It is now plainly evident, incontrovertibly so, that the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government consider what was once known as “federal law” to now be merely “federal suggestions.” Recent events confirm this to be true.…Only Libya?
The political implications of the episode are clear: bureaucratic self-interest trumped the military’s conviction that US security is being endangered. No matter how strongly the JCS may have felt about the recklessness of administration policy, they were not prepared to sacrifice their access to military bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Turkey to pressure their Middle Eastern allies.Light of the world versus lighting up the world.
Washington blames Europe for the lack of global recovery and is losing its patience with EMU creditor states that fail to pull their weightApparently, the EZ slowdown is causing US oligarchs to lose money, so they have called upon their chief spokesman.
America and Russia have two nearly opposite narratives on Ukraine, which is more an indictment of the U.S. news media which feigns objectivity but disseminates what amounts to propaganda. These divergent narratives are driving the world toward a possible nuclear crisis, writes Robert Parry.The neocons have control over the narrative and Obama seems to be OK with that. Those that are objecting to this folly most loudly are the Libertarians. Most Democrats seem to be be on board with the GOP hardliners who are banking the neocons in the Obama administration. Moreover, they seem to be completely misreading Putin and the Russian military and are shrugging of what Putin has made explicit about Russia's position as a bluff. The media is preparing the American people for a righteous conflict with Russia because freedom. Looking like Iraq redux except Putin is not Saddam, and Russia is not Iraq. Russia actually has WMD, and they are now at the ready.
In the context of last Tuesday’s State of the Union, Pavlina Tcherneva was interviewed by Wall Street Journal Live‘s Sara Murray on the issue of the effectiveness of policies to combat widening income inequality.MMT at the WSJ.
Barack Obama has released the details of a fairly radical proposal to increase tax progressivity which he will make in his state of the union address.
The political impact will dwarf that of Chris Van Hollen’s proposal (which I am sad to say, has been quite dwarfish already). I am very enthusiastic about this. Even Romney is trying to sound populist. I am sure that politicians must have convincing evidence of a populist mood from polls and focus groups even aside from the public polls which, as always, show strong support for soaking the rich. I don’t see how Republicans can win this debate or even avoid debating with each other over whether Obama is a socialist class warrior or not a true economic populist like Republicans.
Matt Yglesias has an excellent (as usual) explainer at Vox. Basically the proposal is to increase the capital gains tax, close tax loopholes used by the rich, tax borrowing by huge banks and then use the proceeds to make permanent and expand various tax breaks for the non rich.Looks like populism is in.
Regarding HK, NGO's provide plausible deniability, and intelligence services operate on the mission to protect and advance US interests. They do not record or report on tactics and so it is unlikely that the president is brief on this level of operations. So, in essence, the president's statements in this regard are meaningless, which the Chinese surely realize. It's more for the home media.
President downplays tension between China and US, saying Washington's "pivot to Asia" is not about containing Beijing.
"These issues are ultimately for the people of Hong Kong and people of China to decide," the US president said.The people in Crimea and eastern Ukraine? Not so much. And the US warned Russia not to recognize the election results. Double standard?
"But I did describe for him that the United States - as a matter of foreign policy but also as a matter of our values - are gonna consistently to speak out on the right of the people to express themselves and encouraged that the elections that take place in Hong Kong are transparent and fair and reflective of the opinion of the people there."
But Obama said that the conversation he had with Xi gave him the "opportunity to debunk the notion ... that out pivot to Asia is about containing China".Did President Obama explain the fine print, "on our (neoliberal) terms"?
"I have repeatedy reiterated and displayed through the actions of our administration that we want China to succeed," Obama said.
White House officials Tuesday evening insisted that having Republicans in control of the House and Senate can usher in a new era of bipartisanship in Washington — despite the GOP’s promise to be a check on President Obama’s power.
With Republicans taking control of the Senate and little change of the House GOP’s makeup, the possibility of bipartisan agreement on anything beyond the most basic functions of government seems remote.BuzzFeed News
It has become commonplace to depict Obama as weak and overly reactive to Republican and media pressure. But that view conveniently ignores that Obama is a Republican in Democratic clothing.I would not put it exactly that way. I would say that the US is a one party system with two factions that differ only slightly on most major issues and are pretty much in agreement on others, especially foreign policy.
I welcome reader input on how banking plays in, if at all, in the US shift to a more aggressive foreign policy posture.Following Michael Hudson's analysis, one of the major pillars of globalization under Western hegemony is through financialization dominated by Western finance capital, in particular Wall Street and the City of London. Military conquest and colonization are a things of the past. Under globalization, the purpose of the military is "making the world safe for democracy," read dominance by Western capital and its cronies in the ROW. Under neoliberalism in contrast to classical liberalism, warfare is economic and financial, colonialism becomes neocolonialism, and imperialism becomes neo-imperialism. The chief arms of empire are no longer military power but economic and financial power imposed through Western dominated international institutions, in particular the BIS, IMF, World Bank, and G7. The BRICS are now beginning to revolt against this order and establish a new order. This is leading to conflict that will almost certainly result in war at some point if the US pushes unilateralism as the only acceptable option.
In a PR effort that aptly illustrates his approach to governance, President Obama has revealed that he is meeting with a “wide variety of economists” to try to figure out what economic policies he should follow. “Obama Seeks Advice From Wide Variety of Economists.”
Obama is already well into the lame duck phase of his presidency, so this is simply a PR exercise. The message Obama wants to send is the same one he has sounded throughout his presidency. He is open to economic views from the parts of the political spectrum that range from the hard right to the mild left.New Economic Perspectives
Obama is not open to hearing the economic views of anyone who got the crisis correct or anyone his advisors consider to the left of Paul Krugman (who is mildly left in economic terms). James Galbraith captured the first point brilliantly in an essay about a Krugman column. Krugman was making the correct point that conservative economists had gotten the crisis wrong and, in passing, mentioned less than a handful of economists he considered to have gotten it right. Galbraith stressed Krugman’s lack of interest in what economists got the crisis right and Krugman’s failure to list the economists who had actually gotten it right and had theoretical explanations for the causes of the crisis that had proved accurate in multiple crises.
The sole excuse now offered by Democratic loyalists for this failure has been that Congress prevented him from closing the camp. But here, the Obama White House appears to be arguing that Congress lacks the authority to constrain the President’s power to release detainees when he wants. What other excuse is there for his clear violation of a law that requires 30-day notice to Congress before any detainees are released?
But once you take the position that Obama can override — i.e., ignore — Congressional restrictions on his power to release Guantanamo detainees, then what possible excuse is left for his failure to close the camp? ...The Intercept
Obama defenders seem to have two choices here: either the president broke the law in releasing these five detainees, or Congress cannot bind the commander-in-chief’s power to transfer detainees when he wants, thus leaving Obama free to make those decisions himself. Which is it?
Barack Obama is not Pope Francis, and not just because the slums of Buenos Aires are so much worse than the South Side of Chicago. Pope Francis knows, in a visceral way, that the income equality we have in the US and Europe will get much worse if nothing changes. More importantly, he knows that these first-world problems are embryonic relative to those back home in Argentina.
The pope knows that the US is moving toward a Latin America-style economy, one wherein the Koch brothers get multiplied many times over – one wherein the wealthy don’t just want more money or opportunity, they want power. The problem with Francis’ Argentina writ large is a 1% that wants a political system run with the intent to guarantee that their wealth is never threatened. The problem with that is a wealthy class that wants the working class to be disposable, voiceless and immobilized.
This is the real issue President Obama faces: he needs to stare down, as Pope Francis has, the morally and intellectually corrupt philosophy that unregulated free markets help everyone.
It is a philosophy at the heart of the American conservative movement.When needed, conservatives drag out a gaggle of economists to argue their position. These economists, always a thoughtful lot when it comes to human behavior, know the wealthy will benefit far more. Yet the GOP’s sham philosophers argue that growth, even if unevenly distributed, will be a net benefit – because the winners will win more than the losers lose. We will then all share the winnings, goes this bankrupt economic philosophy, either by way of investments that boost jobs, or else from politically forced redistribution by way of taxes.
The sharing-the-winnings part never happens....
President Barack Obama said indifference to Russia’s attempt to unilaterally redraw the boundaries of Ukraine would ignore the lessons that are written in the cemeteries for the dead in two world wars.
The U.S. and Europe are at “a moment of testing,” as Russia challenges the ideals of democracy, free markets and international law that have spread peace and prosperity....
He cast the most tense confrontation for NATO since the collapse of the Soviet Union as a battle between 21st Century ideals and “the old way of doing things.”...
“We must meet the challenge to our ideals -- to our very international order -- with strength and conviction,” Obama said in the speech.
President Obama’s fateful decision – after winning the 2008 election to seek “continuity” rather than “change” and “to look forward, not backward” – has trapped him in a web of constitutional abuses that began in the Bush-43 presidency and extended into his own....
