporations and the super-rich even more tax benefits they don't need or deserve.
The main reason the "center" has moved so far to the right - and continues to move rightward - is radical conservatives have repeatedly grabbed the agenda and threatened havoc if they don't get their way. They're doing it again.
Will the President and congressional Democrats cave in to their extortion? When even Nancy Pelosi says "everything is on the table" you've got to worry.
We can fortify the President and congressional Democrats and prevent them from moving further right by doing exactly what the Tea Partiers are doing - but in reverse.
Call it budget Jujitsu.
The message from the "People's Party" should be unconditional: No cuts in Medicare and Medicaid or Social Security. More spending on education and infrastructure. Pay for it and reduce the long-term budget deficit by cutting military spending and raising taxes on the rich. The People's Budget is the template.
But what if the President and Dems show signs of caving? This is the heart of the progressive dilemma. Are we prepared to say no to raising the debt ceiling our demands aren't met? That way, the responsibility for rounding up the necessary Republican votes shifts to Wall Street and big business - arguably more eager to raise the debt ceiling and avoid turmoil in credit markets than anyone else. They're also better able to push the GOP - whom they fund.
Which leads to a more basic question: Are we ready and willing to mount primary challenges to incumbent Democrats who cave?
© 2011 Robert Reich
Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, and his most recent book, Supercapitalism. His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/what-a-public-bank-could-mean-for-california ...


GO LOCAL | SOCIAL INVESTMENT | POLITICAL AGENDA

What a Public Bank Could Mean for California [and New York!]
The state's facing big debt, but also big opportunity.

Document Actions
* Share Print this RSS Feed
by Ellen Brown
posted May 16, 2011


California is the eighth largest economy in the world, and it has a debt burden to match. The state has outstanding general obligation bonds and revenue bonds of $158 billion, largely incurred for building infrastructure. Over $7 billion of California's annual budget goes to pay interest on the state's debt.
As large as California's liabilities are, they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world. That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state-owned bank receiving deposits of state funds. Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit-or allowing a Wall Street bank to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital-California may decide to create its own, publicly owned bank.
What California can do with its own bank, other states can do as well, on a scale proportionate to their populations and economies.
On May 2, AB 750 moved out of the Banking and Finance Committee with only one nay vote, and is now on its way to the Appropriations Committee. Three unions-the California Nurses Association, the California Firefighters, and the California Labor Council-submitted their support for the bill. The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.
Why a State Bank?
California joins eleven other states that have introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility. Eight of these bills were introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. [For more information about these proposals, see here.]
How Banks Make Money
All of these bills were inspired by the Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the nation's only state-owned bank. While other states are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the state of North Dakota continues to report surpluses. On April 20, the BND reported profits for 2010 of $62 million, setting a record for the seventh straight year. The BND's profits belong to the citizens and are produced without taxation.
The BND partners with local banks in providing much-needed credit for local businesses and homeowners. It also helps with state and local government funding. When North Dakota went over-budget a few years ago, according to the bank's president Eric Hardmeyer, the BND acted as a rainy day fund for the state. And when a North Dakota town suffered a massive flood, the BND provided emergency credit lines to the city. Having a cheap and readily available credit line with the state's own bank reduces the need for massive rainy-day funds (which are largely invested in out-of-state banks at very modest interest).
The Center for State Innovation, based in Madison, Wisconsin, was commissioned to do detailed analyses of the Washington and Oregon bills. Their conclusion was that a state-owned bank on the model of the Bank of North Dakota would have a substantial positive impact in those states, increasing employment, new lending, and government revenue.
What California Could Do with Its Own Bank
Banks create "bank credit" from capital and deposits, as explained here. Under existing regulations, $8 in capital reserves can be leveraged into $100 in loans, drawing on the liquidity provided by the deposits to clear the outgoing checks. Assuming a 10 percent reserve requirement (the amount in deposits normally held in reserve), $8 in capital and $100 in deposits are sufficient to create $90 in loans ($100 less $10 held back for reserves).
In North Dakota (population 647,000), the Bank of North Dakota has $2.7 billion in deposits, or about $4,000 per capita. The majority of these deposits are drawn from the state's own revenues. The bank has nearly the same sum ($2.6 billion) in outstanding loans.
California has 37 million people. If the California Investment Trust (CIT) performed like the BND, it might amass $148 billion in deposits. With $12 billion in capital, this $148 billion could generate $133 billion in credit for the state (subtracting 10%, or 14.8 billion, to satisfy reserve requirements).
Time for a New Theory of Money
When we recognize that money is simply credit, we can unleash it as a powerful tool for our communities.
There are various ways the state could come up with the capital, but one possibility that would not require new taxes or debt would be to simply draw on the treasurer's existing pooled money investment account, which currently contains $65 billion in accumulated revenues dispersed to a variety of funds. This money is already invested; a portion could be shifted to the CIT. Since it would be an investment in equity rather than an expenditure, it would not cost the state money. Rather, it would make money for the state. In recent years, the Bank of North Dakota has had a return on equity of 25-26 percent. Compare the 25-30 percent lost in the two years following the 2008 banking crisis by CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which invested its money on Wall Street.
There are many inviting possibilities for applying the CIT's $133 billion in credit power, but here is one easy alternative that illustrates the cost-effectiveness of the approach. Assume the bank invested $133 billion in municipal bonds at 5 percent interest. This would give the state close to $7 billion annually in interest income-nearly enough to pay the interest tab on the state's debt.
Choosing Prosperity
What California can do with its own bank, other states can do as well, on a scale proportionate to their populations and economies. North Dakota has a population that is less than 1/10th the size of Los Angeles; last year, the BND produced $62 million in revenue and $2.2 billion in loans. Larger states could generate much more.
We have been trapped in an austere neo-liberal economic model in which the only alternatives are to slash services, raise taxes, and sell off public assets, all in a futile attempt to "balance the budget" in a shrinking economy. We need to start thinking outside the box. We can choose prosperity, and public banks are a key tool for achieving that end.

Ellen Brown wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Ellen is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how people can reclaim the power to create money. Her websites are webofdebt.com and ellenbrown.com.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From http://www.CommonDreams.org ....

Published on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 by The Hill (Washington, DC)
Taxpayers for Common Sense: Bill to Repeal Oil Tax Breaks Doesn't Go Far Enough
by Andrew Restuccia

Fiscal watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense said Tuesday that a proposal by Democrats to eliminate a series of tax breaks for the five largest oil companies doesn't go far enough.

"Congress needs to go further," Taxpayers for Common Sense Vice President Steve Ellis said. "We cannot afford to just look at a few subsidies for a handful of companies. We need to eliminate all of these subsidies as part of an effort to deal with our nation's fiscal crisis."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will hold a test vote Tuesday night on the bill to eliminate some tax breaks for Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron. (AFP/Getty Images/File/David Paul Morris)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will hold a test vote Tuesday night on the bill to eliminate some tax breaks for Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron.
The bill is not expected to get the 60 votes necessary for passage. But debate on the legislation has ignited a firestorm in Washington over tax breaks and deficit reduction.

Democrats say their bill will save $21 billion over 10 years and the savings will go toward deficit reduction.

But Republicans and some Democrats say the legislation is akin to raising taxes on the oil industry and singling out profitable companies for unfair treatment.

Americans for Tax Reform warned senators Tuesday that a vote in favor of the bill would break a pledge signed by most Republicans to oppose tax hikes.

Taxpayers for Common Sense released a report Tuesday that says the oil-and-gas industry will enjoy more than $78 billion in tax breaks over the next five years.

In a time of jaw-dropping deficits, taxpayers are being forced to line the pockets of Big Oil while they rake in massive profits," Ellis said. "Oil-and-gas companies should pay their fair share."
Ellis said Taxpayers for Common Sense is in favor of eliminating tax breaks for a range of energy industries includin

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/11-17 ...

Published on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 by The Guardian/UK
Forget Sarah Palin and Donald Trump: Obama Needs a Challenge from the Left
If the president had a Democratic opponent in the primaries it might stop him repeatedly triangulating to the right

by Mehdi Hasan

Cast your minds back to November. Barack Obama had received his "shellacking" in the midterm elections, as the Republicans regained a majority in the House of Representatives and seized control of 29 of the 50 state governorships. It was the worst midterm defeat for the Democrats since 1938. Just a week earlier the president's approval ratings had fallen to a record low of 37%.

Fast forward six months, and the president is enjoying the "Bin Laden bounce". His approval ratings stand at 52%, according to Gallup - up six points on April. Historians may look back on 1 May 2011, and the killing of Osama, as the day Obama secured his re-election.
But even before the al-Qaida leader was dumped in the ocean, Obama had reason to be optimistic. Just 18 months away from the next election he has no obvious or credible Republican opponent. So far, the listless lineup of potential presidential candidates resembles the characters from the bar scene in Star Wars - a motley collection of far-right loons, freaks and conspiracy theorists.
There's the former senator, Rick Santorum, who once compared homosexuality to bestiality and paedophilia; former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has said America must stand with "our North Korean allies"; Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who believes carbon dioxide is "not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas"; former governor Mitt Romney, who has said he won't appoint Muslim-Americans to his cabinet; Tea Party Congressman Ron Paul, who wants to scrap income tax and abolish the education department; and former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who published a book last year titled To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine. Oh, and the "birther" billionaire Donald Trump.
The heart sinks. Lamenting the presidency of George W Bush, the late JK Galbraith once remarked: "I never thought I would yearn for Ronald Reagan." The current Republican presidential field makes one yearn for Dubya.
The tragedy is that Obama needs to be held to account - but from a leftwing, not rightwing, direction. He has embraced and affirmed a centre-right world view utterly at odds with his 2008 presidential campaign, with its promises of "change", "reform" and a decisive break from the Bush-Cheney era.
Consider his record: he failed to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay; approved the use of military tribunals for detainees; "surged" 40,000 troops into Afghanistan; doubled the size of the detention facility at Bagram airbase; doubled the number of drone strikes inside Pakistan; gave CIA torturers immunity from prosecution; continued extraordinary rendition; said he didn't "begrudge" bankers paying themselves multimillion-dollar bonuses' ruled out a government-run "public option" on healthcare; froze pay for public sector workers; signed off on tax cuts for billionaires; vetoed a UN resolution condemning illegal Israeli settlement-building; and joined China in sabotaging the climate summit in Copenhagen.
Liberals have given Obama a pass. Some avert their gaze; others proffer excuses. He needs more time, they say. But he has had 29 months in office. He is a good man in a bad world, they say, before blaming the Republicans for all America's ills. But it wasn't a Republican Congress that forced him, for instance, to double the size of the Bagram facility - where human rights groups have documented torture and deaths - and deny prisoners the right to challenge their detention. He did that on his own. Bagram is Obama's Guantánamo.
The double standards are glaring. Imagine, for a moment, the outcry from Democrats if Dubya had held the 23-year-old US soldier, Bradley Manning - the alleged WikiLeaks source - in conditions described as "degrading and inhumane" by more than 250 eminent legal scholars. Shamefully, however, Obama publicly defended Manning's detention, including his solitary confinement, as "appropriate".
The irony is that Obama, a self-styled conciliator and healer, has spent much of his presidency appeasing Republican foes on Capital Hill and capitulating to corporations and Wall Street banks. He has eschewed populism, allowing the Tea Party to surf public anger over bank bailouts and bonuses, job losses and home repossessions.
But what else should one expect from a White House stuffed with corporate-friendly, Clinton-era figures? The president's chief of staff, William Daley, appointed in January, is a former banker, and opposed Obama's healthcare reform. His treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, George Osborne's new best friend, was one of the architects of bank deregulation. Meanwhile, progressive economic voices like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman are studiously ignored.
Obama hasn't just neglected his base, he has abused it. The president's former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, dismissed liberals who objected to Obama's healthcare bill as "fucking retarded"; the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, ridiculed the "professional left" and said liberal critics of the president "ought to be drug-tested". Obama himself has described Democrats opposed to his compromises on tax cuts as "sanctimonious".
I have a proposal. Why not give him an electoral target for this animosity? Why not run a left candidate against Obama in the Democratic primaries next February? A Democratic opponent would act as a countervailing force to whichever Tea Party-backed Republican he ends up facing in the presidential election. It might force Obama to triangulate to the left as well as the right, and encourage the Democrats to have a long-overdue discussion about their values, policies and direction.
An Associated Press poll last October found an astonishing 47% of Democratic voters believed that Obama should be challenged from within the party for the 2012 nomination. Potential candidates include Dennis Kucinich, Ohio's leftwing Congressman; Howard Dean, the populist ex-governor of Vermont; and Rachel Maddow, the cable news presenter. None of them would win. But that wouldn't be the point. It would be about holding Obama's feet to the fire.
It is a risky strategy, given that none of the last three presidents to face primaries while seeking re-election - Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush - survived to serve a second term. Would a primary challenge from the left wreck Obama's chances of re-election? I suspect not, given the Bin Laden bounce and the weakness of his Republican opponents. The question that progressives should ask is whether they believe Obama should only have to answer to the likes of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin.
© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited

Mehdi Hasan is senior editor (politics) at the New Statesman and a former news and current affairs editor at Channel 4. His New Statesman blog is here

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From http://www.CommonDreams.org ...

Published on Monday, May 16, 2011 by OtherWords
State Budget Battles are about More than Cutting Deficits
Assaults on middle-class Americans are spreading rapidly.
by Michael Keegan
Earlier this year, people across the country were riveted to the politics of Wisconsin. Claiming to address the state's budget crisis, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker proposed eliminating the right of public workers to unionize. Wisconsin's citizens immediately took to the streets in massive protests - only to see the union-busting legislation pushed through by the state senate in a late-night surprise vote. Although Madison's capitol building is now cleared and most of the news teams have bolted, the issue of public unions is far from over in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, it has just begun for the rest of the country.
The dire budgetary situations many states find themselves in are real problems, and they require real solutions. But some state leaders are proposing "solutions" that are forcing social policy shifts and making political power plays that will do nothing to reduce deficits.
In Wisconsin, Walker proposed one such non-solution: revoking the collective bargaining rights of public employees. Citing an urgent need to compensate for Wisconsin's $140 million budget shortfall (which he helped create by handing enormous tax giveaways to corporations), Walker seized his opportunity to vilify and weaken his political opponents, ultimately to the benefit of the wealthy corporate interests that supported his campaign.
The governor completely blindsided Wisconsinites. Scott Walker didn't campaign on a platform of dissolving public unions. How could he have? Imagine, on the campaign trail, a politician telling the custodian at your child's school, the police officers and firefighters keeping your community safe, or the nurses at the county hospital that he or she, if elected the chief of all public workers in the state, doesn't value their right to earn a fair wage and work in a safe environment? Or campaigning on a plan to swiftly eliminate protections for that right without even achieving meaningful deficit relief? It's clear that such a proposal wouldn't have been warmly received at town-hall meetings.
A similar situation unfolded in Ohio, where teachers who were willing to make extensive concessions were nevertheless ignored in Gov. John Kasich's power grab. Michigan has imposed a full-scale assault on democracy by passing a law allowing Gov. Rick Snyder to declare any city or school system to be in a state of financial emergency. Snyder gets to install unelected, unaccountable managers with absolute control to eliminate contracts or privatize services at all state agencies and in any city he chooses.
One could hardly conceive of a more efficient way to transfer the public's resources into a few private hands.
What's going on in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan serves as a prime example of the corporate elite's vision for America. The assaults on middle-class Americans are spreading rapidly. Similar union-busting schemes are underway in states across the country, including Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Iowa, and Florida, with still more states likely to become targets.
The debate isn't about fiscal crises. It's about who holds the power in state government. It's about making the middle class pay for tax cuts for giant corporations, because giant corporations have more money to spend on lobbying and elections. But Americans understand that a person's political power shouldn't be proportionate to the size of his or her bank account.
Wisconsin's working families aren't alone in their demand to have a voice in the political process that affects them so significantly. The pro-corporate power plays in Ohio and Michigan also drew thousands of demonstrators. Efforts to recall both Walker and complicit GOP state legislators in Wisconsin are underway. A referendum on the union-busting legislation is in progress in Ohio. We're seeing strong pushback in Michigan as well.
As long as corporations and special interests have the ear of those in power, Americans will be at risk of having their rights trampled on for the benefit of wealthy elites. But as the patriots in the Midwest have shown, the American people will not stand idly by and just let it happen.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Michael B. Keegan is president of People For the American Way. A longtime activist and business leader, Keegan is a founding national board member of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). He serves on the board of the Los Angeles Public Library and as a trustee of the Muriel Pollia Foundation.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From http://www.Creators.com ....

Published on Friday, May 13, 2011 by Creators.com
Has America Become a Nation of Cowards?
by David Sirota
If the mission to neutralize Osama bin Laden were a blockbuster movie, the screen would have almost certainly faded to black as soon as the accused terrorist's death was announced. No doubt, the credits would roll to Queen's "We Will Rock You" and then a big "The End" would appear.
Alas, real life is not one of Hollywood's many Pentagon-sponsored flicks -- and as hard as President Obama tried to portray last week's events as proof "that America can do whatever we set our mind to," the mission and its cloudy aftermath have raised troubling questions about the "whatever" part. Among the most important of those queries are:
* Is it legal for a president to issue extrajudicial "kill only" orders -- that is, orders to kill but not capture a suspect, even if that suspect surrenders? United Nations investigators are now asking this very question after Reuters cited an Obama administration official in reporting that U.S. troops were "under orders to kill (bin Laden), not capture him."

Tellingly, the revelation of the possible "kill only" order came as the administration was retracting claims that bin Laden was armed and resisting arrest, and just as the British press reported on bin Laden's 12-year-old daughter alleging that her father was first captured alive and then summarily executed.

* Who is the president now prohibited from executing sans due process? At first glance, the answer might seem to be "anyone not named Osama bin Laden." Except, days after the bin Laden mission, Obama ordered the assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, even though Awlaki hasn't been charged with -- much less convicted of -- a crime. If this is now acceptable, whom else can the president order killed without judicial review?

* Why were the Nazis entitled to due process, but accused terrorists aren't? Nazis killed millions of innocents and were convicted at the much-celebrated Nuremberg trials. Yet, many insist bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders must be executed or detained without a similar trial because a courtroom drama would supposedly generate a circus (this, as if Nuremberg were some low-key affair).

Why the double standard in confronting the Nazis and al-Qaida? Is it because since bravely facing down Hitler, we became a nation of cowards? Are we today so intimidated by the possibility of al-Qaida retribution that we're willing to subvert the ideals enshrined in our Constitution? And if so, isn't that letting the terrorists win?
This is not easy stuff to ponder, especially in a nation that has so radically changed over the last century. Whereas World War II America strove to embody Norman Rockwell's "Four Freedoms" painting of the patriot standing up and asking questions, America circa 2011 is more a country of Howard Stern and "South Park" -- a society that implores fellow countrymen to "shut up, sit down!" and tells inquiring citizens that "if you don't like America, you can get out!"
But regardless of such ubiquitous vitriol, we still need answers -- and not just because the international community wants them, but because Americans have a right to know what "America" is, beyond just the "A" in a drunken "USA!" chant.
Is America a nation "of laws, not of men," as John Adams promised? Or has it become another synonym for lawless tyranny?
Is "America" a place that obligates its leaders to respect the Constitution? Or is America governed by Richard Nixon's notion that "if the president does it, that means that it is not illegal"?
And perhaps the moment's most disturbing query is the simplest of all: Is America a country where self-reflection is valued? Or are we a country where these critical questions are no longer permitted?
© 2011 Creators.com

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose new book "Back to Our Future" is now available. He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and is a contributing writer at Salon.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Published on Saturday, May 14, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
In America, Being Poor is a Criminal Offense
by Rania Khalek
It takes a special kind of bully to target the most vulnerable and neediest families in society, which millionaire politicians like to argue are draining America's treasury. I am referring to Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), who recently introduced a bill that would require states to implement drug testing of applicants for and recipients of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. This is reminiscent of Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) failed legislation last summer to drug test the unemployed and those receiving other forms of government cash assistance, which ultimately died in the Senate. So far, Boustany's proposal is following the same fate as Hatch's, but around the country states are taking matters into their own hands.

In at least 30 state Legislatures across America, predominately wealthy politicians are quite impressed with themselves for considering bills that would limit the meager amount of state help given to needy families struggling to make ends meet. Many have proposed drug testing with some even extending it to recipients of other public benefits as well, such as unemployment insurance, medical assistance, and food assistance, in an attempt to add more obstacles to families' access to desperately needed aid.
Florida's Legislature has passed a bill that will require welfare applicants to take drug tests before they can receive state aid. Once signed into law by Republican Gov. Rick Scott, which is likely, all adult recipients of federal cash benefits will be required to pay for the drug tests, which are typically around $35. In Maine, Republican lawmakers introduced two proposals that would impose mandatory drug testing on Maine residents who are enrolled in MaineCare, the state's Medicaid program for low-income and disabled residents. Under a similar bill that passed both the House and Senate in Missouri, recipients found to be on drugs will still be eligible for benefits only if they enter drug treatment programs, though the state wouldn't pick up the tab for their recovery.
In Massachusetts - where about 450,000 households receive cash or food assistance - a bill introduced by state Rep. Daniel B. Winslow (R-Norfolk) would set up a program requiring those seeking benefits to disclose credit limits and assets such as homes and boats, as well as the kind of car they drive. His reasoning is "If you have two cars and a snowmobile, then you aren't poor. If we do this, we will be able to preserve our limited resources for those who are truly in need and weed out fraud, because we know there's fraud and we're not looking for it." State Rep. Daniel K. Webster (R-Pembroke) filed a budget amendment requiring the state to verify immigration status of those seeking public benefits. Webster made it clear that his proposal does not mean he dislikes poor people or immigrants, but "this is all unsustainable and the system is being abused."
This is rather shocking because I can't recall any Republicans or Democrats demanding that the CEO of Bank of America or JP Morgan disclose inventory of their vacation homes, private jets, and yachts before bailing them out in what amounts to corporate welfare. Nor did they insist that these CEOs submit to alcohol and drug screenings before receiving taxpayer money. No objections were made regarding the immigration status of the people running these companies or whether they happen to employ undocumented workers for cheap labor.
Some would argue that corporations are different, in that they create jobs. To that I will point out that corporations are making record profits, even as they layoff workers and pay next to nothing in Federal income taxes. And this doesn't even begin to scratch at the surface of corporate abuse by the very entities that are soaked in taxpayer money. Just contrast these proposals with the way the rich are treated in this country with billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks.
This is simply an extension of a conversation that began in 1996, when President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich passed bipartisan welfare reform, whose results have been tragic to say the least. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act authorized, but did not require, states to impose mandatory drug testing as a prerequisite to receiving state welfare assistance. Back then, unproven allegations of criminal behavior and drug abuse among welfare recipients were the rationales cited by those in support of the bill's many punitive measures that were infused with race, class, and gender bias.
The majority of the proposals for drug testing require no suspicion of drug use whatsoever. Instead they rest on the assumption that the poor are inherently inclined to immoral and illegal behavior, and therefore unworthy of privacy rights as guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. These proposals simply reaffirm the longstanding concept of the poor as intrinsically prone to and deserving of their predicament. Jordan C. Budd, in his superb analysis Pledge Your Body for Your Bread: Welfare, Drug Testing, and the Inferior Fourth Amendment, demonstrates how the drug testing of welfare recipients is part of what's called a "poverty exception" to the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment, a bias that renders much of the Constitution irrelevant at best, and hostile at worst, to the American poor.
Kaaryn Gustafson extensively documents the trend toward the criminalization of poverty. She demonstrates how, in her words "welfare applicants are treated as presumptive liars, cheaters, and thieves," which is "rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout." I would argue that given the disdain that has been shown for "entitlements" over the years, it won't be long before this treatment extends to Social Security, Medicare, and even Financial Aid recipients.
The notion that the poor are more prone to drug use has no basis in reality. Research shows that substance use is no more prevalent among people on welfare than it is among the working population, and is not a reliable indicator of an individual's ability to secure employment. Furthermore, imposing additional sanctions on welfare recipients will disproportionately harm children, since welfare sanctions and benefit decreases have been shown to increase the risk that children will be hospitalized and face food insecurity. In addition, analysis shows that drug testing would be immensely more expensive than the acquired savings in reduced benefits for addicts
With regard to welfare legislation, it's beneficial to highlight where on the class ladder members of Congress stand. According to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics released late last year, nearly half of the members in congress - 261 - were millionaires, compared to about 1 percent of Americans. The study also pointed out that 55 of these congressional millionaires had an average calculated wealth in 2009 of $10 million dollars and up, with eight in the $100 million-plus range. A more recent study released in March, found that 60 percent of Senate freshman and more than 40 percent of House freshmen of the 112th congress are millionaires.
Why is this so important? Because very few of our lawmakers understand what it's like to struggle financially. Millionaires can generally afford healthcare without grappling with unemployment, foreclosure, or an empty refrigerator. The majority of our representatives haven't a clue what the daily lives of the people they represent are like, let alone the constant struggle of single mothers living below the poverty line. They are constantly arguing that we all must sacrifice with our pensions, our wages, our education, the security of our communities, and with the belly's of our children, while they sit atop heavily guarded piles of money.
With the ranks of the underclass growing and the unemployment level at a staggering 9%, it's more clear than ever that the wealth divide between "we the people" and our representatives has caused a dangerous disconnect. State and federal legislators claim to be acting fiscally responsible, but they support budgets that create unimaginably difficult circumstances for the lives of the most vulnerable people, especially children. There is no question that these newest proposals amount to class warfare, and the longer we ignore it, the more it will spread.

Rania Khalek is a young, progressive activist with a passionate dedication to social justice. Check out her blog Missing Pieces or follow her on twitter @Rania_ak. You can contact her at raniakhalek@gmail.com.