The JvL Bi-Weekly for 031509

I can be most easily reached through the following email address for suggesting new additions to the subscription list or to cancel your subscription to the Bi-Weekly:

channujames@yahoo.com

The Blog Address for the Bi-Weekly is: http://jvlbiweekly.blogspot.com

Please forward the Blog address for the Bi-Weekly to any who might be interested

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Volume 8, No. 5

5 Articles, Pages

1. Media Blackout On Single Payer Healthcare

2. Climate Change and Artic Warning

3. America's Fiscal Collapse



4. Preaching to the Choir?



5. A Mother Asks President Obama To Be Honest About Health Care



1. MEDIA BLACKOUT ON SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE

REPORTED BY FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)



Major newspaper, broadcast and cable stories mentioning healthcare reform in the week leading up to President Barack Obama's March 5 healthcare summit rarely mentioned the idea of a single-payer national health insurance program, according to a new FAIR study. And advocates of such a system--two of whom participated in yesterday's summit--were almost entirely shut out, FAIR found.



Single-payer--a model in which healthcare delivery would remain largely private, but would be paid for by a single federal health insurance fund (much like Medicare provides for seniors, and comparable to Canada's current system)--polls well with the public, who preferred it two-to-one over a privatized system in a recent survey. But a media consumer in the week leading up to the summit was more likely to read about single-payer from the hostile perspective of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer than see an op-ed by a single-payer advocate in a major U.S. newspaper.



Over the past week, hundreds of stories in major newspapers and on NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer mentioned healthcare reform, according to a search of the Nexis database (2/25/09-3/4/09). Yet all but 18 of these stories made no mention of "single-payer" (or synonyms commonly used by its proponents, such as "Medicare for all," or the proposed single-payer bill, H.R. 676), and only five included the views of advocates of single-payer--none of which appeared on television.



Of a total of 10 newspaper columns FAIR found that mentioned single-payer, Krauthammer's syndicated column critical of the concept, published in the Washington Post (2/27/09) and reprinted in four other daily newspapers, accounted for five instances. Only three columns in the study period advocated for a single-payer system (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/26/09; Boston Globe, 3/1/09; St. Petersburg Times, 3/3/09).



The FAIR study turned up only three mentions of single-payer on the TV outlets surveyed, and two of those references were by TV guests who expressed strong disapproval of it: conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks (NewsHour, 2/27/09) and Republican congressman Darrell Issa (MSNBC's Hardball, 2/26/09).

In many newspapers, the only argument in favor of the policy has been made in letters to the editor (Oregonian, 2/28/09; USA Today, 2/26/09; Washington Post, 3/4/09; Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/27/09; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2/26/09).



In contrast, the terminology of choice for detractors of any greater public-sector role in healthcare--such as "socialized medicine" and "government-run" healthcare--turned up seven times on TV, including once on ABC News's This Week (3/1/09) and five times on CNN. CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen has herself adopted this terminology in discussing healthcare reform, stating (CNN Newsroom, 2/26/09) that "if in time, Americans start to think what President Obama is proposing is some kind of government-run health system--a la Canada, a la England--he will get resistance in the same way that Hillary Clinton got resistance when she tried to do tried to do this in the '90s."



Particularly in the absence of actual coverage of single-payer, such rhetoric confuses rather than informs, blurring the differences between the Canadian model of government-administered national health insurance coupled with private healthcare delivery that single-payer proponents advocate, and healthcare systems such as Britain's, in which healthcare (and not just healthcare insurance) is administered by the government.



The views of CNN's senior medical correspondent notwithstanding, opinion polling suggests that the public would actually favor single-payer.



Though more than 60 lawmakers have co-sponsored H.R. 676, the single-payer bill in Congress, Obama has not expressed support for single-payer; both the idea and its advocates were marginalized in yesterday's healthcare forum. But given the high level of popular support the policy enjoys, that's all the more reason media should include it in the public debate about the future of healthcare.



2. CLIMATE CHANGE AND ARTIC WARNING

AUTHOR(S) UNKNOWN

A new study on climate change says that the Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's summer ice cover could vanish as early as 2013, decades earlier than some had predicted.

The data "appears to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", Warwick Vincent, director of the centre for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said on Thursday.

The year "2013 is starting to look as though it is a lot more reasonable as a prediction", he told the Reuters news agency.

"But each year we've been wrong, each year we're finding that it's a little bit faster than expected."



Damage 'unstoppable'

A team of scientists have spent the last 10 years on Ward Hunt Island, a remote spot at least 4,000km northwest of Ottawa, studying the summer ice cover in the Canadian Arctic, a few degrees from the North Pole.

After sharing his findings with the Canadian parliament, Vincent said: "I was astounded as to how fast the changes are taking place. The extent of open water is something that we haven't experienced in the 10 years that I've been working up there.

"We are losing, irreversibly, major features of the Canadian ice scape and that suggests that these more pessimistic models are really much closer to reality."

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world and the sea ice cover shrank to a record low in 2007 before growing slightly in 2008.

Researchers say some of the damage would be permanent and that the warming in the Arctic was a sign of what the rest of the world could expect.

"Some of the environmental effect is unstoppable. We're in a train of events at the moment where there are changes taking place that we are unable to reverse, the loss of these ice shelves, for example," Vincent said.

"But what we can do is slow down this process and we have to slow down this process because we need to buy more time. We simply don't have the technologies as a civilisation to deal with this level of instability that is ahead of us."

In 2004 a major international panel forecast the cover could vanish by 2100. Last December, some experts said the summer ice could go in the next 10 or 20 years.

'Major consequences'

Larry Hinzman, director of the International Arctic Research Centre in Fairbanks, Alaska, told Al Jazeera that the latest study is in line with what other scientists have found.

"The study is consistent with the observations of the rate of decrease of the ice ... If the ice melts, like the report suggests, it could have major consequences," he said.

"If the sea ice melts, that is going to allow the oceans to absorb much more heat," Hinzman said.

In 2008 the maximum summer temperature on the Arctic's Ward Hunt hit 20C compared to the usual 5C.

Last summer the five ice shelves along Ellesmere Island in Canada's Far North, which are at least 4,000 years old, shrunk by 23 per cent.

"As the Arctic warms, so does the rest of the globe ... as a result we may see some associated increase of sea level," Hinzman said.

"Right now most of the shipping that goes between Asia and Europe must go around to the Panama canal or around the tip of South America.

"If the northern sea route does open up, that would make it the most efficient route for shipping between Asia and Europe ... that would be dramatic and have global implications."

Shipping firms have already proposed taking short cuts through the polar region, which also contains large reserves of oil and natural gas.



3. AMERICA'S FISCAL COLLAPSE

BY

MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY

“We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger" ( President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address 24 Feb 2009)

"Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account—to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day—because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government." President Barack Obama, A New Era of Responsibility, the 2010 Budget)




("Strong economic medicine" with a "human face")



“Promise amid peril.” The stated priorities of the Obama economic package are health, education, renewable energy, investment in infrastructure and transportation. "Quality education" is at the forefront. Obama has also promised to "make health care more affordable and accessible", for every American.



At first sight, the budget proposal has all the appearances of an expansionary program, a demand oriented "Second New Deal" geared towards creating employment, rebuilding shattered social programs and reviving the real economy.



Obama's promise is based on a mammoth austerity program. The entire fiscal structure is shattered, turned upside down.



To reach these stated objectives, a significant hike in public spending on social programs (health, education, housing, social security) would be required as well as the implementation of a large scale public investment program. Major shifts in the composition of public expenditure would also be required: i.e. a move out of a war economy, requiring a movement out of military related spending in favour of civilian programs.

In actuality, what we are dealing with is the most drastic curtailment in public spending in American history, leading to social havoc and the potential impoverishment of millions of people.



The Obama promise largely serves the interests of Wall Street, the defence contractors and the oil conglomerates. In turn, the Bush-Obama bank "bailouts" are leading America into a spiraling public debt crisis. The economic and social dislocations are potentially devastating.



Obama's budget submitted to Congress on February 26, 2009 envisages outlays for the 2010 fiscal year (commencing October 1st 2009) of $3.94 trillion, an increase of 32 percent. Total government revenues for the 2010 fiscal year, according to preliminary estimates by the Bureau of Budget, are of the order of $2.381 trillion.



The predicted budget deficit (according to the president's speech) is of the order of $1.75 trillion, almost 12 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product.



War and Wall Street



This is a "War Budget". The austerity measures hit all major federal spending programs with the exception of: 1. Defence and the Middle East War: 2. the Wall Street bank bailout, 3. Interest payments on a staggering public debt.



The budget diverts tax revenues into financing the war. It legitimizes the fraudulent transfers of tax dollars to the financial elites under the "bank bailouts".



The pattern of deficit spending is not expansionary. We are not dealing with a Keynesian style deficit, which stimulates investment and consumer demand, leading to an expansion of production and employment.



The "bank bailouts" (involving several initiatives financed by tax dollars) constitute a component of government expenditure. Both the Bush and Obama bank bailouts are hand outs to major financial institutions. They do not constitute a positive spending injection into the real economy. Quite the opposite. The bailouts contribute to financing the restructuring of the banking system leading to a massive concentration of wealth and centralization of banking power.



A large part of the bailout money granted by the Us government will be transferred electronically to various affiliated accounts including the hedge funds. The largest banks in the US will also use this windfall cash to buy out their weaker competitors, thereby consolidating their position. The tendency, therefore, is towards a new wave of corporate buyouts, mergers and acquisitions in the financial services industry.



In turn, the financial elites will use these large amounts of liquid assets (paper wealth), together with the hundreds of billions acquired through speculative trade, will be used to buy out real economy corporations (airlines, the automobile industry, Telecoms, media, etc ), whose quoted value on the stock markets has tumbled.



In essence, a budget deficit ( combined with massive cuts in social programs) is required to fund the handouts to the banks as well as finance defence spending and the military surge in the Middle East war. Obama's budget envisages:



1. Defense spending of $534 billion for 2010, a supplemental 130 billion dollar appropriation for fiscal 2010 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a supplemental $75.5 billion emergency war funding for the rest of the 2009 fiscal year. Defence spending and the Middle East war, with various supplemental budgets, is (officially) of the order of 739.5 billion. Some estimates place aggregate defence and military related spending at $ 1 trillion.



2. A bank bailout of the order of $750 billion announced by Obama, which is added on to the 700 billion dollar bailout money already allocated by the outgoing Bush administration under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). The total of both programs is a staggering 1.45 trillion dollars to be financed by the Treasury. It should be understood that the actual amount of cash financial "aid" to the banks is significantly larger than $1.45 trillion. (See Table 2 below).



3. Net Interest on the outstanding public debt is estimated by the Bureau of the Budget) at $164 billion in 2010.

The order of magnitude of these allocations is staggering. Under a "balanced budget" criterion --which has been a priority of government economic policy since the Reagan era--, almost all the revenues of the federal government amounting to $2.381 trillion would be used to finance the bank bailout (1.45 trillion), the war ($739 billion) and interest payments on the public debt ($164 billion). In other words, no money would be left over for other categories of public expenditure.



TABLE 1 Budgetary allocations to Defence (FY 2009 and 2010), the Bank Bailout and Net Interests on the Public Debt (FY 2010)

$ Billions

Defence including Supplementary allocations; $534 billion (FY 2010), $130 billion supplemental (FY 2010), $75.5 billion emergency funding (FY2009)
739.5

*Bank bailout (TARP plus Obama)
1450.0

Net Interest
164.0

TOTAL
2353.5

Total Individual (Federal) Income Tax Revenues (FY 2010)
1061.0

Total Federal Government Revenue (FY 2010)
2381.0


Source: Bureau of the Budget and official statements. See A New Era of Responsibility: The 2010 Budget
See also Office of Management and Budget



· The officially announced bank bailouts to be financed from Treasury Funds. The timing of disbursements could take place over more than one fiscal years fiscal years. The actual value of bank bailout cash injections is substantially higher.

·

The Budget Deficit

These three categories of expenditure (Defence, Bank Bailout and Interest on the Public Debt) would virtually swallow up the entire 2010 federal government revenue of 2381.0. billion dollars.



Moreover, as a basis of comparison, all the revenue accruing from individual federal income taxes ($1.061 trillion), (FY 2010) namely all the money households across America pay in the form of federal taxes, will not suffice to finance the handouts to the banks, which officially are of the order of 1.45 trillion. This amount includes the $ 700 billion (granted during FY 2009) under the TARP program plus the proposed $ 750 billion granted by the Obama administration.



While TARP and Obama's proposed bailout are to be disbursed over Fy 2009 and 2010, they nonetheless represent almost half of total government expenditure ( half of Obama's $3.94 trillion budget for fiscal 2010), which is financed by regular sources of revenue ($2381 billion) plus a staggering $1.75 trillion budget deficit, which ultimately requires the issuing of Treasury Bills and government bonds.



The feasibility of a large short-term expansion of the public debt at a time of crisis is yet another matter, particularly with interest rates at abysmally low levels.



The budget deficit is of the order of 1.75 trillion. Obama acknowledges a 1.3 trillion-dollar budget deficit, inherited from the Bush administration. In actuality, the budget deficit is much larger.



The official figures tend to underestimate the seriousness of the budgetary predicament. The $1.75 trillion dollar budget deficit figure is questionable because the various amounts disbursed under TARP and other related bank bailouts including Obama's announced $750 billion aid program to financial institutions are not acknowledged in the government's expenditure accounts.

"The aid hasn’t been requested formally, but appears in a line item “for potential additional financial stabilization efforts,” according to the budget overview. The budget office calculated a $250 billion net cost to taxpayers this year, because it anticipates it would eventually recoup some, though not all, of the money expended to help financial companies.



The funds would come on top of the $700 billion rescue package approved last October by Congress. The White House budgets no money for fiscal 2010 and beyond for such aid." (Bloomberg, February 27, 2010)



Fiscal Collapse



A major crisis of the federal fiscal structure is occurring. The multibillion dollar allocations to the War Budget and to the Wall Street Bank Bailout program backlash on all other categories of public expenditure.



The Bush administration's $ 700 billion bailout under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was approved by Congress in October. TARP is but the tip of the iceberg. A panoply of bailout allocations in addition to the $ 700 billion were decided upon prior to Obama assuming office. In November, the federal government's bank rescue program was estimated at a staggering 8.5 trillion dollars, an amount equivalent to more than 50% of the US public debt estimated at 14 trillion (2007). (See table 2 below)

Meanwhile, under the Obama budget proposal, 634 billion dollars are allocated to a reserve fund to finance universal health care. At first sight, it appears to be a large amount. But it is to be spent over a ten year period, -- i.e. a modest annual commitment of 63.4 billion.



Public spending will be slashed with a view to curtailing a spiraling budget deficit. Health and education programs will not only remain heavily underfunded, they will be slashed, revamped and privatized. The likely outcome is the outright privatization of public services and the sale of State assets including public infrastructure, urban services, highways, national parks, etc. Fiscal collapse leads to the privatization of the State.



The fiscal crisis is further exacerbated by the compression of tax revenues resulting from decline of the real economy. Unemployed workers do not pay taxes nor do bankrupt firms. The process is cumulative. The solution to the fiscal crisis becomes the cause of further collapse.



Structure of The Public Debt



This large scale appropriation of liquid money assets under the bank bailouts by a handful of financial institutions serves to increase the public debt overnight.

When the US Treasury allocates 700 billion dollars to the Troubled Assets Relief Program, this amount constitutes a budgetary outlay which inevitably must be financed from within the structure of government revenues and expenditures.



Unless all other categories of public expenditure including health, education and social services are slashed, the various outlays under the bank bailout will require running a massive budget deficit which in turn will increase the US public debt.



America is the most indebted country on earth. The US (federal government) public debt is currently of the order of $14 trillion. This does not include mounting public debts at the state and municipal levels.



This US dollar denominated (federal) debt is composed of outstanding treasury bills and government bonds. The public debt, also called "the national debt" is the amount of money owed by the federal government to holders of U.S. debt instruments.



US debt instruments are held by American residents as part of their savings portfolio, companies and financial institutions, US government agencies, foreign governments, individuals in foreign countries. but does not include intergovernmental debt obligations or debt held in the Social Security Trust Fund. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities.



The proposed solution becomes the cause of the crisis. The 700 billion bailout under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) combined with the proposed Obama $750 billion aid to financial services industry is but the tip of the iceberg. A panoply of bailout allocations in addition to the 700 billion have been decided upon.



The Bush Administration's " Bank Bailout"

The government's bank rescue program under the Bush administration was estimated at a staggering 8.5 trillion dollars, an amount equivalent to 60% of the Total Gross Federal debt of 14.078 trillion (2010) (See Table 2 above). This amount does not include the "aid" to financial institutions proposed by the Obama administration, including an additional 750 billion dollars in Obama's February 2009 budget proposal. The size of these allocations of liquid assets endangers the very structures of the fiscal and monetary system.



The total of Bush bank bailouts (8.5 trillion) can be broken down into funds granted by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Housing Authority.



The handouts to the financial institutions financed out of Treasury are government expenditures, to be met either through tax revenues or through the emission of public debt instruments.



The disbursements under TARP are categorized by the Bureau of the Budget as part of "a mandatory program" under an Act of the US Congress.. The Treasury's liability, which includes the controversial Troubled Assets Relief Program, was estimated in November 2008 at 1.1 trillion dollars. (See Table 2) Further Treasury allocations, which serve to heighten the burden of the public debt have been envisaged by the Obama administration.



Spiraling Public Debt Crisis



Is the Treasury in a position to finance this mounting budget deficit officially tagged at 1.75 billion through the emission of Treasury bills and government bonds?



The largest budget deficit in US history coupled with the lowest interest rates in US history: With the Fed's " near zero" percent discount rate, the markets for US dollar denominated government bonds and Treasury bills are in straightjacket. Moreover, the essential functions of savings (which is central to the functioning of a national economy) is in crisis. .

Who wants to invest in US government debt? What is the demand for Treasury bills at exceedingly low interest rates?



Table 2 Interest Rates in Percent

Treasury securities
Updated 2/25/2009




This week
Month ago
Year ago

One-Year Treasury Constant Maturity
0.64
0.43
2.10

91-day T-bill auction avg disc rate
0.300
0.150
2.160

182-day T-bill auction avg disc rate
0.495
0.350
2.070

Two-Year Treasury Constant Maturity
0.95
0.77
2.04

Five-Year Treasury Constant Maturity
1.79
1.58
2.89

Ten-Year Treasury Constant Maturity
2.75
2.56
3.85

One-Year MTA
1.633
1.823
4.326

One-Year CMT (Monthly)
0.44
0.49
2.71




Source Bankrate.com



The market for US dollar denominated debt instruments is potentially at a standstill, which means that the Treasury lacks the ability to finance its mammoth budget deficit through public debt operations, leading the entire budgetary process into a quandary.



The question is whether China and Japan will continue to purchase US dollar denominated debt instruments. Washington is running a public relations campaign to lure Asian investors into buying T-bills and US government bonds.



With the markets for US dollar denominated debt (both domestically and internationally) in crisis, further pressure will be exerted on the Treasury to slash (civilian) public expenditure to the bone, exact user fees for public services and sell off public assets, including State infrastructure and institutions. In all likelihood, this crisis is leading us to the privatization of the State, where activities hitherto under government jurisdiction will be transferred into private hands.



Who will be buying State assets at rock bottom prices? The financial elites, which are also the recipients of the bank bailout.



Consolidation of the Banks



A massive amount of liquidity has been injected into the financial system, from the bailouts but also from pension funds, individual savings, etc.

The stated objective of the bank bailout programs is to alleviate the banks' burden of bad debts and non-performing loans. In actuality what is happening is that these massive amounts of money are being used by a handful of institutions to consolidate their position in global banking.

The exposure of the banks, largely the result of derivative trade is estimated in the tens of trillions of dollars, to the extent that the amounts and guarantees granted by the Treasury and the Fed will not resolve the crisis. Nor are they intended to resolve the crisis.



The mainstream media suggests that the banks are being nationalized as a result of TARP, In fact, it is exactly the opposite: the State is being taken over by the banks, the State is being privatized. The establishment of a Worldwide unipolar financial system is part of the broader project of the Wall Street financial elites to establish the contours of a world government.

In a bitter irony, the recipients of the bailout under TARP and Obama's proposed 750 billion aid to financial institutions are the creditors of the federal government. The Wall Street banks are the brokers and underwriters of the US public debt, although they hold only a portion of the debt, they transact and trade in US dollar denominated public debt instruments Worldwide.



They act as creditors of the US State. They evaluate the creditworthiness of the US government, they rank the public debt through Moody's and Standard and Poor. They control the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board and the US Congress. They oversee and dictate fiscal and monetary policy, ensuring that the state acts in their interest.



Since the Reagan era, Wall Street dominates most areas of economic and social policy. It sets the budgetary agenda, ensuring the curtailment of social expenditures. Wall Street preaches balanced budgets but the practice has been lobbying for the elimination of corporate taxes, the granting of handouts to corporations, tax write-offs in mergers and acquisitions etc, all of which lead to a spiraling public debt.



Circular and Contradictory Relationship



The Federal Reserve system is a privately owned central bank. While the Federal Reserve Board is a government body, the process of money creation is controlled by the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, which are privately owned.

The shareholders of the Federal Reserve banks (with the New York Federal Reserve Bank playing a dominant role) are among America's most powerful financial institutions.



While the Federal Reserve can create money "out of thin air", the multibillion outlays of the Treasury (including the TARP program) will require the emission of public debt in the form of treasury bills and government bonds.



US financial institutions oversee the US public debt. They are involved in the sale of treasury bills and government bonds on financial markets in the US and around the World. But they also hold part of the public debt. In this regard, they are the creditors of the US government. Part of this increased public debt required to rescue the banks will be financed or brokered by the same financial institutions which are the object of the bank rescue plan.

We are dealing with a pernicious circular relationship. When the banks pressured the Treasury to assist them in the form of a major bank rescue operation, it was understood from the outset that the banks would in turn assist the Treasury in financing the handouts of which they are the recipients.



To finance the bank bailout, the Treasury needs to run a massive budget deficit, which in turn requires a staggering increase of the US public debt.

Public opinion has been misled. The US government is in a sense financing its own indebtedness: the money granted to the banks is in part financed by borrowing from the banks.



The banks lend money to the government and with the money they lend the government, the Treasury finances the bailout. In turn, the banks impose conditionalities on the management of the US public debt. They dictate how the money should be spent. They impose fiscal responsibility, they dictate massive cuts in social expenditures which result in the collapse and/or privatization of public services. They impose the privatization of urban infrastructure, roads, sewer and water systems, public recreational areas, everything is up for privatization.



The recipient banks are the beneficiaries as well as the creditors. As creditors, they will oblige the government a) to slash expenditures b) to run up the public debt through the issuing of treasury bills and government bonds.



This public debt crisis is all the more serious because the US federal government does not control monetary policy. All public debt operations go through the Federal reserve, which is in charge of monetary policy, acting on behalf of private financial interests. The government as such has no authority over money creation. This means that public debt operations essentially serve the interests of the banks.



Continuity from Bush to Obama



The Obama stimulus program constitutes a continuation of the Bush administration's bank bailout packages. The proposed policy solution to the crisis becomes the cause, ultimately resulting in further real economy bankruptcies and a corresponding collapse of the standard of living of Americans.



Both the Bush and Obama bank bailouts are intended to come to the rescue of troubled financial institutions, to ensure the payment of "inter-bank" debt operations. In practice, large amounts of money transit through the banking system, from the banks to the hedge funds, to offshore banking havens and back to the banks.



The government and the media tend to focus on the ambiguous notion of " inter-bank debts". The identity of the creditors is rarely mentioned.

Multi-billion dollar transfers are conducted electronically from one financial entity to another. Where is the money going? Who is collecting these multibillion debts, which are in large part the consequence of financial manipulation and derivative trade?



There are indications that the financial institutions are transferring billions of dollars into their affiliated hedge funds. From these hedge funds they can then channel money capital towards the acquisition of real assets.



Through what circuitous financial mechanisms were these debts created? Where is the bailout money going? Who is cashing in on the multibillion dollar government bailout money? This process is contributing to an unprecedented concentration of private wealth.



Concluding Remarks



Financial manipulation is an integral part of the New World Order. It constitutes a powerful means to accumulate wealth.



Under the present political arrangement, those responsible for monetary policy are quite deliberately serving the interests of the financiers, to the detriment of working people, leading to economic dislocation, unemployment and mass poverty.

This article has focused on how financial manipulation has served to shatter the structure of US public expenditure.



This restructuring of global financial markets and institutions (alongside the pillage of national economies) has enabled the accumulation of vast amounts of private wealth – a large portion of which has been amassed as a result of strictly speculative transactions.



This critical drain of billions of dollars of household savings and state tax revenues paralyses the functions of government spending and spurs the accumulation of a public debt, which can no longer be be financed through the emission of US dollar denominated debt.


What we are dealing with is the fraudulent transfer and confiscation of lifelong savings and pension funds, the fraudulent appropriation of tax revenues to finance the bank bailouts, etc. To understand what has happened: follow the money trail of electronic transfers with a view to establishing where the money has gone?

The monetary system, which is integrated into the State budgetary process has been destabilized. The fundamental relationship between the monetary system and the real economy is in crisis.



The creation of money "out of thin air" threatens the value of the US dollar as an international currency. Similarly, the financing of a mammoth US budget deficit through dollar denominated debt instruments is impaired as a result of exceedingly low interest rates. Moreover, the process of household savings is undermined with interest rates close to zero.



What we have dealt with in this article is one central aspect of an evolving process of global financial collapse.

The international payments system is in crisis. The economic prospects are terrifying. Bankruptcies in the US, Canada, the European Union are occurring at an alarming rate. Country level exports have collapsed, leading to a contraction of international trade Reports from the Asian economies indicate a massive increase in unemployment. In China's Pearl River basin in Southern Guangdong province's industrial export processing economy, some 700,000 were laid off in January. In Japan, industrial output has collapsed by more than 20 percent since December. In the Philippines, a country of 90 million people, exports collapsed by more than 40 percent in December.



Financial Disarmament



There are no solutions under the prevailing global financial architecture. Meaningful policies cannot be achieved without radically reforming the workings of the international banking system.



What is required is an overhaul of the monetary system including the functions and ownership of the central bank, the arrest and prosecution of those involved in financial fraud both in the financial system and in governmental agencies, the freeze of all accounts where fraudulent transfers have been deposited, the cancellation of debts resulting from fraudulent trade and/or market manipulation.



People across the land, nationally and internationally must mobilize. This struggle to democratize the financial and fiscal apparatus must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries. What is ultimately required is to disarm the financial establishment:



-confiscate those assets which were obtained through fraud and financial manipulation.

-restore the savings of households through reverse transfers

-return the bailout money to the Treasury, freeze the activities of the hedge funds.

-freeze the gamut of speculative transactions including short-selling and derivative trade.





4. PREACHING TO THE CHOIR?
BY

TIMOTY V. GATTO



There are so many of my fellow countrymen that wish Barack Obama were really the answer to this nations errant wandering. So far, since World War II, we have seen this nation violate just about every humanitarian principle ever developed by a modern civilization. We have overthrown governments for monetary gain, for the industrialists and the agricultural elite, for resources and markets, defying international law, and succeeding. We have become not a representative republic; the form of government proposed in The Constitution by our forefathers, instead we seem to have opted for a military oligarchy.

Our military budget is 55% of the total spent on the military for the entire planet. We have bases in over 75% of the world. No citizen knows how many countries our CIA is working in. Our clandestine agencies have infiltrated just about every capitol and every government. We have no way of knowing what they are presently up to; this is classified, like almost everything our government does. We are supposed to take the governments word that they are operating in the peoples best interests.

We are involved in two wars, even though our economy is strained to the limit. Many Americans in this day are finding it hard to feed their families while we deliver military and economic aid to influence world events. This hasn’t seemed to be important to the new administration, American influence and military power is still the main goal of Washington. Is the paradigm still the same as it was under George Bush? It would seem that the world view of America is the same as it ever was.

We continue to support Israel, no matter what war crimes they commit. The Arab Middle-East sees us as an enemy and in that they are unfortunately right. We are the enemy of every nation that stands against the war policies of the Jewish state. Why are we surprised when they fire their weapons at us? Will the situation change with President Obama at the helm? If you listened to his speech to AIPAC, the lobby that practically controls our political system, you know nothing will change; in fact it appears that the situation will only get worse. This country will continue to turn a blind eye to the killing of women and children and the destruction of everything Palestinian.

Of course you could say that Obama is a million times better than Bush. That’s like saying tuberculosis is better than the Ebola virus. Our society is still on life-support when it comes to being “The shining example on the hill” to other nations that George H.W. Bush tried to portray us as. The only people that don’t realize our entire foreign policy is a sham are the American people. Everyone else on the planet understands that America has become a world class tyrant. Still, our people are fed pabulum for news by the tightly controlled American media, controlled by a few corporate entities, all spouting the same propaganda.

It is up to the American people to stop this military oligarchy from destroying this nation. It is only as a united people that we will have any influence on the course of national and world events. We will not bring this nation back from the abyss until we understand that we are indeed standing on a precipice.

After spending 20 years in the military I understand that there are those out there that wish America harm. What I am trying to convey to anyone reading this piece is why we are so hell-bent on creating enemies? Why do we attempt to criminalize Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? Is it because he believes in a different economic system for his country so that the poor will have a chance at leading a decent life? Why do we side with the rich in that country that would like to keep all of their wealth regardless of the living conditions in the barrios? Why do we support the succession of the Bolivian States that are rich in natural gas and are the home of those that came from Europe to colonize that country? Is it any wonder that the indigenous people in Bolivia that make of the majority hate us?

I wish our new president the best of luck. I don’t wish to throw insults at him. I know this and only this; whether you believe in God or Karma, what goes around comes around. I really don’t want to be around when America gets what is coming to it. I sincerely hope that we can change our direction in time to right some of the wrongs that we have perpetrated. It is too bad that anyone with any influence in our government won’t read this. I realize that to many of you, I’m just speaking to the choir. If that is what we are, it’s about time this choir sang so loudly that people can’t help but listen. Whether you believe it or not, we are all part and parcel of this nation. To not raise your voice is to admit defeat. I believe this; it is better to go down fighting than to be part of this nation’s problem.



5. A MOTHER ASKS PRESIDENT OBAMA TO BE HONEST ABOUT HEALTHCARE

BY

DONNA SMITH



I am haunted again. Two stories told in very different venues and for very different reasons are nagging at my conscience. And I ponder the President's budget points designed to begin some down payment on healthcare reform. All I know for certain is that the two stories and the human suffering associated with them do not add up with Obama's confident campaign assertion of healthcare as a human right or the 10-year plan he'll now support as he charges Congress to work on larger reform issues.

We need honesty going forward. We need full disclosure of our options. We need courage and clarity. And we cannot have that if this President and this Congress participate is a pre-choreographed dance to reward the big health industry interests at the expense of the rest of us. Simply asking for-profit insurance giants to bid on Medicare Advantage business that is robbing many seniors and disabled folks of access to care they were promised under traditional Medicare is simply a poor attempt at gilding the lily - it is not reform.

During a briefing held in DC on Wednesday, Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard Medical School (we still think those credentials adequate, do we not?) recounted the shortcomings of the Massachusetts model for health reform. Plan after state plan has cost more than anticipated, covered fewer than the promised universal claims and left states like Massachusetts and those that came before them in the same mess now faced throughout the land with soaring costs, inadequate delivery of what is sold as the financial protection called "health insurance," and with health systems begging for more cash.

Yet it was Dr. Himmelstein's final points that left me shaken. He said he has just treated yet another cancer patient who has decided to decline chemotherapy because he or she cannot afford the co-pays associated with the treatment. Dr. Himmelstein will have no choice but to honor the patient's declination of treatment for what they both know is a curable cancer. My heart breaks just thinking about it. Getting a cancer diagnosis stinks. I know. My cancer ripped open my life. I had to fight like Obama's mother to make sure I kept my job and got care - even though I had insurance. And knowing another cancer patient is deciding to die due to a lack of cash in the state some want us all to model is barbaric. And I didn't fight for this hope for change to remain in a barbaric state of healthcare delivery and financing.

I do not think for one minute that my new President has truly internalized this struggle - nor that of his own mother - as this Massachusetts cancer patient decides to die rather than bankrupt his or her family. Some kill themselves more abruptly. Others live longer but often fight with insurance companies as Obama's mother did. But this person in Massachusetts is hurting - this American citizen is dying a preventable death. And I am at a loss about how President Obama would explain his down payment on reform to this patient or the patient's kids or spouse... especially when it could be fixed.

Then I listened to ABC News tell the story about a McDonalds employee in Arkansas who came to the defense of a female customer being attacked in the restaurant by another man. The abuser shot the McDonalds employee in the chest. And now the McDonalds workers comp insurance company has decided that the employee's medical bills of more than $300,000 should not be covered because the employee was not acting during the normal scope of employment. Huh? Apparently, McDonalds thinks employees who see crimes being committed should first remember that flipping burgers and salting fries are their duties, not defending customers. Again, how very barbaric. But no sign of our President on this one either, no siree.

But, he tells us, he gets it. Really? Either I need to take President Obama at his word that he gets the immediate suffering of the American people and is willing to allow insurance companies to dictate life and death - quite literally - for years longer and become even more powerful dictators of the value of American life or he is just flat lying and he doesn't get it at all. I don't really like either of those possibilities.

If either of these patients - one with cancer in Massachusetts or the other trying to recover from a gunshot wound to the chest in Arkansas - lived in any one of the other industrialized nations on earth, they'd be treated with dignity and get the care they need without going broke. Maybe hero pilot Sully can fly them to another nation that respects human life enough to help? Somehow I think that would be fitting. Sick Americans need a hero long about now - a 10-year plan or a lousy expansion of the defective product known as private health insurance won't cut it.

Making the insurance industry bigger and more powerful through expansions of "coverage" to the millions of uninsured is not the only answer. It isn't even the best answer. And the severity of the crisis demands intellectual and policy design honesty from the get-go. If the American people get three years down the road and have another and deeper mess in healthcare robbing them of health and financial security brought to them by this President and this Congress, it won't matter much who inherited what - especially if this part of the process was tainted by dishonesty and special interest powers.

Lofty rhetoric cannot hide a basic dishonesty of discourse and this President knows it. Doing what's right requires us to fully explore every option available. "Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Set You Free," seems maybe a verse we may want to explore. And this President is not allowing that -- yet. He is tightly controlling who offers opinion and testimony, and only those already friendly to his pre-selected agenda are welcomed.

Let's open next week's summit to all plans and ideas - all we have to fear is - well, we know the finish to that line. If we see all reform ideas explained, studied for their costs (and scored by the Congressional Budget Office), their benefits and evidence of their viability, and we hear testimony from clinical RNs and practicing doctors invited and prized in the same way as the opinions from corporate docs and industry vetted officials and industry friendly voices, then we'll know that our President is serious about honest reform.

So far, many who advocate for the publicly financed, privately delivered option for health reform have been purposely and carefully screened out. That's dishonest and shows a lack of confidence that if all the facts were known clearly by the American people that they would choose the currently preferred political strategy -- to keep the defective product of for-profit health insurance and expand it and truss it up with massive amounts of taxpayer money and package it as healthcare reform. If that is the outcome that has already been promised to the health insurance industry that so heavily invests in this President and his friends, then tell us that up front, skip the expense of the forums and the summits and the exercises in self-congratulatory polls and just tell the patients in Massachusetts and Arkansas that you don't give a damn - you have friends to whom you are beholden above and beyond the citizens of this nation.

On the other hand, if Dr. Himmelstein's cancer patient in Massachusetts deserves at least some of the care afforded another prominent Massachusetts cancer patient - Senator Ted Kennedy - then let's open up the process, be as honest as we can and get to it. Because if we let another 10 years go by, more than a million Americans will die preventable deaths with the life and death decisions administered by those who don't care about any one of us anywhere near as deeply as they care about profits.

Mr. President, fully vet and fully disclose every available option for healthcare reform. Invite all voices into the summit - even a patient or two. To do otherwise would dishonor your mother's struggle and the two patients haunting my thoughts. And as the mother of three sons, I hope I can trust that even political ambition cannot trump a son's love for the woman who gave him life and fought for his welfare even as she fought her own cancer.