DOUBLESPEAK AND DISHONESTY WON'T WIN THE WAR
A recent CBS News poll showed that 62% of Americans think the war in Iraq is going badly, while 36% think it is going well.
When asked if the war was worth the cost, 63% of Americans said no, and 29% said yes.
Gen. Peter Pace, the Chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff blames the American media. He says they are disproportionately reporting all of the bad news in Iraq, while ignoring all of the good things that are going on. According to Pace, if the American people had the opportunity to see all that is going on in Iraq, they would understand that "very, very good progress being made." But he admitted that it isn't possible to sustain the war without the support of the American people. "What they're seeing is the same bomb going off every 15 minutes on television."
But the great irony is that with 34,131 insurgent attacks reported last year, there is quite literally a different attack happening every 15 minutes. So it's not the same bomb going off repeatedly that's soured the American public about the war.
As for the risk of civil war in Iraq, on Monday the U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said "the crisis is over" and that "Iraqis decided to come together."
But the very next day, the Washington Post reported that more than 1,300 Iraqis had been killed in sectarian attacks since a Shiite mosque was bombed the previous week. Though there was some disagreement over the actual number - the Iraqi Cabinet said at least 379 people had been killed in reprisal attacks, and the AP reported that the Baghdad central morgue had received 249 bodies tied to the violence - the Statistics Department of the Iraqi police put the nationwide toll at 1,020 in just the six days following the attack.
Despite this, Pace says, "I believe that in the last week to ten days the Iraqi people have been showing that they do not want civil war." He went on to say that the reports of attacks on mosques by opposing religious groups have been greatly exaggerated. Sunni leaders charged that more than 100 Sunni mosques were burned, fired upon or bombed in the retaliatory violence after the attack on the Samarra mosque.
Yet when asked at a press conference this week if Iraq was close to civil war, or could slip into such a war, Gen. George Casey, Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq said. "Anything can happen." And according to another poll, 73% of Americans believe that Iraq is indeed headed toward civil war.
"The bottom line is, the Iraqi people are still so much better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein, " says Pace. "I mean, no matter what sector of society you look at right now, they are better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein."
And that is emblematic of the larger disconnect that the American people are seeing out of the Bush Administration, and the Pentagon. Either the media has banded together in an act of collusion designed to fool the American people, or the Administration and the Pentagon are doing so.
At this point even conservative opinion makers such as George Will, William F. Buckley and Bill O'Reilly have recently admitted to the failure of the war. The war's most ardent supporters are now jumping off the bandwagon.
Pace says that in the last year over 100,000 additional Iraqi troops have been added, and that there are now 232,000 police and military members serving the Iraqi government. And he says they are on schedule to be at 335,000 by the end of this year.
But the question is, to what end? What difference have they made so far? The Iraqi Army seems entirely inept and incompetent. Shiite militiamen from the Interior Ministry - essentially death squads - are said to be leading a murderous campaign against the Sunni population. If this burgeoning civil war becomes full scale, the entire U.S. effort will have been in vain. How can anyone justify the U.S. military taking sides and engaging in another county's civil war? With the specter of Vietnam now more than thirty years behind us the lessons should have been learned, which makes that a difficult argument to engage in.
From the beginning, war planners have viewed this campaign through rose colored lenses. They still aren't being honest with the American people. Yet it's hard - as much as it is unsettling - to imagine they're being dishonest with themselves. They must know the truth. But to admit failure would be politically disastrous, so instead we get the status quo; "stay the course," and "very, very good progress being made."
The events in Iraq are spiraling out of control and gaining momentum. And that momentum will bring change one way or another - whether it's the type the Bush administration and the Pentagon want, or not.
Copyright © 2006 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Minggu, 05 Maret 2006
Minggu, 12 Februari 2006
THE WALLS ARE CRUMBLING
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DENIALS ON IRAQ ARE BEING CHISELED AWAY BY TIME, REALITY, AND INSIDERS. IT'S TIME FOR SOME HONESTY, TRUTH AND OBJECTIVITY.
As the U.S. prepares to mark the third anniversary of the war in Iraq, which still has no end in sight, the national debate is squarely focused on how soon our troops can get out. After all, this is an election year. How can the U.S. military make a dignified exit without appearing weak, and without appearing to give up?
But with an ever-brewing civil war growing daily, one that would likely rage out of control without a U.S. military presence, the wisdom of the initial U.S. intervention has to be questioned. It isn't politically correct to ask such questions, but it is reasonable to wonder whether U.S. interests were really served by deposing Saddam Hussein, and whether things are truly better in Iraq since then.
The sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites plays itself in an orgy of daily killings and bombings, and all of it simply results in even more reprisal killings. And nothing seems to be sacred or off limits; mosques are frequent targets. Sure there have been three elections in Iraq, but none of them would have occurred without the U.S. military presence. The parties involved were too busy killing each other to have initiated and carried out those elections without U.S. prompting and assistance. And to what end those elections will ultimately result in is anybody's guess. Anyone who sees a budding democracy in Iraq is blithely, if not naively, optimistic. Furthermore, the valuable counterbalance to Iran has been lost in the Middle East. That poses a whole new set of challenges for the U.S.
The question is, how did it come to this? How did the outcome of the war go so badly? Three years out, its fair and reasonable to start asking those questions, and to be seeking the answers to them. Didn't anyone in charge see this coming?
The answer is yes. There were adequate warnings from the U.S. intelligence community, but those warnings of instability in Iraq - the power vacuum that would be created in the absence of Saddam - were flatly ignored by the Bush Administration. Because of key revelations, it is now known that the Administration had an agenda for Iraq, and that intelligence was ignored. or even fixed, because of that agenda. But policy decisions are not supposed to be decided by an agenda, but rather by facts - or at least a well informed, reasoned, and objective assessment of intelligence. Clearly, that did not happen.
There have been numerous and repeated accusations and criticisms leveled at the Bush Administration by former insiders, confidants and advisors. Among them are former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, and former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer.
And the hits just keep on coming. In yet another embarrassing public revelation for the President and his advisors, a critical member of the national intelligence team from the start of the Iraq war has made more damning charges.
Before retiring last October, Paul R. Pillar was the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005. Specifically, Pillar had provided the C.I.A. with intelligence assessments on Iraq. And he has now accused the Bush administration of ignoring or distorting the prewar evidence on Iraq to justify the American invasion of 2003.
Echoing the criticisms of Clarke, and O'Neill, Pillar charges the administration with using selective intelligence regarding Iraq's unconventional weapons, and the chances of postwar chaos in Iraq.
In an article for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, Pillar wrote, "If the entire body of official intelligence on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war — or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in decades."
Pillar continued, "The most serious problem with U.S. intelligence today is that its relationship with the policy making process is broken and badly needs repair. In the wake of the Iraq war it is clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions that had already been made, that damaging ill will developed between policy makers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized."
Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown University, said he was not contacted by the Bush Administration for an assessment on post-war Iraq until a year after the war began.
From his standpoint, there are valuable lessons to be learned and what is most important now is to "look at the whole intelligence-policy relationship and get a discussion and debate going to make sure what happened on Iraq doesn't happen again."
But Pillar's are just the latest in a string of such accusations from insiders. And the Administration attack machine has attempted to disparage most of them by impugning their credibility.
O'Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, had extraordinary access to the President. He says that in the very first Bush Cabinet meeting in January 2001, part of the agenda was for a post-Saddam Iraq. Even in those early days, deposing the Iraqi leader was already on the mind of the President and some of his advisors. O'Neill describes a White House poised to overinterpret intelligence. "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'" The events of 9/11 gave them the opening they were hoping for.
O'Neill offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I've been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."
And in his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke revealed that President Bush and senior administration officials wanted to bomb Iraq after 9/11 even though they knew that it had no connection to al Qaeda, and that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.
Then in May of 2005, the Times of London printed the classified minutes of a British cabinet meeting, referred to as the "Downing Street Memo." The memo revealed that, long before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was determined to go to war, intentionally distorting intelligence, and lying to the American people.
Taken from a July 23rd, 2002 cabinet meeting - a full eight months before the war - the revealing memo quotes high level British officials discussing recent conversations with the Bush Administration on their decision to invade Iraq, and the manipulation of intelligence to back it up.
Two key excerpts:
Sir Richard Dearlove, Director of the British foreign intelligence service (MI6), reported on his recent meetings in Washington:
Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
Later British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw added:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
The British government did not dispute the authenticity or accuracy of the memo.
What the Bush administration told these foreign officials is the exact opposite of what the President repeatedly told Congress and the American people about his decision before the invasion, and what he continues to claim - that he was trying to avoid a war America did not want, and that intelligence about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was clear and compelling.
The Bush administration continues to peddle falsehoods about the rush to war and intelligence manipulation, despite overwhelming evidence from former administration officials, and now our closest allies. Last May, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told troops stationed in Iraq: "This war came to us, not the other way around."
Then last August, George Washington University obtained a State Department memo - issued a month before the start of the Iraq war - that warned military planners about "serious planning gaps" for the post-war period.
The document was dated February 7, 2003 and noted that a lack of focus and preparation for adequate policing after the invasion could have negative consequences. Specifically, the State Department officials warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally."
The memo's authors said they had "raised these issues with top CENTCOM officials" and offered to help the military "develop plans for accomplishing these goals." Obviously their appeals went unheeded and they were ignored.
Finally, Paul Bremer, a critical member of the Bush team in the war's early days, agrees that the war planning was flawed from the start. Bremer said "horrid" looting was occurring in May of 2003 when he arrived in Baghdad to head the U.S.- led Coalition Provisional Authority. "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
Earlier, Bremer had said the U.S. could have planned better. "The single most important change ... would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout." Bremer claimed he "raised this issue a number of times with our government" but allowed that he "should have been even more insistent."
Last fall, Virginia's John Warner, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called a meeting with 10 battalion commanders to get an honest portrayal of the situation in Iraq. The Marine and Army officers were quite frank in their assessments. Contradicting the Pentagon's repeated claims, the commanders said they not only needed more manpower, but that they'd also repeatedly asked for it -- as recently as last August. Each time, they said, they were denied.
So it's hard to imagine the withdrawal of U.S. forces from a war in which there have never been enough forces to begin with. Of course there will be vigorous arguments both for and against, just as there have been up to this point, but it will get really interesting, and perhaps even more ugly, in an election year.
These multiple inside accounts are representative of the cavalier and nonchalant attitude that marked the planning and execution of this war from the start. Pillar's article provides merely the latest example of the irresponsibility and negligence of our war planners. There has been a total lack of accountability from the outset, and that sort of attitude and behavior is entirely unacceptable. It's time for accountability. It's time for heads to roll. The public should demand it. With the notable exception of Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff who was wrongly dismissed for having the courage to tell the administration that they didn't have enough troops to successfully fight the war, no key players in the war effort have been fired to date. The General has since been vindicated, but it's too little, too late. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has mishandled and misjudged this war from the outset, still has his job and that isn't building confidence in anyone -- except perhaps the equally inept and irresponsible who've managed to keep their jobs as well.
The bungled charade that is the war in Iraq has resulted in the loss of nearly 2300 Americans lives - and there will be more to come. The death toll countinues to mount on an almost daily basis, and it is important to remember that the President declared that major combat operations had ended in May of 2006 - just six weeks after the start of the war. In a time of war, the counry needs - and deserves - more than platitudes and banality. We deserve honesty and truth.
Copyright © 2006 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DENIALS ON IRAQ ARE BEING CHISELED AWAY BY TIME, REALITY, AND INSIDERS. IT'S TIME FOR SOME HONESTY, TRUTH AND OBJECTIVITY.
As the U.S. prepares to mark the third anniversary of the war in Iraq, which still has no end in sight, the national debate is squarely focused on how soon our troops can get out. After all, this is an election year. How can the U.S. military make a dignified exit without appearing weak, and without appearing to give up?
But with an ever-brewing civil war growing daily, one that would likely rage out of control without a U.S. military presence, the wisdom of the initial U.S. intervention has to be questioned. It isn't politically correct to ask such questions, but it is reasonable to wonder whether U.S. interests were really served by deposing Saddam Hussein, and whether things are truly better in Iraq since then.
The sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites plays itself in an orgy of daily killings and bombings, and all of it simply results in even more reprisal killings. And nothing seems to be sacred or off limits; mosques are frequent targets. Sure there have been three elections in Iraq, but none of them would have occurred without the U.S. military presence. The parties involved were too busy killing each other to have initiated and carried out those elections without U.S. prompting and assistance. And to what end those elections will ultimately result in is anybody's guess. Anyone who sees a budding democracy in Iraq is blithely, if not naively, optimistic. Furthermore, the valuable counterbalance to Iran has been lost in the Middle East. That poses a whole new set of challenges for the U.S.
The question is, how did it come to this? How did the outcome of the war go so badly? Three years out, its fair and reasonable to start asking those questions, and to be seeking the answers to them. Didn't anyone in charge see this coming?
The answer is yes. There were adequate warnings from the U.S. intelligence community, but those warnings of instability in Iraq - the power vacuum that would be created in the absence of Saddam - were flatly ignored by the Bush Administration. Because of key revelations, it is now known that the Administration had an agenda for Iraq, and that intelligence was ignored. or even fixed, because of that agenda. But policy decisions are not supposed to be decided by an agenda, but rather by facts - or at least a well informed, reasoned, and objective assessment of intelligence. Clearly, that did not happen.
There have been numerous and repeated accusations and criticisms leveled at the Bush Administration by former insiders, confidants and advisors. Among them are former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, and former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer.
And the hits just keep on coming. In yet another embarrassing public revelation for the President and his advisors, a critical member of the national intelligence team from the start of the Iraq war has made more damning charges.
Before retiring last October, Paul R. Pillar was the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005. Specifically, Pillar had provided the C.I.A. with intelligence assessments on Iraq. And he has now accused the Bush administration of ignoring or distorting the prewar evidence on Iraq to justify the American invasion of 2003.
Echoing the criticisms of Clarke, and O'Neill, Pillar charges the administration with using selective intelligence regarding Iraq's unconventional weapons, and the chances of postwar chaos in Iraq.
In an article for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, Pillar wrote, "If the entire body of official intelligence on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war — or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in decades."
Pillar continued, "The most serious problem with U.S. intelligence today is that its relationship with the policy making process is broken and badly needs repair. In the wake of the Iraq war it is clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions that had already been made, that damaging ill will developed between policy makers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized."
Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown University, said he was not contacted by the Bush Administration for an assessment on post-war Iraq until a year after the war began.
From his standpoint, there are valuable lessons to be learned and what is most important now is to "look at the whole intelligence-policy relationship and get a discussion and debate going to make sure what happened on Iraq doesn't happen again."
But Pillar's are just the latest in a string of such accusations from insiders. And the Administration attack machine has attempted to disparage most of them by impugning their credibility.
O'Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, had extraordinary access to the President. He says that in the very first Bush Cabinet meeting in January 2001, part of the agenda was for a post-Saddam Iraq. Even in those early days, deposing the Iraqi leader was already on the mind of the President and some of his advisors. O'Neill describes a White House poised to overinterpret intelligence. "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'" The events of 9/11 gave them the opening they were hoping for.
O'Neill offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I've been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."
And in his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke revealed that President Bush and senior administration officials wanted to bomb Iraq after 9/11 even though they knew that it had no connection to al Qaeda, and that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.
Then in May of 2005, the Times of London printed the classified minutes of a British cabinet meeting, referred to as the "Downing Street Memo." The memo revealed that, long before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was determined to go to war, intentionally distorting intelligence, and lying to the American people.
Taken from a July 23rd, 2002 cabinet meeting - a full eight months before the war - the revealing memo quotes high level British officials discussing recent conversations with the Bush Administration on their decision to invade Iraq, and the manipulation of intelligence to back it up.
Two key excerpts:
Sir Richard Dearlove, Director of the British foreign intelligence service (MI6), reported on his recent meetings in Washington:
Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
Later British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw added:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
The British government did not dispute the authenticity or accuracy of the memo.
What the Bush administration told these foreign officials is the exact opposite of what the President repeatedly told Congress and the American people about his decision before the invasion, and what he continues to claim - that he was trying to avoid a war America did not want, and that intelligence about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was clear and compelling.
The Bush administration continues to peddle falsehoods about the rush to war and intelligence manipulation, despite overwhelming evidence from former administration officials, and now our closest allies. Last May, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told troops stationed in Iraq: "This war came to us, not the other way around."
Then last August, George Washington University obtained a State Department memo - issued a month before the start of the Iraq war - that warned military planners about "serious planning gaps" for the post-war period.
The document was dated February 7, 2003 and noted that a lack of focus and preparation for adequate policing after the invasion could have negative consequences. Specifically, the State Department officials warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally."
The memo's authors said they had "raised these issues with top CENTCOM officials" and offered to help the military "develop plans for accomplishing these goals." Obviously their appeals went unheeded and they were ignored.
Finally, Paul Bremer, a critical member of the Bush team in the war's early days, agrees that the war planning was flawed from the start. Bremer said "horrid" looting was occurring in May of 2003 when he arrived in Baghdad to head the U.S.- led Coalition Provisional Authority. "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
Earlier, Bremer had said the U.S. could have planned better. "The single most important change ... would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout." Bremer claimed he "raised this issue a number of times with our government" but allowed that he "should have been even more insistent."
Last fall, Virginia's John Warner, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called a meeting with 10 battalion commanders to get an honest portrayal of the situation in Iraq. The Marine and Army officers were quite frank in their assessments. Contradicting the Pentagon's repeated claims, the commanders said they not only needed more manpower, but that they'd also repeatedly asked for it -- as recently as last August. Each time, they said, they were denied.
So it's hard to imagine the withdrawal of U.S. forces from a war in which there have never been enough forces to begin with. Of course there will be vigorous arguments both for and against, just as there have been up to this point, but it will get really interesting, and perhaps even more ugly, in an election year.
These multiple inside accounts are representative of the cavalier and nonchalant attitude that marked the planning and execution of this war from the start. Pillar's article provides merely the latest example of the irresponsibility and negligence of our war planners. There has been a total lack of accountability from the outset, and that sort of attitude and behavior is entirely unacceptable. It's time for accountability. It's time for heads to roll. The public should demand it. With the notable exception of Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff who was wrongly dismissed for having the courage to tell the administration that they didn't have enough troops to successfully fight the war, no key players in the war effort have been fired to date. The General has since been vindicated, but it's too little, too late. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has mishandled and misjudged this war from the outset, still has his job and that isn't building confidence in anyone -- except perhaps the equally inept and irresponsible who've managed to keep their jobs as well.
The bungled charade that is the war in Iraq has resulted in the loss of nearly 2300 Americans lives - and there will be more to come. The death toll countinues to mount on an almost daily basis, and it is important to remember that the President declared that major combat operations had ended in May of 2006 - just six weeks after the start of the war. In a time of war, the counry needs - and deserves - more than platitudes and banality. We deserve honesty and truth.
Copyright © 2006 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Kamis, 09 Februari 2006
WILL YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO RETIRE?
Last August, the U.S. government reported that the national savings rate is now 0%. It seems incredible, but it's true. The last time the annual rate was this low was 1934 - during the Great Depression. As recently as 1994 the savings rate was nearly 5 percent, and double-digit savings rates were the norm 25 years ago.
The question is, where did all the savings go? The answer - home purchases. And since household real estate assets have risen by just over two-thirds since 1999, Americans now view their homes almost like ATM machines, using home equity loans and refinancing to pull out cash and support their spending.
In this materialistic and consumer driven society that America is today, people are actually spending more money than they make. So there's nothing left to save. Every time there is a marginal uptick in incomes, there is a commensurate, or greater, increase in spending. Though this is the height of irresponsibility, it's been the engine for a growing U.S. economy. In fact, Americans need to keep spending at this frenzied pace just to maintain our economy. Experts say that if everyone were to start saving, the economy would slow considerably - potentially to the point of recession. This is an obvious problem.
Yet, the savings rate will be driven down further when Baby Boomers start retiring and drawing on their retirement savings, and the nation will need greater savings to fund the onslaught.
The report about the savings rate is particularly bad news news right now because, coupled with other developments, the retirement future of the average American doesn't look pleasant. For anyone who thought they could rely on a corporate pension, think again.
Corporate pensions appear to going the way of cassette players and rotary phones. IBM just opted out, telling employees last month that their pension benefits will be frozen in 2008. And they aren't alone; lots of reasonably healthy companies -- Verizon, NCR, Lockheed Martin, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola, to name a few -- already did the same. It won't be long before most other American corporations follow suit and relieve themselves from their pension burdens. There's been widespread speculation that GM could be next.
As it stands, there have been a few dramatic cases of companies going bankrupt and defaulting on existing pension commitments, such as United Airlines. The problem's gotten tons of press, but that won't change a thing. It's a trend that's been underway for many years.
Defined-benefit pension plans, under which workers receive fixed monthly benefits based on their salaries and tenure, declined from 95,000 in 1980 to 30,000 in 2004 as companies either stopped offering plans or switched to 401(k)-type programs.
For the last two decades, more and more corporations have shifted to 401(k)s that automatically set contribution percentages and investment choices for employees. Under the guidance of investment professionals (who aren't employed by for-profit mutual fund companies or brokerage firms), employees can determine how much money to set aside and how to invest it.
But while 401(k)s may be fine for younger workers, they don't work for older workers nearing retirement.
That said, we are entering a period in which workers and corporations will battle over the demise of pensions, long the primary source of retirement income for many Americans. But the fight will also involve governments at all levels, regulators, accountants and taxpayers. And these battles will be heated because everyone involved has so much to lose.
The primary problem is an aging population that is living ever longer. Pension costs have sky rocketed due to millions of longer-living retirees, and the problem will only worsen in coming years. In 1950, when pensions first became common, American life expectancy was just 68, but it has now grown by an additional ten years. Meanwhile, American workers, many of whom are union members, are watching as employers dump or cut their pensions at a time when there's reasonable concern about the future of Social Security. For these workers, retirement security is non-negotiable.
But the pension problem is even worse than most American realize.
Public-employee pensions have never been accounted for like those run by private employers. Governments aren't required to reveal their pension liabilities the way a corporation is, on the theory that governments can simply raise taxes to pay retirees.
But the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which sets the rules for the public sector, has finally decided to change its regulations. State and local governments will now have to reveal their pension liabilities, which may be underfunded by $1 trillion or more. Gulp.
And the private sector has a mess on its hands as well. Its pension funds are underfunded by $450 billion. Right now, 44 million Americans are relying on these private pensions, and they have reason for genuine concern. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures the defined-benefit plans for all those people and takes over the plans of bankrupt companies, reported a deficit of $22.8 billion at the end of the 2005 fiscal year. It was the fourth consecutive year that a shortfall had been reported. And the PGBC predicted that its troubles would continue well into the future.
The PBGC had to assume responsibility for the pension benefits of an additional 235,000 workers and retirees in 2005, raising the total to 1.3 million. It also paid benefits of $3.7 billion last year, up from $3 billion in 2004.
When United Airlines and US Airways filed for bankruptcy last year, they forced a combined $9.6 billion in pension liabilities onto the PBGC. Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines , which both filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September, could follow suit.
And then there's the greatest pension crisis of all: Social Security. The hard truth has been hidden by the so-called trust fund, where the plan's annual surpluses are sent to be invested until future need. But since those surpluses are required to be invested in government bonds, they've simply been handed over to the U.S. Treasury and spent by Congress.
The trust fund is a myth. When Social Security's annual surpluses are exhausted in just six or seven years, there will be a panicked struggle over how to cover the plan's obligations. And the ugly truth about pensions has also remained undisclosed for decades. Now, as the first baby-boomers turn 60, that reality must finally be confronted -- and it will get ugly.
Many financial experts see pensions as an inherently unstable, unfair and economically unrealistic means of providing for retirement.
Though they've existed since the 19th century, the corporate pension became a retirement staple in the United States following World War II. But American corporations didn't foresee pension commitments becoming such a heavy burden for companies dealing with stiff foreign competition and longer living retirees.
Many economists argue that if companies had invested in individual retirement accounts for their employees in previous decades, instead of putting that money into pension plans, they wouldn't be facing this problem. Though IRAs and 410(k)s didn't exist until the 1970's, the general point is true.
The problem with pension plans is that they promise a specific benefit in the future without knowing the affordability of those benefits at that time. In essence, pensions are a contract between current and future generations, much like Social Security. And as with Social Security, those future generations aren't represented at the bargaining table. As a result, they're guaranteeing the retirement income of older Americans with no guarantee of anything in return.
When succeeding generations are smaller than the ones whose retirements they are helping to fund, they face tremendous and unfair burdens. As a result, the Social Security system and American corporations are facing similar difficulties.
But there are many more Americans with no pension, no 401(k), and no savings to speak of. And without that additional support, no one will survive on Social Security alone. The American retirement system is crumbling, and not nearly enough is being done to rectify it.
Last August, the U.S. government reported that the national savings rate is now 0%. It seems incredible, but it's true. The last time the annual rate was this low was 1934 - during the Great Depression. As recently as 1994 the savings rate was nearly 5 percent, and double-digit savings rates were the norm 25 years ago.
The question is, where did all the savings go? The answer - home purchases. And since household real estate assets have risen by just over two-thirds since 1999, Americans now view their homes almost like ATM machines, using home equity loans and refinancing to pull out cash and support their spending.
In this materialistic and consumer driven society that America is today, people are actually spending more money than they make. So there's nothing left to save. Every time there is a marginal uptick in incomes, there is a commensurate, or greater, increase in spending. Though this is the height of irresponsibility, it's been the engine for a growing U.S. economy. In fact, Americans need to keep spending at this frenzied pace just to maintain our economy. Experts say that if everyone were to start saving, the economy would slow considerably - potentially to the point of recession. This is an obvious problem.
Yet, the savings rate will be driven down further when Baby Boomers start retiring and drawing on their retirement savings, and the nation will need greater savings to fund the onslaught.
The report about the savings rate is particularly bad news news right now because, coupled with other developments, the retirement future of the average American doesn't look pleasant. For anyone who thought they could rely on a corporate pension, think again.
Corporate pensions appear to going the way of cassette players and rotary phones. IBM just opted out, telling employees last month that their pension benefits will be frozen in 2008. And they aren't alone; lots of reasonably healthy companies -- Verizon, NCR, Lockheed Martin, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola, to name a few -- already did the same. It won't be long before most other American corporations follow suit and relieve themselves from their pension burdens. There's been widespread speculation that GM could be next.
As it stands, there have been a few dramatic cases of companies going bankrupt and defaulting on existing pension commitments, such as United Airlines. The problem's gotten tons of press, but that won't change a thing. It's a trend that's been underway for many years.
Defined-benefit pension plans, under which workers receive fixed monthly benefits based on their salaries and tenure, declined from 95,000 in 1980 to 30,000 in 2004 as companies either stopped offering plans or switched to 401(k)-type programs.
For the last two decades, more and more corporations have shifted to 401(k)s that automatically set contribution percentages and investment choices for employees. Under the guidance of investment professionals (who aren't employed by for-profit mutual fund companies or brokerage firms), employees can determine how much money to set aside and how to invest it.
But while 401(k)s may be fine for younger workers, they don't work for older workers nearing retirement.
That said, we are entering a period in which workers and corporations will battle over the demise of pensions, long the primary source of retirement income for many Americans. But the fight will also involve governments at all levels, regulators, accountants and taxpayers. And these battles will be heated because everyone involved has so much to lose.
The primary problem is an aging population that is living ever longer. Pension costs have sky rocketed due to millions of longer-living retirees, and the problem will only worsen in coming years. In 1950, when pensions first became common, American life expectancy was just 68, but it has now grown by an additional ten years. Meanwhile, American workers, many of whom are union members, are watching as employers dump or cut their pensions at a time when there's reasonable concern about the future of Social Security. For these workers, retirement security is non-negotiable.
But the pension problem is even worse than most American realize.
Public-employee pensions have never been accounted for like those run by private employers. Governments aren't required to reveal their pension liabilities the way a corporation is, on the theory that governments can simply raise taxes to pay retirees.
But the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which sets the rules for the public sector, has finally decided to change its regulations. State and local governments will now have to reveal their pension liabilities, which may be underfunded by $1 trillion or more. Gulp.
And the private sector has a mess on its hands as well. Its pension funds are underfunded by $450 billion. Right now, 44 million Americans are relying on these private pensions, and they have reason for genuine concern. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures the defined-benefit plans for all those people and takes over the plans of bankrupt companies, reported a deficit of $22.8 billion at the end of the 2005 fiscal year. It was the fourth consecutive year that a shortfall had been reported. And the PGBC predicted that its troubles would continue well into the future.
The PBGC had to assume responsibility for the pension benefits of an additional 235,000 workers and retirees in 2005, raising the total to 1.3 million. It also paid benefits of $3.7 billion last year, up from $3 billion in 2004.
When United Airlines and US Airways filed for bankruptcy last year, they forced a combined $9.6 billion in pension liabilities onto the PBGC. Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines , which both filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September, could follow suit.
And then there's the greatest pension crisis of all: Social Security. The hard truth has been hidden by the so-called trust fund, where the plan's annual surpluses are sent to be invested until future need. But since those surpluses are required to be invested in government bonds, they've simply been handed over to the U.S. Treasury and spent by Congress.
The trust fund is a myth. When Social Security's annual surpluses are exhausted in just six or seven years, there will be a panicked struggle over how to cover the plan's obligations. And the ugly truth about pensions has also remained undisclosed for decades. Now, as the first baby-boomers turn 60, that reality must finally be confronted -- and it will get ugly.
Many financial experts see pensions as an inherently unstable, unfair and economically unrealistic means of providing for retirement.
Though they've existed since the 19th century, the corporate pension became a retirement staple in the United States following World War II. But American corporations didn't foresee pension commitments becoming such a heavy burden for companies dealing with stiff foreign competition and longer living retirees.
Many economists argue that if companies had invested in individual retirement accounts for their employees in previous decades, instead of putting that money into pension plans, they wouldn't be facing this problem. Though IRAs and 410(k)s didn't exist until the 1970's, the general point is true.
The problem with pension plans is that they promise a specific benefit in the future without knowing the affordability of those benefits at that time. In essence, pensions are a contract between current and future generations, much like Social Security. And as with Social Security, those future generations aren't represented at the bargaining table. As a result, they're guaranteeing the retirement income of older Americans with no guarantee of anything in return.
When succeeding generations are smaller than the ones whose retirements they are helping to fund, they face tremendous and unfair burdens. As a result, the Social Security system and American corporations are facing similar difficulties.
But there are many more Americans with no pension, no 401(k), and no savings to speak of. And without that additional support, no one will survive on Social Security alone. The American retirement system is crumbling, and not nearly enough is being done to rectify it.
Sabtu, 14 Januari 2006
IRAN'S GROWING THREAT
After claiming that it would not tolerate any more nations becoming nuclear states, the Bush Administration has found itself in a bit of a pickle. On Bush's watch, North Korea announced the development of nuclear weapons, and now Iran is apparently attempting to join the atomic community as well.
The problem is that the U.S. has lost much of its prestige, not to mention its credibility, with the rest of the world in the wake of the ill-planned, and some would say ill-advised, invasion of Iraq. Around the world the invasion is widely considered illegal, and the toppling of a sovereign government viewed as as yet another example of imperial hubris. The American presence in Iraq is seen by many, including a majority of Iraqis, as nothing more than an occupation by a bullying superpower. In essence, the U.S. has developed quite a PR problem with much of the rest of the world.
If the U.S. was looking for a foothold in the Middle East, a place to launch a democracy in lieu of a totalitarian government known to have sponsored terrorism for years, and admittedly developing an ambitious nuclear program, then the Bush Administration might have picked the wrong country. Perhaps Iran would have been a better choice.
Seventy percent of Iran’s population is under 30, and the median age of an Iranian is just 24. Young people in Iran are fairly pro-Western and are fascinated by its culture. They are known to favor more freedom of all kinds, having repeatedly clashed with their authoritarian, ultra-conservative Islamic government in recent years. And, for the most part, they are ethnically and religiously united. They seem like exactly the kind of people who would favor a chance at democracy and a government of, and for, the people.
But the current Iranian government has continued to frustrate the West. On Tuesday, Iran removed some U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility to resume research on nuclear fuel -- including some small-scale enrichment. And now Iran has threatened to end surprise inspections and to stop cooperating with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.
Britain, France and Germany have spent the past 2 1/2 years futilely negotiating with Tehran over its nuclear program. The three European nations, in conjunction with the U.S., may refer Iran to the Security Council due to its intransigence. They could call for economic sanctions, such as restricting oil and gas sales, but such action would have a negative impact on the world economy.
For that reason, they face resistance from China, which imports 300,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran and holds veto powers at the Security Council. China said it opposes putting Tehran before the world body for possible sanctions. Other nations may feel similarly for the same reasons. Japan imports more than half a million barrels of oil a day from Iran. Russia, another Security Council member with economic ties to Iran, has given mixed signals on how it would react to such a move.
While Iran insists its program is peaceful, intended only to produce electricity, much of the West is skeptical. An OPEC member's claim that it needs nuclear energy is laughable given that Iran controls 10 percent of the world's oil reserves and has the second largest gas reserves, after Russia. Yet, Iran insists it has the right to conduct uranium enrichment, a process that can produce reactor fuel or material for a nuclear bomb.
And with the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, Iran seems to believe that it can get away with continuing its program. They've seen the Bush Administration talk tough with North Korea regarding it nuclear program, but do nothing about it. They may be further emboldened because the U.S. is currently grappling with a nearly three-year-old war in Iraq. The Iranians may be betting that the U.S. is unwilling, or unable, to simultaneously engage in another conflict.
The United States, Britain, France and Germany all fear that Iran aims to develop nuclear weapons. And they have good reason to be concerned.
Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would not bend before the threat of sanctions.
''Iran is not frightened by threats from any country and it will continue the path of production of the nuclear energy,'' state-run radio quoted him as saying. ''Iranian people do not allow foreigners to block their progress.''
The ultra-conservative President has made a series of outrageous statements in recent months that have provided perfect examples of why many nations are deeply concerned about the possibility of Iran going nuclear.
In October, Ahmadinejad quoted the Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, saying that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
He insisted that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashed out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel. "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," he boldly proclaimed.
Ahmadinejad said the "new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine, and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world, would in no time wipe Israel away."
The president concluded by saying: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."
Most recently, in December, he described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.
Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, responded by saying: "The combination of a regime with a radical agenda, together with a distorted sense of reality that is clearly indicated by the statements we heard today, put together with nuclear weapons -- I think that's a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept."
The international community doesn't seem to want to accept it, but they may not be willing to anything substantive about it. Iran's regional neighbor Israel, on the other hand, would find its security jeopardized if Iran came into possession of nuclear weapons. According to media reports, before his recent stroke, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Israel's military to be prepared for possible air strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran as soon as March.
While on the Fox News Channel last year, Sharon warned, "Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran. We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."
Right now some European nations appear reluctant to even refer Iran to the Security Council, much less threaten them with military consequences for their actions. They seem to be as concerned with escalating the current war of words as with the advancing nuclear program in a country that has an unpredictable firebrand for a president. Ahmadinejad has the backing of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the Council of Guardians, the ultra-conservative religious leaders with the ultimate authority in the country.
So it may fall to Israel to do something about the potential Iranian nuclear menace. In the wake of Iraq, the U.S. might find too politically risky to move unilaterally against Iran with a military strike. Israel, on the other hand, has never been politically popular and seems to have given up trying to curry favor with the rest of the world. Their number one concern, for good reason, is their own national security. And with a nuclear Iran, that security would indeed be threatened.
Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
After claiming that it would not tolerate any more nations becoming nuclear states, the Bush Administration has found itself in a bit of a pickle. On Bush's watch, North Korea announced the development of nuclear weapons, and now Iran is apparently attempting to join the atomic community as well.
The problem is that the U.S. has lost much of its prestige, not to mention its credibility, with the rest of the world in the wake of the ill-planned, and some would say ill-advised, invasion of Iraq. Around the world the invasion is widely considered illegal, and the toppling of a sovereign government viewed as as yet another example of imperial hubris. The American presence in Iraq is seen by many, including a majority of Iraqis, as nothing more than an occupation by a bullying superpower. In essence, the U.S. has developed quite a PR problem with much of the rest of the world.
If the U.S. was looking for a foothold in the Middle East, a place to launch a democracy in lieu of a totalitarian government known to have sponsored terrorism for years, and admittedly developing an ambitious nuclear program, then the Bush Administration might have picked the wrong country. Perhaps Iran would have been a better choice.
Seventy percent of Iran’s population is under 30, and the median age of an Iranian is just 24. Young people in Iran are fairly pro-Western and are fascinated by its culture. They are known to favor more freedom of all kinds, having repeatedly clashed with their authoritarian, ultra-conservative Islamic government in recent years. And, for the most part, they are ethnically and religiously united. They seem like exactly the kind of people who would favor a chance at democracy and a government of, and for, the people.
But the current Iranian government has continued to frustrate the West. On Tuesday, Iran removed some U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility to resume research on nuclear fuel -- including some small-scale enrichment. And now Iran has threatened to end surprise inspections and to stop cooperating with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.
Britain, France and Germany have spent the past 2 1/2 years futilely negotiating with Tehran over its nuclear program. The three European nations, in conjunction with the U.S., may refer Iran to the Security Council due to its intransigence. They could call for economic sanctions, such as restricting oil and gas sales, but such action would have a negative impact on the world economy.
For that reason, they face resistance from China, which imports 300,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran and holds veto powers at the Security Council. China said it opposes putting Tehran before the world body for possible sanctions. Other nations may feel similarly for the same reasons. Japan imports more than half a million barrels of oil a day from Iran. Russia, another Security Council member with economic ties to Iran, has given mixed signals on how it would react to such a move.
While Iran insists its program is peaceful, intended only to produce electricity, much of the West is skeptical. An OPEC member's claim that it needs nuclear energy is laughable given that Iran controls 10 percent of the world's oil reserves and has the second largest gas reserves, after Russia. Yet, Iran insists it has the right to conduct uranium enrichment, a process that can produce reactor fuel or material for a nuclear bomb.
And with the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, Iran seems to believe that it can get away with continuing its program. They've seen the Bush Administration talk tough with North Korea regarding it nuclear program, but do nothing about it. They may be further emboldened because the U.S. is currently grappling with a nearly three-year-old war in Iraq. The Iranians may be betting that the U.S. is unwilling, or unable, to simultaneously engage in another conflict.
The United States, Britain, France and Germany all fear that Iran aims to develop nuclear weapons. And they have good reason to be concerned.
Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would not bend before the threat of sanctions.
''Iran is not frightened by threats from any country and it will continue the path of production of the nuclear energy,'' state-run radio quoted him as saying. ''Iranian people do not allow foreigners to block their progress.''
The ultra-conservative President has made a series of outrageous statements in recent months that have provided perfect examples of why many nations are deeply concerned about the possibility of Iran going nuclear.
In October, Ahmadinejad quoted the Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, saying that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
He insisted that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashed out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel. "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," he boldly proclaimed.
Ahmadinejad said the "new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine, and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world, would in no time wipe Israel away."
The president concluded by saying: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."
Most recently, in December, he described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.
Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, responded by saying: "The combination of a regime with a radical agenda, together with a distorted sense of reality that is clearly indicated by the statements we heard today, put together with nuclear weapons -- I think that's a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept."
The international community doesn't seem to want to accept it, but they may not be willing to anything substantive about it. Iran's regional neighbor Israel, on the other hand, would find its security jeopardized if Iran came into possession of nuclear weapons. According to media reports, before his recent stroke, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Israel's military to be prepared for possible air strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran as soon as March.
While on the Fox News Channel last year, Sharon warned, "Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran. We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."
Right now some European nations appear reluctant to even refer Iran to the Security Council, much less threaten them with military consequences for their actions. They seem to be as concerned with escalating the current war of words as with the advancing nuclear program in a country that has an unpredictable firebrand for a president. Ahmadinejad has the backing of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the Council of Guardians, the ultra-conservative religious leaders with the ultimate authority in the country.
So it may fall to Israel to do something about the potential Iranian nuclear menace. In the wake of Iraq, the U.S. might find too politically risky to move unilaterally against Iran with a military strike. Israel, on the other hand, has never been politically popular and seems to have given up trying to curry favor with the rest of the world. Their number one concern, for good reason, is their own national security. And with a nuclear Iran, that security would indeed be threatened.
Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Kamis, 12 Januari 2006
THE AMERICAN DIABETES EPIDEMIC
During recent years, doctors have grown alarmed by the explosive rise of diabetes in the U.S. Local, state and federal officials share that concern. Diabetes is growing quickly, even as other scourges such as heart disease and cancers are stable or in decline.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that nearly 21 million Americans are believed to be diabetic, and the ranks of diabetics have swelled by a staggering 80 percent in the last decade.
Everyday, 4,100 people are diagnosed with the disease. This sharp rise in diabetes cases over the past decade has led the CDC to describe the situation as an epidemic.
And, according to the American Diabetes Association, approximately 6.2 million people are presently undiagnosed.
But this problem will only worsen. Another 41 million Americans are prediabetic; their blood sugar is high, and could reach the diabetic level if they do not alter their living habits.
In 2002, diabetes followed heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic respiratory diseases and accidents as the leading causes of death in the U.S.
The American Diabetes Association says the disease could actually lower the average life expectancy of Americans for the first time in more than a century. Diabetes is thought to shave 5 to 10 years off a life.
But the death isn't the only concern. The degenerate quality of life associated with diabetes is of equal concern. A diabetic's final years can be downright miserable and agonizing.
As alarmed as health officials are about the present, they worry more about what's to come.
Doctors fear that, within a generation or so, a huge wave of new cases could overwhelm the public health system and engulf growing numbers of the young, creating a nation where hospitals are swamped by the effects of the disease.
Schools could be scrambling for resources while trying to accommodate diabetic children, and the work force could abound with the blind and the infirmed.
It's predicted that in coming years there will be too few hospitable beds for diabetics and the disease will place unsupportable drains on Medicaid and Medicare.
Right now, on any given day at certain New York hospitals, nearly half the patients are there for some illness related to diabetes.
One in three children born in the United States five years ago are expected to become diabetic in their lifetimes, according to a projection by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The forecast is even bleaker for Latinos: one in every two.
Type 2 diabetes, the predominant form of the disease which accounts for 90%-95% of all cases, is creeping into children, something almost unheard of two decades ago.
Diabetes has no cure. It is progressive and often fatal, and even while the patient lives, the assortment of medical complications it sets off can attack every major organ.
People typically have diabetes for 7 to 10 years before it is even diagnosed, and by that time it will often have begun to set off grievous consequences.
Many of the chronic problems related to diabetes arise from damage to the blood vessels. Among the disorders that plague diabetics are vision loss or blindness.
Other maladies include infection and gangrene — which sometimes require limb amputation — kidney failure, heart disease and stroke.
In fact, diabetes is the most common cause of adult kidney failure, amputation, and blindness among non-elderly adults in the US.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, diabetics are two to four times more likely than others to develop heart disease or have a stroke, and three times more likely to die of complications from flu or pneumonia.
Most diabetics suffer nervous-system damage and poor circulation, which can lead to amputations of toes, feet and entire legs; even a tiny cut on the foot can lead to gangrene because it will not be seen or felt.
Each of these symptoms is extremely expensive to treat. Diabetes is enormously burdensome for healthcare systems and governments.
Nationwide, the disease's cost just for 2002 — from medical bills to disability payments and lost workdays — was conservatively put by the American Diabetes Association at $132 billion.
All cancers, taken together, cost the country an estimated $171 billion a year.
The forces that are driving diabetes nationally are an aging population, a food supply riddled with sugars and fats, and a culture that promotes overeating and discourages exercise.
Type 2 diabetes has grown commensurately with obesity, and America is becoming fatter. Fully two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese.
A federal program studied people around the country at high risk of getting diabetes, and concluded that 58 percent of new diabetes cases could be postponed by shifts in behavior — most notably, shedding pounds.
Since Type 2 is spurred by obesity and inactivity, it can possibly be prevented by eating less and exercising more. But doctors say that getting millions of people to change their behavior will require some kind of national crusade.
By all indications, such a crusade needs to begin immediately.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, about half of all deaths in the U.S. can be attributed to largely preventable behaviors and exposures. Tobacco use, poor diet, and physical inactivity account for the majority of preventable deaths.
Doctors anticipate that poor diet and physical inactivity may soon overtake tobacco as the leading cause of death in the U.S.
Unfortunately, resources for fighting diabetes have been largely diverted to other, less urgent diseases.
For years, public health authorities around the country have all but ignored chronic illnesses like diabetes, focusing instead on communicable diseases, which kill far fewer people.
For example, New York has just three people and a $950,000 budget to outwit diabetes, a disease soon expected to afflict more than a million people in the city.
On the other hand, Tuberculosis, which infected about 1,000 New Yorkers last year, gets $27 million and a staff of almost 400.
Apathy and ignorance, combined with powerful lobbying by the food industry, are the confluence of forces that have allowed the scourge that is diabetes to flourish.
It will require the dedicated and joint efforts of the medical community, schools, insurance companies, legislators, and even churches to inform and persuade the public of the risks at hand.
Our nation's economy will be burdened as tax dollars that should be allocated elsewhere are directed toward diabetes treatment in coming years.
And the human costs are exceptionally high as well.
People don't die quickly with diabetes, but can linger for years dying a long, slow death. The burden of caring for them often falls on their loved ones.
So even those not directly afflicted are still affected. That means there is something for everyone in this effort.
There is much to gain, and even more to lose, for the entire nation.
Sabtu, 31 Desember 2005
SHOULD THEY STAY OR SHOULD THEY GO?
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, prominent a Democratic hawk, began a spirited political debate when he said it was time for U.S. troops to start coming home from Iraq.
The retired Marine colonel delivered an emotional statement in November, saying he had concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq was counterproductive because they'd become a magnet for insurgent violence and that they should be redeployed over a period of six months.
That set off a firestorm in Washington in which many Republicans lambasted Murtha for his position, questioning his integrity and his mettle.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan compared the congressman to anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore.
McClellan said it is "baffling that [Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."
The White House also accused Murtha of wanting to "surrender to the terrorists."
Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio who was obviously unaware of Murtha's combat record, venomously accused the war veteran of being a "coward."
To his credit, Murtha, earned two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry from the South Vietnamese.
It was just days later that President Bush, after initially criticizing Murtha's proposal, made an incrdible about face by suggesting the possibility of withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006. The change of heart was convenient because 2006 is an election year.
Yet in a confusing contradiction, Vice President Dick Cheney later forcefully argued that early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would be "unwise in the extreme" and increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the United States and other nations.
So what's the story? Could there really be a troop reduction in the new year?
On his most recent trip to Iraq, Rep. Murtha found that U.S. "commanders are truly discouraged" and clearly angry. The following may illustrate why.
Virginia's John Warner, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called a meeting with 10 battalion commanders to get an honest portrayal of the situation in Iraq. The Marine and Army officers were quite frank in their assessments. Contradicting the Pentagon's repeated claims, the commanders said they not only needed more manpower, but that they'd also repeatedly asked for it -- as recently as this past August. Each time, they said, they were denied.
The commanders said they don't have enough troops to keep insurgents out of cities that have initially been cleared and secured. They also complained of lacking enough personnel to effectively deal with the problem of roadside bombs, the leading cause of U.S. casualties.
So it's hard to imagine the withdrawal of U.S. forces from a war in which there have never been enough forces to begin with. Of course there will be vigorous arguments both for and against, just as there have been up to this point, but it will get really interesting, and perhaps even more ugly, in an election year. At this point the administration can't even get its position straight.
But the ones truly suffering through this debate are our forces fighting in Iraq. I'm inclined to side with the commanders who've said they don't have enough numbers to be truly effective -- or at least as effective as they otherwise could be if they had our government's backing in their valiant effort to defeat this stubborn insurgency. Our troops are worthy of at least that much. That would genuinely be "supporting our troops."
Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, prominent a Democratic hawk, began a spirited political debate when he said it was time for U.S. troops to start coming home from Iraq.
The retired Marine colonel delivered an emotional statement in November, saying he had concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq was counterproductive because they'd become a magnet for insurgent violence and that they should be redeployed over a period of six months.
That set off a firestorm in Washington in which many Republicans lambasted Murtha for his position, questioning his integrity and his mettle.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan compared the congressman to anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore.
McClellan said it is "baffling that [Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."
The White House also accused Murtha of wanting to "surrender to the terrorists."
Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio who was obviously unaware of Murtha's combat record, venomously accused the war veteran of being a "coward."
To his credit, Murtha, earned two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry from the South Vietnamese.
It was just days later that President Bush, after initially criticizing Murtha's proposal, made an incrdible about face by suggesting the possibility of withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006. The change of heart was convenient because 2006 is an election year.
Yet in a confusing contradiction, Vice President Dick Cheney later forcefully argued that early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would be "unwise in the extreme" and increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the United States and other nations.
So what's the story? Could there really be a troop reduction in the new year?
On his most recent trip to Iraq, Rep. Murtha found that U.S. "commanders are truly discouraged" and clearly angry. The following may illustrate why.
Virginia's John Warner, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called a meeting with 10 battalion commanders to get an honest portrayal of the situation in Iraq. The Marine and Army officers were quite frank in their assessments. Contradicting the Pentagon's repeated claims, the commanders said they not only needed more manpower, but that they'd also repeatedly asked for it -- as recently as this past August. Each time, they said, they were denied.
The commanders said they don't have enough troops to keep insurgents out of cities that have initially been cleared and secured. They also complained of lacking enough personnel to effectively deal with the problem of roadside bombs, the leading cause of U.S. casualties.
So it's hard to imagine the withdrawal of U.S. forces from a war in which there have never been enough forces to begin with. Of course there will be vigorous arguments both for and against, just as there have been up to this point, but it will get really interesting, and perhaps even more ugly, in an election year. At this point the administration can't even get its position straight.
But the ones truly suffering through this debate are our forces fighting in Iraq. I'm inclined to side with the commanders who've said they don't have enough numbers to be truly effective -- or at least as effective as they otherwise could be if they had our government's backing in their valiant effort to defeat this stubborn insurgency. Our troops are worthy of at least that much. That would genuinely be "supporting our troops."
Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Kamis, 29 Desember 2005
JURY PUNISHES WAL-MART
Last week, an Oakland, California jury awarded $172 million to thousands of Wal-Mart employees who claimed they were illegally denied lunch breaks.
The news is just the latest blow to the world's largest retailer, which has been repeatedly stung by negative publicity regarding the manner in which it treat its workers.
Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to about 116,000 current and former California employees for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to give 30-minute, unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours.
The practice is hardly uncommon. According to the New York Times, one week of time records from 25,000 employees in July 2000 found that there were 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times.
The class-action lawsuit is just one of more than 40 nationwide alleging workplace violations by Wal-Mart, and was the first to go to trial. The company had already settled a similar lawsuit in Colorado for $50 million. However, the company doesn't seem to have learned its lesson or changed its ways. But the latest award will hardly hurt the Arkansas-based retailer, since it earned $10 billion last year.
Fred Furth, the attorney who brought the case on behalf of the workers, seemed satisfied that the jury "held Wal-Mart to account."
Naturally, Wal-Mart's attorney said the retailer would likely appeal the jury's verdict, which was reached after nearly three days of deliberations and four months of testimony. His basis for appeal? That state law can only be enforced by California regulators, not by workers in a courtroom. An interesting, though dubious strategy. He also added that Wal-Mart did not believe the lunch law allowed for punitive damages.
Apparently Wal-Mart just doesn't get it. The company is so huge, and so powerful that it thinks it can just ignore the law. It's been caught denying employees fair treatment under the law, yet its corporate governors think that it's appropriate to simply begin following the law now, albeit by court mandate, without any punishment. They are indignant at notion that they should actually be punished for their illegal and unethical actions.
"We absolutely disagree with their findings," attorney Neal Manne said of the jury's verdict. He conceded that Wal-Mart made mistakes in not always allowing for lunch breaks when the 2001 law took affect, but he said the company is "100 percent" in compliance now.
Oh, so now they get it. Finally. I wonder what it took. Could it be the tens of millions in punitive damages? I'll be that had something to do with it. Fines can be somewhat motivational.
The verdict could hardly have come at a worse time for Wal-Mart. The company is waging an intense public-relations campaign to counter critics who are attempting to stop the retailer's expansion and make it boost workers' salaries and benefits.
Wal-Mart was so concerned about Robert Greenwald's new film, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, that they hired a "war room" of public relations people to fight back. Apparently their efforts haven't paid off very well: a Zogby poll showed that Americans don't approve of Wal-Mart's worker-unfriendly policies.
Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, an union-affiliated advocacy group that believes Wal-Mart's policies over wages, health benefits and other issues harm families and communities, said he was delighted by the verdict.
"It is a sad day when Wal-Mart provides these so-called low prices by exploiting their workers and even the law," Blank said.
In 2003, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2003 poverty line for a family of three was $15,260, while the national median family budget in the United States for a two-person family (one parent and one child) in 1999 was $23,705.
This year, Harper’s Magazine reported that Wal-Mart employees were eligible for $2.5 billion in federal assistance in 2004. Yet, a national report documented at least $1 billion in subsidies to Wal-Mart from state and local governments.
But an analysis of Wal-Mart's 2005 annual report reveals that the company could cover the cost of a dollar an hour wage increase by raising prices a half penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee.
After an internal memo surfaced that showed 46 percent of Wal-Mart employees' children were on Medicaid or uninsured, the company decided to add lower-cost health insurance this year. Wal-Mart has generally been content to let the government - meaning taxpayers - pay it's employees healthcare costs.
And Wal-Mart's President and CEO Lee Scott doesn't deny it. In fact, he admits that public health care assistance may be a “better value” than Wal-Mart's own employee healthcare program. Despite $10 billion in profits, Scott said, "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums."
It's repugnant for a mullti-billion dollar company, the number one employer in the US, to shamelessly pass the buck like that.
According to the Wall Street journal, Wal-Mart’s average spending on health benefits for each covered employee was 27% less than the industry average and 37% less than the national average.
And a federal lawsuit is pending in San Francisco that accuses the company of paying men more than women. The beat goes on, and on.
Earlier this year, the PBS series Frontline aired a documentary called "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" The answer from almost all of those interviewed was unequivocally, no.
Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Last week, an Oakland, California jury awarded $172 million to thousands of Wal-Mart employees who claimed they were illegally denied lunch breaks.
The news is just the latest blow to the world's largest retailer, which has been repeatedly stung by negative publicity regarding the manner in which it treat its workers.
Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to about 116,000 current and former California employees for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to give 30-minute, unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours.
The practice is hardly uncommon. According to the New York Times, one week of time records from 25,000 employees in July 2000 found that there were 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times.
The class-action lawsuit is just one of more than 40 nationwide alleging workplace violations by Wal-Mart, and was the first to go to trial. The company had already settled a similar lawsuit in Colorado for $50 million. However, the company doesn't seem to have learned its lesson or changed its ways. But the latest award will hardly hurt the Arkansas-based retailer, since it earned $10 billion last year.
Fred Furth, the attorney who brought the case on behalf of the workers, seemed satisfied that the jury "held Wal-Mart to account."
Naturally, Wal-Mart's attorney said the retailer would likely appeal the jury's verdict, which was reached after nearly three days of deliberations and four months of testimony. His basis for appeal? That state law can only be enforced by California regulators, not by workers in a courtroom. An interesting, though dubious strategy. He also added that Wal-Mart did not believe the lunch law allowed for punitive damages.
Apparently Wal-Mart just doesn't get it. The company is so huge, and so powerful that it thinks it can just ignore the law. It's been caught denying employees fair treatment under the law, yet its corporate governors think that it's appropriate to simply begin following the law now, albeit by court mandate, without any punishment. They are indignant at notion that they should actually be punished for their illegal and unethical actions.
"We absolutely disagree with their findings," attorney Neal Manne said of the jury's verdict. He conceded that Wal-Mart made mistakes in not always allowing for lunch breaks when the 2001 law took affect, but he said the company is "100 percent" in compliance now.
Oh, so now they get it. Finally. I wonder what it took. Could it be the tens of millions in punitive damages? I'll be that had something to do with it. Fines can be somewhat motivational.
The verdict could hardly have come at a worse time for Wal-Mart. The company is waging an intense public-relations campaign to counter critics who are attempting to stop the retailer's expansion and make it boost workers' salaries and benefits.
Wal-Mart was so concerned about Robert Greenwald's new film, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, that they hired a "war room" of public relations people to fight back. Apparently their efforts haven't paid off very well: a Zogby poll showed that Americans don't approve of Wal-Mart's worker-unfriendly policies.
Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, an union-affiliated advocacy group that believes Wal-Mart's policies over wages, health benefits and other issues harm families and communities, said he was delighted by the verdict.
"It is a sad day when Wal-Mart provides these so-called low prices by exploiting their workers and even the law," Blank said.
In 2003, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2003 poverty line for a family of three was $15,260, while the national median family budget in the United States for a two-person family (one parent and one child) in 1999 was $23,705.
This year, Harper’s Magazine reported that Wal-Mart employees were eligible for $2.5 billion in federal assistance in 2004. Yet, a national report documented at least $1 billion in subsidies to Wal-Mart from state and local governments.
But an analysis of Wal-Mart's 2005 annual report reveals that the company could cover the cost of a dollar an hour wage increase by raising prices a half penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee.
After an internal memo surfaced that showed 46 percent of Wal-Mart employees' children were on Medicaid or uninsured, the company decided to add lower-cost health insurance this year. Wal-Mart has generally been content to let the government - meaning taxpayers - pay it's employees healthcare costs.
And Wal-Mart's President and CEO Lee Scott doesn't deny it. In fact, he admits that public health care assistance may be a “better value” than Wal-Mart's own employee healthcare program. Despite $10 billion in profits, Scott said, "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums."
It's repugnant for a mullti-billion dollar company, the number one employer in the US, to shamelessly pass the buck like that.
According to the Wall Street journal, Wal-Mart’s average spending on health benefits for each covered employee was 27% less than the industry average and 37% less than the national average.
And a federal lawsuit is pending in San Francisco that accuses the company of paying men more than women. The beat goes on, and on.
Earlier this year, the PBS series Frontline aired a documentary called "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" The answer from almost all of those interviewed was unequivocally, no.
Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)