A dying Detroit: Is it worth saving?

This week, I chose to focus on the ailing auto industry. I know what you're thinking, where did the politics go? Trust me, the politics are still here and this week the folks on Capitol Hill seem to be bickering more than ever about what to do with Detroit. Lawmakers have so far been unable to reach a consensus on the proposed $25 billion bailout program to help the big 3 U.S. automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler (see image, right). While Democrats are currently pushing for immediate relief, Republicans on the hill want to see funds loaned to automakers dedicated to the re-tooling of the industry. As President-elect Obama is shaping his staff, agenda, and administration in the days before he assumes office, I chose two blogs that offer solutions an Obama administration may want to consider, if they are not already doing so. The first blog is located on the Huffington Post and authored by Raymond J. Learsy. It contains his most recent post entitled "Detroit's Rebirth as the 'Arsenal for America's Future'" in which he advocates the revival of the auto industry through thorough governmental reorganization not unlike what was needed during World War II. This time however, instead of building tanks and aiding the military industrial complex, Detroit could harness electricity and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The second blog post I chose to comment on is entitled "Is the American auto industry worth saving?" This article is part 2 in author Robert Farago's posts on the subject at thetruthaboutcars blog. In his article he takes the position that the automakers are in the position that they are in due to poor upper management and business practices. I have left my comments on each post at each blog, but have also reprinted them below. I encourage reading both articles as each offers a substantially different viewpoint on the subject of the auto industry bailout proposal.

Detroit's Rebirth as the "Arsenal for America's Future" comment:

I am glad to see someone writing who does more than lambaste either lawmakers, the auto industry, or our dependence on foreign oil. This problem is a complex one, and it is even further compounded by our current economic situation. However, I couldn't agree more with your position that instead of running around as if the sky is falling, why can't we as a nation work towards an auto industry that is at the forefront of manufacturing clean, green, and energy efficient vehicles? As FDR stated, and as you quote in your post, now is the time for America to once again "become the spearhead against world conquest". Although, in today's terms, I would argue as you have that 'world conquest' should be replaced with conquest by OPEC (see image, left). Nations like Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Iran, and Venezuela are acutely aware of the dependence America has on "black gold" and even go so far as to set their yearly budgets pegged on the price of oil! Granted, this substance is their chief export, so this is somewhat understandable. However, when the consortium of OPEC countries holds emergency meetings to determine how to get the price of oil back up in order to make a larger profit, we as a nation need to pay much closer attention.

I applaud your inclusion of a sound solution to this problem: re-focusing the auto industry in this nation to manufacture cars that do not run on gasoline. You offer great examples of automakers who are leading this charge in other nations. I can't believe that Israel's goal is to be completely oil independent by 2020. It seems impossible, but then again, change always does. How long do you think that big oil companies like Exxon Mobile and BP will win the fight?

You also point out, rightly in my opinion, that the cars currently being produced are not conducive to an American landscape. For example, just this past weekend I made the drive to San Francisco from Los Angeles. This drive would require at least three full charges of an electric battery powered vehicle. However, you point out that these cars should not be looked at as reasons not to go ahead with production. After all, it is a starting point from which our auto industries can build upon.

This is a problem with a definite solution. I only hope that Detroit comes to its senses before it's too late.

Thank you for your insightful post. I welcome your feedback- http://www.blemmon.blogspot.com


"Is the Ameican auto industry worth saving?" Pt. 2, comment:

Your take on this "crisis" is very interesting. I agree with you that this proposed infusion of cash is infuriating, considering that the big three: GM, Chrysler, and Ford are doing exactly what you point out in your post- shipping jobs overseas to stretch their dollar. Does saving the 3 automakers insure jobs here? Yes. Of course it does. But does it also ensure that these companies, in order to cut costs and stay afloat will cut their highest paid workers? Of course it does. Where do those highest paid workers reside? Right here in the good ol' US of A as members of the UAW making union pay at $74 an hour. This money from the government is necessary- these companies employ hundreds of thousands of people and not just at company owned plants. Think of all the laborers and employees that have positions at subsidiaries of these companies. What will they do if the automaker suddenly stops ordering windows or windshield wiper blades? However, the bailout money should come with a very clear caveat- re-structure your business to compete with the other auto makers or we, the taxpayer, will not prop you up. One merely has to look at Toyota to see how a company should treat its workers. During this economic crisis, when American companies are shedding jobs, Toyota has not fired ONE person. See this courier press article for what they are doing for their employees- http://www.courierpress.com/news/2008/nov/01/making-the-most-of-down-time-toyota-uses-for/.

In your opinion, what do you see as the best solution to the problem? Do you think that breaking up vehicle conglomerates like Ford (who owns Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, and Volvo) should be broken up into single entities to foster competition in the marketplace?

This much is clear- changes need to happen, and fast. Otherwise, we may see the end of vehicle manufacturing by American automakers. How strange would it be for the world to exist without Ford, the company started by the inventor of the machine that has changed the world?

I thank you for your insightful and informed post. I also welcome your comments and can be reached here- http://www.blemmon.blogspot.com

'Change' has been chosen: Now what?

Many Americans headed to the polls on November 4, and their voices were heard: Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States of America. His election, won by an electoral college landslide, marks many firsts for America. It is the first time that an African-American will occupy the White House, the first time we shall have an African-American First Lady, the first time Democrats enjoy a healthy majority in both the House and the Senate in over fifty years, and the first time in the last two election cycles that the President-elect has been handed a clear mandate by the people through his margin of victory. Last week, I set out in an attempt to discuss what the definition of "change" actually meant. I have discovered, however, that its meaning continually eludes my grasp. I naively assumed that this word would automatically become clear to me if the "change" candidate was picked come election day. However, change did what it does best and altered its very meaning yet again. Does the Obama administration represent a radical new transformation in American life like FDR did with his New Deal policies? Or, will he lean towards the middle like Clinton and play it safe? Will the American people be able to weather the storm and follow the man they have chosen to lead them? And, above all, will the American people be able to believe in themselves again? In my view, he has one of two options: he can sidestep all other issues and focus solely on the economy and creating jobs or he can use this economic climate to his advantage. If he is successful in reigning in our financial system, he will be given credence to jump start the rest of the initiatives he planned to instate upon election.

Change is definitely upon us, and today it made itself known in an extraordinary way. One of the hallmarks of American democracy is the peaceful transference of power that occurs with the changing of administrations. It is a sign of respect and duty for an outgoing President to welcome his successor, regardless of whether or not they agree on policy issues. And today, for the first time, Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office to hold a private conversation with President Bush. Meanwhile, Laura gave Michelle a tour of what will become the Obama family's home come January (see image, right). In their conversation today, Barack and Bush discussed the very changes that would be coming in the new Obama administration, most of which are ideologically opposed to Bush. According to an ABC news article penned by Jake Tapper, the "incoming president is considering using executive orders to change the policies of the outgoing president. Those orders could expand federal funding for stem cell research and reverse a recently enacted Bush order allowing drilling for oil and gas in some of the country's pristine reserves." And, an even larger issue- Obama is pressing for a second round of economic stimulus, which Bush does not agree with. This first meeting is a hint at the type of change Obama will bring when he assumes the reigns of power.

After he takes office, what possible change can Obama bring? There is no doubt that he has a full agenda, but his progress may be halted by conditions completely out of his control. After all, he is faced with a whole host of pressing issues: a failing economy, failing automakers (see image, left), and a public that expects him to deliver on the soaring promises he made on the campaign trail. Ultimately, Obama may be forced to tackle one issue at a time while placing others on the back burner. For example, author Robert Tomsho raises the issue of education. He states, "with the financial crisis and other priorities bearing down, President-elect Barack Obama's education initiatives -- at least early in his term -- are expected to be more about tinkering than bold change." Tomsho worries that Obama will merely pay political lip service to placate his supporters rather than implement actual policies. This is not to say that Obama was merely giving a stump speech when campaigning. On the contrary, one of the issues about the initiatives and changes Obama wants to bring to Washington and the nation are that they will be expensive. It is because these initiatives cost so much that he may be forced to stay his hand. At a time when no one is spending, and critics will be harsh, which direction will Obama take?

Change is a fickle beast. It is something that we currently seek, but do not know the outcome we will have once we have implemented it. Change carries with it both hopes and dreams, chaos and uncertainty. With a little over a month until inauguration day, we shall have to wait and see. One can only hope, however, those changes for the better are awaiting us at the end of this journey.

The End of an Era: A New Beginning for America?

So much has happened in the past eight years, has it not? Two contested election cycles, two nations of the world with whom our troops are fighting, and two terms of a President who has no doubt left his mark on this nation and the world for many years to come. On the eve of election night, I felt that it was important to step back and look at what our nation has been through in the past eight years, what it has to look forward to in the four to come, and how, as a nation, we can reinvent ourselves to the world at large. Tomorrow, the American public will stand in line at the polls to elect the new leader of the free world- a man who will inherit a whole host of problems from day one in office. There is no doubt in my mind that change, no matter who is elected, is coming. And, it is this notion of change that I sought to define in this week's blog post. What is it that I and others, like the authors of the two blogs I chose to engage, during this entire campaign have been sensing? America is on the brink of something new and different, something radical, something that I feel as if everyone can almost touch but not define. So, to answer this question, I turned to the blogosphere. Once again, to my chagrin, I have chosen to visit the Right Wing Nuthouse (see image right) where author Rick Moran offers up his definition of the "change" America is about to witness. I have also chosen to respond to an article posted by Hermene Hartman at the Huffington Post, as she offers her own insight on the meaning of change. I have commented on both articles at their respective websites, and have also pasted my comments below:

Embrace the Future:

Rick, I have to start out by saying thank you. Thank you for putting in perspective what I feel has been overshadowed immensely by both the Obama and McCain campaigns in this election cycle. I agree wholeheartedly with you that our great nation has prospered immensely based upon the idea that each generation yearns to make life better for its own children and grandchildren. Each generation, as you put it, "stands on the shoulders of giants as we look to the future". I, as a 22 year old college student, see the opportunity that I have been given to play my part in reshaping America as a country that I feel like being a part of, that I can mold to fit my own ideals. I further respect the notion that you bring up of change happening no matter who is elected. Much emphasis has been placed on the individual candidates: "such and such will happen if Barack is elected", "this decision and that decision will be made if McCain is elected", and so on. However, you have rightly, in my opinion, made the claim that change is coming no matter who wins this election. My nation is no longer the nation that my grandfather, or even my father, grew up knowing. I, as you put it, live in Shakespeare's "undiscovered country", a nation that is striving to find its place in the new world order. What will the future bring? I do not know. I do know however, that I am fortunate enough to attend a University that has had the foresight to mold its students to fit this changing world landscape. I have been given a skill set that will allow me to prosper in the job market of the Twenty-First century. Ideally, I will be able to give to my children and grandchildren what my predecessors gave me: an opportunity to live in a country that is "happy, free, and at peace". Thank you for keeping it all in perspective.

The American Transformation:

Obama represents real change (see artwork left). Change not only seen in the skin color of the man occupying the office of President, but change in how our nation's populace views itself. I cannot agree with you more that my generation has been integral in dropping the race barrier that once existed for an African-American in politics. I grew up in a predominantly minority neighborhood, and never thought being white entitled me to anything, or that I was better based upon the color of my skin. I have always believed firmly in the notion that I must work hard for what I want to achieve, and that if I put my mind and heart into it, that I can achieve my dreams. Obama, to me, represents the true spirit of the American dream- born into hardship, he has achieved greatness. Faced with adversity- he as overcome great odds. My own parents grew up in an era where segregation was the norm- where whites and blacks were seperated from each other simply because that was how our nation operated. Change was sought when they were growing up, to change the way African-Americans were treated, and change has been sought in many arenas ever since. Obama, as you believe, has brought true meaning to the word "change" in that he has rallied an entire nation to stand behind his banner in order to better themselves, and better our nation as a whole. To me, an Obama Presidency represents what is best about America: our ability to rally around each other for a common cause, for the common good of every man, for the ability to share with our families and friends the prosperity earned by previous generations who have worked so hard to give us the chances needed to keep the cycle going. I hope, as we enter the next four years of a likely Obama Presidency that the momentum created by his campaign will continue to resonate with the people of this nation so that we can once again realize what we are capable of and as a result, better the world that we live in.

The Niche Media Market: Loss of Unbiased Journalism

With just over a week to go until the Presidential election, both campaigns are making their final sales pitches to the American people. Just today, Barack Obama made what was hailed as the "closing argument" of his Presidential bid, once again tying McCain to President Bush and the Republican ideology of the past 8 years. Minutes prior to the Obama speech, Senator McCain warned that if elected, Obama would usher in an era of unchecked Democratic rule in Washington that would be a danger to Democracy. Both candidates spoke to their party base and gave the message that their supporters wanted to hear. This got me thinking about the strict adherence to party mantra that supporters of both campaigns, media outlets included, subscribe to. When did someones patriotism become tied into how big of a supporter they were of the Democratic or Republican agenda? When did political prowess become validated by the blogs that one reads or the cable news network that one watches? Since the beginning of this seemingly never ending Presidential race, I have been fascinated with the intense bias of the news media on both sides of the aisle. And this week, after reading an article by Associated Press reporter David Bauer, I have chosen to focus on the dangers of blindly subscribing to the opinions of both liberal and conservative sources of news.

Bauer's article, entitled "Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly: 'You'll Swear They're Talking About Two Different Presidential Campaigns" describes the disparity in opinion between the two men and their loyal followers. He pegs the two pundits as "the beneficiaries of an increased desire by news viewers to follow stories through their own ideological filters". The viewers of these two programs tune in and listen to these pundits because the hosts reaffirm what their audience wants to hear. One could even argue that the image to the right is what Olbermann and O'Reilly do every night: face off in the boxing ring to see which man can remain standing after the barrage of rhetoric and slanted stories has ended. Bill O'Reilly has enjoyed an enormous amount of success this election season, attracting over four million viewers per night to his right wing talk show. Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's left leaning alternative to Fox's O'Reilly, has also enjoyed immense success this election season. According to Bauer, his shows nightly ratings have risen almost threefold since 2007 from half a million viewers per night to just under two million in 2008. Both O'Reilly and Olbermann owe much of their success to lampooning the opposing political party. This ratings success has not gone unnoticed by either network; rather, it has only enlarged the gap between the two camps. After all, the network's job is to appease the shareholders and the high ratings generated by the commentators make the networks money. So, if the cable networks are benefiting, then there is no reason to change their style of programming.

Another effect of the political slanting in the main stream media has been the ever increasing number of political pundits. These on air personalities are brought onto cable news shows in order to advocate their political party's talking points. In an article for the New York Times, Ashley Parker discusses the increase in demand for pundits and the "schools" that they attend to learn their trade. Here, they are trained how to act on camera and spread the party image, all while remaining cool, calm, and collected. The youth vote has been of particular importance in this election cycle, and Internet sites like Facebook and YouTube have allowed this new generation of voters to get involved in unprecedented ways. As a result, the networks have seen the importance of targeting this demographic through pundits that younger audiences feel they can connect with. While this may get the network more advertising revenue, the slant is being facilitated with a new crop of promoters.

My fear is that citizens will become so cocooned in their opinions about who is right and who is wrong, that they will forget to check out all of the facts for themselves. Trusted networks like Fox News and MSNBC have a duty to fulfill to their viewers as much as they do to their shareholders. Add the blogosphere to the mix and it does nothing but widen the divide. Viewers see their favorite pundit on television and then many go read their favorite party blog like Hot Air or the Huffington Post (see image, left) that simply reaffirms what was just said on television or, as is often the case, the reverse happens: the networks pull stories that have broken on the blogosphere and legitimize them as a trusted media source. There is however one upside to the enormous amount of party rhetoric that is available. People can see the viewpoints of both sides, judge them for themselves, and make an informed judgement on the validity of the argument. I would hope that the majority of people would try to filter out the nonsense and reach their own opinions, but sadly, I do not think that this is the case.

On the Web, Thinkers Thrive: A Guide to Political Life Online

This week, I delved into the depths of the Internet in search of informative, helpful, and engaging sites that will bolster my own blog entries, as well as provide a great deal of information about the political landscape. Using the Webby and IMSA criteria as a guideline, I have compiled a list of twenty blogs and political organizations that will serve as an additional resource within this blog. I have evaluated these sites on their content, structure and ease of navigation, visual design, functionality, interactivity and their overall experience. These sites run the gambit of the political landscape as I have selections from both political parties and independent organizations. All of these sites are available on my link roll (to the right) but are also described in detail below.

The first selection of sites I have chosen come from non-partisan, government watchdog groups whose purpose is to oversee the political process and ensure that our civil liberties are protected, regardless of the party that holds the political power. Open Secrets is a valuable site that follows the money being spent by both political candidates. The site is engaging, easy to navigate, and has a wealth of information not only on the two Presidential candidates, but on the Senate and House races, as well as information on a multitude of lobbyist groups. It has a great design and is very visually appealing. Another site, Factcheck.org (see graphic, right), winner of the 2008 Webby and Webby People's Voice awards, aims to "reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics" by monitoring the factual accuracy of ranking political figures and their statements in the media. This site has a great layout, a multitude of different media options, and does an excellent job at backing up its claims with thoroughly researched evidence. A similar site, albeit with a conservative angle, can be found at Judicialwatch.org. This site contains many articles that attempt to cast light on government corruption, focusing mainly on acts committed by the Democrats. The site, while containing a wealth of information, is hard to navigate due to the fact that the homepage is too cluttered with text. Perhaps if the sections were organized differently, it would not be so overwhelming. Switching back to the other end of the political spectrum, Public Eye is a site that describes itself as a "progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society". The site's design is friendly and inviting and clearly marks the divisions between its articles. However, it lacks the visual appeal found in other sites. Many of the big issues raised on this site such as immigration and the religious right, while relating to the national dialogue, hone in on specific instances that serve to personalize the issues for its readers. The American Civil Liberties Union, a non-partisan group whose online presence is located at aclu.org, is an organization committed to ensuring that the freedoms guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Bill of Rights are upheld in every instance. The site has an excellent layout with an easy to access link roll of issues that the Union is involved in on the right side of the page as well as a color scheme that is inviting and interesting. Another non-partisan site, Common Cause is dedicated to the citizens' ability to hold their elected leaders responsible. Like the ACLU, commoncause.org has a very easy to navigate page with a link roll that clearly defines their areas of involvement. While populated with more sidebar ads and a less impressive layout, commoncause.org still contains valuable information for the public.

From the blogosphere, I have chosen a selection that is evenly split between liberal and conservative ideologies. In order to come to an informed stance on issues regarding politics, it is important that one consider both sides. First, the liberal sites will be examined. First is The Daily Kos, a wildly popular blog with a heavy liberal slant. The site, while very informative, is very cluttered. Banner ads run down the middle of the page and entries are often too long to be listed in their entirety on the homepage. Thinkprogress has a much better visual appeal and does a great job of integrating media into its entries. The entries are curtailed to conserve space on the home page and can be expanded to its entirety when the headline of the article is clicked. Dailykos should take a lesson from thinkprogress.org's layout. Another popular site within this category can be found at talkingpointsmemo.com. This blog also offers their take on all things political viewed through the lens of the left. The site does offer a multitude of different informative articles on its homepage, but in my opinion offers almost too much as there is simply too much clutter on the homepage. Socialite Arianna Huffington's blog turned Internet newspaper can be found at HuffingtonPost.com. The site has a fantastic amount of information, an easy to use layout, and many contributing authors (some of whom are Hollywood celebrities, i.e. Barbara Streisand) that add to the diversity of liberal opinions that can be found on this site. The Huffington Post is easily the most professional looking site of this group. Time magazine has entered the foray of the blogosphere and can be found at time.com/swampland. This blog benefits from the integration into the web stronghold of Time.com and as such, has great visual appeal as well as the journalistic integrity associated with Time Magazine brand. The site is very clean and offers a link roll of contributing authors and their photos prominently on the right side of the page. Americablog.com, while highly rated on blog portal Technorati.com in terms of political relevance, the site offers little in terms of visual design. The site is poorly laid out, features banner ads inserted into the middle of posts, and an overall boring site design. Direct Diplomacy for People Powered Politics, known in the blogosphere as mydd.com, is the final blog being highlighted on the left. This site offers an automatically updating electoral map for readers that is prominently displayed on the main page, as well as a layout that makes their numerous entries easy to read, even if the way they are displayed is rather simplistic.

And, on the other side of the political spectrum: the conservative blogs. First up is Technorati's top rated hotair, a site that proudly touts itself as "the world’s first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network". The site has a fantastic eye catching design that immediately engages the visitor. Most, if not all articles contain multimedia links and the posts are thumbnailed in such a way that the main page offers a huge selection of articles without seeming too busy. In contrast to hotair, founder Michelle Malkin's own personal website and blog, MichelleMalkin.com, offers a much more subdued experience while still maintaining the conservative viewpoint (see picture, left). Designed with much less information on the page, visitors are not met with such an "in your face" interface. Articles that Malkin has penned make up the headlines page, with her own personal blog entries lining the side. Power Line, yet another wildly popular conservative blog, offers many articles on its main page. While not as aesthetically pleasing as hotair, it is still a great source of information. The site is simple, with a white background and minimal clutter, the font is easy to read, and the articles are all justified to the left of the page. Instapundit, a part of the Pajamas Media group of blogs, while highly rated on Technorati, proves to be disappointing. The author does a good job of linking to the articles he gleans his information from, but his posts are short and erratic. Often, the author offers little to no explanation or personal opinion accompanying these links. If this were remedied, I feel that this blog would have much more of a political impact. Right Wing News, a blog with a wide assortment of authors from different walks of life, offers a great deal of opinions on the right side of the aisle. The site is informative because of this fact, and sadly, this fact alone. The site is plagued with banner ads, and the authors are featured in a link roll located in the dead center of the page, obscuring the actual articles that have been posted. This should be placed on the right of the page, or an indexing system of some sort should be employed to help ease the clutter. Wizbang offers in depth articles that often link to several pages, taking the reader directly to the authors source material. The page itself is easy to read, has a great color scheme, and excellent functionality. Finally, there is the Right Wing Nut House, my personal favorite of the conservative blogs. The site design is superb and the writing of its contributors is just as sublime. The articles are placed neatly in their entirety in the middle of the page, bookended by a lengthy archive listing and blog link roll on the left. The link roll is one of my favorite features of the site as it is vast and comprehensive. Another nice feature of this blog is that on the right side of the page there is a comprehensive media link roll in which both conservative and liberal sources are listed. Overall, my explorations of the web this week offered me great insight into both partisan and non-partisan political groups.

Financial Panic: America's Downfall?

$1.2 trillion dollars. In one day, the Wall-Street stock exchange plunged nearly 778 points in the biggest single-day point loss ever. What caused this tremendous loss of capital? The House of Representatives was unable to reach a consensus vote on the proposed financial bailout of Wall-Street's beleaguered firms. As a result, the financial sector saw confidence drop even lower, investors became squeamish, and therefore attempted to cut their losses by selling stock. In yet another turn of events, two more household names of banking have been gobbled up by the firms that are actually on solid financial footing. Last week, the banking arm of Washington Mutual was halted from doing business by the FDIC after customers, concerned with the current economic situation, withdrew $16.7 billion in account holdings over the course of 10 days. And, just today, it was announced that Wachovia (see image, top right) would be purchased by Citigroup in a $2.2 billion buyout. Citigroup will also take on the ailing bank's $42 billion in outstanding debt, with the FDIC covering an additional debt over that amount due to a $12 billion payment of preferred stocks and warrants. Even though this blog is dedicated to all things political, particularly those issues dealing with Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, I felt it necessary to address this economic crisis since whoever sits at the desk in the Oval office come January will certainly have to deal with it as well. In order for me to educate myself on what is happening with our financial sector, and to investigate possible solutions, I turned to the blogosphere. One of the articles I found, located at the political blog Daily Kos and penned by "Meteor Blades" (blogger screen name of Timothy Lange, a long time anti-war demonstrator and political activist who's full bio can be found here) offers a very detailed insight into this crisis and cites several economic experts solutions on how to solve the slide into financial ruin. Entitled "Bailout Defeat Offers Opportunity", he discusses how today's financial meltdown may actually be a good thing. The second post I discovered on the website truthdig.com, winner of the 2007 webby award for best political blog. Co-founded by my former USC Annenberg professor Robert Scheer, the site serves as a hub for those seeking a progressive slant to their news. Contributing author Chalmers Johnson, who holds an B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in Economics and Political Science from Berkeley and was a professor there and UC San Diego for 40 years, posted an article yesterday on both truthdig.com and the blog from last week's post tomdispatch.com. In his piece entitled, "The Bailout vs. The Defense Budget", he puts into perspective how much money the bailout costs the American taxpayer as compared to the bloated annual budget lawmakers sign off on for military and defense spending. I offered my own insights on these two blog entries as comments to their posts, but have also copied them below.

"Bailout Defeat Offers Opportunity"

I must say, in the frenzy of reporting that has been done on the financial crisis in the past two weeks, no article has put together such a succinct and sound solution for what must be done to solve it. It seems as if we as a nation have been running around like chickens with our heads cut off, worried that the sky is falling down around us, while doing nothing to stop it from happening. I found your article particularly credible due to the fact that you cited so many different economists and their plans for fixing the current meltdown on Wall-Street and then offered your own advice on top of that. This bailout plan, while flawed in many ways, has been pushed onto the table with such haste and commotion that many assumed this was the only option available. I am thankful that you have provided your audience with so many different lenses through which possible solutions can be seen. Particularly your quoting of economists Galbraith, Baker, and Henwood's idea for the creation of public and cooperative institutions that offer basic financial services, acting as an alternative to the big banking firms. And you are right that while this may be a far fetched plan for economic recovery (since most of the need is here in the short term), there is absolutely no reason that some good cannot come out of this mess. However, as you stated, "Ultimately, the compromise failed. Does not matter whether you think that’s good or bad. It’s dead." In your opinion then, does the killing of this bill on the House floor doom the already strained economy? If the dives on Wall Street continue and this bailout remains unfunded, where do we go from here? In times like these, I feel that history can teach the most valuable lessons, and in your post you offer some great examples from historical financial crises. I only hope that our leaders are willing to take a look, before it is too late.

"The Bailout vs. The Defense Budget"

It would seem that this week has been consumed with nothing but talk about the melt down on Wall Street. I am happy to see that you are raising the alarm and blowing the whistle on this defense spending issue. How can this be? In the past weeks, when our nations financial markets have been in a tumult, Congress can overwhelmingly pass a huge new national defense budget (see building in charge of this budget, left). But, "there have been no signs of even the slightest urge to inquire into the relationship between our bloated military, our staggering weapons expenditures, our extravagantly expensive failed wars abroad, and the financial catastrophe on Wall Street". The two, however, are inextricably linked with each other. Part of the reason that our nation faces this mountain of debt in the first place is because of the "War on Terrorism". It would not be so difficult for the nation to bail out the adventurers and speculators on Wall Street if we had not spent, since as of June this year, over $646 billion to fund the war in Iraq. However, do you believe that the country as a whole would be as angry about this defense bill's passage as you are? After all, many Americans simply accept the notion that the world's largest military / police force costs a ton of money to maintain. And after all, if they are maintaining the safety of Americans at home and abroad, is it not worth the price tag? I do agree, however, that our nation's elected leaders need to break their association with the size of the military spending budget and their patriotism. It is wrong to think that the larger the budget for defense spending, the more "respect" that our troops are shown when they are off fighting. Especially when you argue that all of the money spent is merely propping up an armed service that is using, for the most part, entirely outdated equipment and vehicles. I find your conclusion (the eventual bankruptcy of America) to be bleak and troublesome. I only hope for my and the nation's sake that you are wrong.

American Military Expansion: The True Cost of War

What has happened since September 11, 2001? Our nation has engaged two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, in a war to win "hearts and minds" and combat global terrorism. As the graphic on the left illustrates, the "hearts and minds" are also our own as well. Both Presidential contenders have staunchly different positions on how the United States should confront these ongoing conflicts. John McCain advocates for the current fighting force to stay in Iraq until the nation becomes "capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people," however long that may take, and no matter the cost. Barack Obama advocates a different method: the beginning of the end to the Iraq war. He has stated that the "removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government." However, Obama believes that the situation in Afghanistan is so "urgent" that he advocates sending more troops into this region. With all the talk about the war in Iraq costing the US taxpayers up to $3 trillion before all is said and done, I felt compelled to delve deeper. How much will the American public allow the government to spend on the "War on Terror"? How much has our military expanded in the years since the Twin Towers fell? While many Americans are eager to see the next administration disengage from the policies of the current President, and yearn to see a shift in American foreign policy, some fail to realize how much has been done to expand the influence of the United States military and how much it has cost to fund it.

Just four days ago on September 18, in the midst of one of the largest financial crises of the last 75 years and one which the government has said will cost $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, the US Senate overwhelmingly approved a $612 billion defense spending bill with over $70 billion earmarked for Iraq and Afghanistan. The $70 billion is just money used for nations we are at war with. What about those that are allies of the United States? According to Tom Engelhardt of Tomdispatch.com, this is where most of that budget will go. We currently have 761 military bases stretched across the planet, and the American taxpayer has footed the bill for all of them. The scary part about it is that the populace is largely ignorant of the US' global footprint since most of our outposts are not prominent public knowledge. I myself was not even aware of the number of US facilities being operated in other countries until I read his article. San Francisco Chronicle writer James Sterngold described this expansion as "the most militarized foreign policy machine in modern history." Not only has America taken more measures to insulate itself from an inside attack; it has enhanced its reach to every corner of the globe in an attempt to stop the threat of an attack in the country of origin before it even happens. This doctrine has been peddled by the Bush administration and enforced throughout his Presidency. Sterngold's article even quotes the President at a 2002 West Point graduation ceremony stating, "In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act." President Bush's remarks could not have held more truth. His administration has defined our foreign policy in one simple sentence: Shoot first and ask questions later. After all, our nation has many enemies, so in order to adequately protect her citizens she must be in a position to be able to strike first. However, this is not to say that US foreign policy has stuck to this viewpoint in totality. One merely has to look at the strides made through diplomatic means in dealing with Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.

What will the next leader do about this expansion of US military might? Regardless of who wins in November, there is going to be no end to the fighting. If Obama is elected, the fighting will simply shift to another country in the world. If John McCain is elected, we will remain fighting in both countries just as we are now. America as it stands now faces several stark realities. It has grown more than the budget can withstand. Its troops are stretched to their limit and flung to outposts dotting the entire globe's surface. Its citizens are facing the consequences of a financial market ruled by greed, speculation, and short sightedness. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of job losses that have left the nation with a five year high 6.1% unemployment rate. Action must be taken, and taken soon. The next administration should act quickly to contain the crises at home and abroad. However, the only way to truly solve these problems is to stop expanding our grip on other nations around the globe and spend some more time reaching in to aid the population of our own country. That way, the image to the right will not be what the world sees when they think of the United States of America.