By Stephen Lendman

At issue is destroying social America, increasing the unprecedented wealth disparity, punishing ordinary households, impoverishing growing millions, and providing limitless funding for militarism, imperial wars, and corporate favorites. Also ahead is toughening police state harshness against non-believers. America’s at the precipice of full-blown tyranny.

Washington’s fiscal cliff debate is doublespeak deception. Republicans and Democrats share guilt. Language refers to expiring yearend tax breaks and unemployment benefits. It’s also about sequestered/largely discretionary yearend $1.2 trillion in cuts coming to address them. Republicans and Democrats share guilt. Backroom double-dealing planned them months ago. The criminal class in Washington is bipartisan. It’s perhaps worse now than ever. Details alone remain working out. Both parties are in lockstep on policy. Third worldizing America is planned. A previous article said only Republican Nixon could go to China when America had no diplomatic relations.

Only Democrat Obama dares end America’s decades-long social contract. His mandate is eliminating government’s responsibility for  Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and publicly-funded pensions. Straightaway in office, he attacked social America. He promised deep cuts. He sold out constituents who expected better. He did what they thought impossible. Another article said he matched Star Trek. He went where no administration went before. Imagine what’s ahead in term two. He’s unrestrained. He’ll throw America’s most disadvantaged and middle class under the bus. Expect him to take full advantage.

In 2010, his Simpson-Bowles National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRF) recommended deep Medicare cuts, higher Medicaid co-pays, and restrictions on filing malpractice suits, among other ways to end Washington’s responsibility for healthcare incrementally. Raising the retirement age incrementally to 67 is a scam. In 1981, Alan Greenspan headed Reagan’s National Commission on Social Security Reform. His mandate was to study and recommend ways to deal with “the short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced.” None existed, but it was claimed that the “Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Trust Fund (OASDI) would run out of money….as early as August, 1983.”

It was a hoax no different from today’s false claims. Social Security was sound then and now. Greenspan engineered the transfer of trillions of public dollars to private hands. Up to then, it was the greatest ever heist in plain sight. It’s still ongoing. Policy planners want more. Current plans call for raising the retirement age incrementally to 67.

It’s another scam. Greenspan’s scheme cut benefits gotten at any age. People retiring at 64 got no more than at 62 earlier. At 65, they got what 63-year-olds once did. Maximum retirement age is 70. Benefits are less than recipients got a generation earlier. Raising the retirement age is code language for cutting benefits. Orwellian language hides it.  On December 5, Naked Capitalism headlined “The Obscenely Rich Men Bent on Shredding the Safety Net,” saying:

A coalition of powerful rich men want Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cut or eliminated. It’s to make them richer. Concern about debt reduction doesn’t wash. Whatever they do or don’t do, it’ll keep rising exponentially. Fixers cashing in with massive bailouts, huge subsidies, tax loopholes, and unpunished fraud want more for themselves at the public’s expense. War profiteers want their share.

“Fix means cut.”
“Reform means rob.”
“Bipartisan means all of the rich.”
“Concern means covet.”
“Fiscal conservative means economically” challenged.
“Strip-mining is not leadership.”

Robbing poor Peter to pay rich Paul is bipartisan-agreed on policy. Plans to privatize Social Security and end public pensions come later. A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the start of Obama’s war on pensions. He wants public and private accounts eliminated. Plans are in the talking stage. Policy measures come later. Obama’s retirement trap will affect millions. They won’t know what hit them until it’s too late to matter. The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) also recommended deep Medicare cuts, higher Part B premiums, big co-pays and outpatient fee increases, as well as establishing privately owned, lower-cost health insurance exchanges to gradually eliminate traditional Medicare. It also wants Medicaid funding cut.

Republicans and Democrats turn truth on its head. They say Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are responsible for rising deficits and America’s national debt burden. They also bogusly claim Medicare and Social Security are going broke. When properly administered, both programs are sustainable long-term. Modest adjustments and responsible healthcare costs containment assure their viability perhaps in perpetuity.

Money power runs America. It has other plans. Corporate bosses demand it. Whatever they want they get. They buy politicians like toothpaste. Popular needs are sacrificed to serve them. Social justice are four-letter words. Prosperity for millions is fast disappearing. Much worse ahead is planned. Neoliberal/imperial priorities let essential public needs go begging. Current hard times will get much harder. Eroding safety net protections assure millions more will be impoverished. They’ll be on their own and out of luck.

Obama’s legacy already exposes him as America’s worst president. He exceeded formidable competitors. He fronts for Wall Street, war profiteers, and other corporate bosses. He’s setting race relations back decades. Analysts one day may wonder how he and likeminded hardliners defrauded the public irresponsibly and got away with it. Around yearend or early next year, expect his latest installment. Holiday cheer Obama-style assures lump of coal harshness. Many millions affected deserve better. Disappointment awaits them. It’s baked in the cake.

The 2011 Budget Control Act mandates $1.2 trillion in largely discretionary sequestered cuts for starters. Around $4 trillion over the next decade is planned. Much more will be added in out years. Spending won’t decline so deficits will keep rising exponentially. Neither party worries about them or debt. Saying so is doublespeak deception. America’s most disadvantaged, middle income earners, and seniors will bear most pain. Super-rich elites are largely protected. So are corporate favorites.

Paul Craig Roberts asked if the fiscal cliff is real or “just another hoax?” It’s “real, but it is a result, not a cause. The hoax is the way (it’s) being used.” Doublespeak duplicity claims it’s to reduce America’s burgeoning deficit and debt. Neither can be addressed responsibly because spending prioritizes militarism, imperial wars, bailing out banks, huge corporate subsidies, and tax cuts for the rich. It’s also because America’s industrial base moved offshore. High-paying/good benefit jobs went with it. Low-pay/poor or no benefit temp or part-time ones replaced them in smaller numbers.

Federal revenues declined. Poverty and unemployment rose exponentially. America is on a fast-track for third world status. Roberts calls it a hoax that resolving the fiscal cliff depends on destroying America’s social contract. Republicans never wanted it in the first place. It took Democrat Obama to help wreck it. Both parties replicate each other. They support wealth, power and privilege. They spurn popular needs. Let-em-eat-cake describes them ideologically.

Capitol Hill compromise assures “double-barreled” austerity. Spending cuts and tax increases are planned. Economists know they erode economic activity. Doublespeak claims otherwise. America’s economy is painfully weak and declining. Hammering it the way both parties plan assures crushing hardships for most people. The worst is yet to come. It’ll hit hard incrementally. Too much, too fast, exposes their dirty game clearly. Smaller doses are more deceptive. They’re coming in stages like boiling a frog. It doesn’t know it’s dinner until served. By then it’s too late.

Ordinary Americans are dinner. Political Washington plans the worst of all possible worlds. Prioritizing privilege at the expense of public needs assures conditions unfit to tolerate. They’re coming. Few in Washington represent ordinary people. Most don’t care. Roberts sees America eventually crashing “big time.” People worldwide will be grateful. America and Israel threaten humanity. They’re “the world’s most hated countr(ies).” Celebratory global cheering will follow their collapse. Some day it’s coming.

Economist Jack Rasmus appears often on the Progressive Radio New Hour. Fiscal cliff cuts are coming, he explains. Corporate CEOs are on board. The fix is in. Fiscal cliff plans include major corporate tax cuts. The nominal 35% top rate will be cut to 28%. Most large companies pay much less. Some profitable ones pay little, nothing, or at times get rebates. Obama also promised major changes in the foreign profits tax. Media scoundrels don’t explain. They hype what Obama calls shared sacrifice or pain without discussing who wins and loses.

Rasmus says further tax breaks are coming at a time corporations pay the lowest effective rates in over 25 years. Corporate taxes in the past two years as a percent of profits averaged about 12.4%. From 1989 – 2007, they averaged 24.7%. Corporations hoarded over $2.5 trillion in cash. With that amount and record low taxes, what justifies cutting more? It’s coming anyway at the public’s expense. What’s ahead includes deep cuts in Medicare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Education, Veterans benefits, postal services, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other social safety net programs. The tax base will be broadened. It’s coming through cutting mortgage deductions and other exemptions.

Middle and lower income households will be hard hit. The top personal tax rate will be marginally raised. So will the threshold to reach it. Taxes on upper income groups will be increased incrementally over decades. Agreed on defense cuts will be mostly or entirely suspended. Veterans can expect benefit reductions. Agreement is close on next year’s defense authorization. Expect it to exceed FY 2012.

When Congress addresses FY 2014, agreed spending will likely hit record highs. America already spends more on “defense” than all other countries combined. It comes at a time no enemies exist except ones Washington invents. Rasmus believes the “mix of spending cuts to tax hikes will be no less than 6 to 1.” Every dollar more in taxes will be offset by $6 in cuts. Simpson-Bowles called for four to one. In June 2011, Biden offered Boehner 87% in cuts for closing 13% of tax loopholes.

Expect something agreed by yearend or early next year. Continuing resolution hokum can delay what’s agreed and when implemented. Cuts will be largely backloaded. Small ones may occur next year. Others will begin taking effect incrementally in 2014 or 2015. Annually they’ll increase. Whatever is agreed on will be austerity, not stimulus when it’s badly needed. At issue is how much pain, how quickly and when.

Rasmus expects something finalized by end of February or sooner. Households most in need will be hurt most. So will middle-income earners. Whatever the final deal, its economic effect will be negative. Cuts come at a time of global weakness. Europe and Japan face recessions. America’s economy is fragile. The knock-on effect severity remains to be seen.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html  Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Austerity, Obama-Style

Bill Clinton was the first to float the plan to privatize Social Security in earnest. The idea was to let our good friends on Wall Street manage a bit of the money for us, for a fee of course.

by ROB URIE
In Quentin Tarantino’s movie ‘Jackie Brown’ the illegal arms dealer played by Samuel L. Jackson laughs as he recounts the sales slogan used by the manufacturer of the ‘Tech Nine’ semi-automatic weapon—“the most popular gun in American crime, like they proud of that shit.” Mere weeks after Barack Obama was re-elected farce is added to tragedy with his supporters complaining that while the Republican proposal to cut Federal government spending and social insurance programs is all bluster and misdirection, their guy (Mr. Obama) has a real plan to do so—like they’re proud of that shit. Thanks just the same folks, but I’ll take the fake plan.

The moment when the New Deal as we knew it became history by bi-partisan consensus was a long time coming. A trans-generational core of inherited wealth and right-wing cranks has been trying to undo the New Deal since Social Security became fact in 1935. Ronald Reagan echoed anti-New Deal cries of ‘socialism,’ first as a paid spokesperson of the AMA (American Medical Association) against the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid, and later through his racist caricature of the ‘welfare queen’ living fat on public largesse. Despite the fact that Social Security is an insurance program paid for by its participants, much the same as private insurance but without the executive looting, the charge has always been of an undeserving public sucking on “a milk cow with 310 million tits.”

Democrats first joined the effort in earnest with Bill Clinton’s plan to partially privatize Social Security. The idea was to let our good friends on Wall Street manage a bit of the money for us, for a fee of course. That proposal faltered when Mr. Clinton was impeached. As was the fashion in European Central Bank circles in 2009, Mr. Obama took up the torch of fiscal austerity of his own initiative by creating his very own deficit commission. This should have come as no surprise to anyone paying attention—Mr. Obama publicly stated his intention to ‘fix’ Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid when he allied himself with the Wall Street friendly ‘Hamilton Project’ in 2006.

(In Between Democrats Clinton and Obama came Republican George W. Bush who also tried to partially privatize Social Security. Mr. Bush quickly retreated when he saw the depth of political opposition to the effort. As the saying goes, it takes a Democrat to gut the New Deal).

For the uninitiated, the Hamilton Project is the demon spawn of the Clintonite contingent of the Democratic Party led by former Treasury Secretary and disgraced Citicorp Board member Robert Rubin. The kindest take on the Wall Street lootocracy populating the organization is that they don’t know how money is created (the U.S. has a fiat currency), making them morons. The less kind take is that their greed has no limits. Whichever is more applicable (neither is mutually exclusive), if one group of Wall Street politicos bears responsibility for the economic catastrophe that an unregulated Wall Street has visited upon the world in recent years, the Hamilton Project is it.

Never one to let the wish list of the entrenched plutocracy go unfulfilled, Barack Obama chose Democrat, inheritance baby and Wall Street ‘welfare queen’ Erskine Bowles, to co-head his (Mr. Obama’s) very own ‘deficit commission.’ Of course Mr. Obama knew nothing of Mr. Bowles experience leading the earlier effort to (partially) privatize Social Security when he appointed him to the position. In his speech welcoming the Hamilton Project into existence (link above), Mr. Obama additionally described himself as an enthusiastic ‘free trader’ committed to globalization. And of current relevance, he ascribed fiscal ‘discipline’ as the proximate cause of the Clinton economic ‘boom,’ deftly ignoring the greatest stock market bubble (as measured by price / earnings ratio—twice that of 1929) in human history.

One could be forgiven for believing that Mr. Obama, or any other placeholder Democrat for that matter, has something of a point regarding ‘entitlement’ spending if his words are the only that are listened to. People in the U.S. are living longer and a strapped citizenry simply cannot afford the lavish promises made in an earlier age of plenty goes the toxic bullshit. By leaving out class divisions this formulation simply furthers the shift in social resources upward from poor to rich. As economist Paul Krugman has effectively argued, the rich are living longer and the working class and poor are not. Additionally, unless those in the ‘gap’ years between the old and new eligibility ages for Medicare simply forgo health care, the change will force them to purchase private health insurance under whatever terms the ‘market’ will bear. But of course, private insurance companies always act in the public interest when people’s backs are to the wall.

At the end of the day this charade is a struggle over social resources. The ‘too-big-to-fail’ guarantee of the banks, which is the only reason why insolvent, predatory Wall Street remains in business, is an entitlement program for connected bankers—for which they pay nothing. The bloated, murderous, military industry that lobbies the U.S. into unnecessary wars for their own benefit and that of corporate welfare receiving multi-national corporations is an entitlement program. And the aforementioned corporate welfare that perpetuates the puffy, gray corporate executives behind the ‘Fix the Debt’ campaign for whom official Washington now apparently works is an entitlement program. So if we want to have a public ‘discussion’ of entitlement spending, by all means let’s do so.

And as far as entitlement programs go, government guarantees and redistribution schemes are only a starting point. As economist Dean Baker has argued, America’s professional class retains monopoly pricing power for their labor through trade restrictions while the working class has been thrown to the wolves. The Federal Reserve has spent upwards of four trillion dollars to entitle the fortunes of the investor class since 2008, returning the already rich to their former wealth. And corporate executives have entitled themselves to robber-baron sized paychecks through the combination of trade policies that have so reduced the fortunes of the working class, tax abatements that have bled the public weal for some forty years, and through the financialization of the economy that has favored, along with Federal Reserve policies, the financial wealth that executives pay themselves with. All of these and more are entitlement programs that have redistributed ever more social wealth from the working class and poor up to the Washington establishment’s beloved plutocrats.

But the trillions of dollars in health care expenditures that we deadbeats intend to sponge off of the blessedly deserving rich is the really big money, right? When Erskine Bowles wakes with night terrors, it is my herniated disk and your gall bladder operation that will sink the country, right? The U.S. pays 30% – 50% more per person than other first world nations for health care that is of substantially lower quality because we have a largely private health care system. Were the system totally public—Medicare for all, we would realize some material proportion of these savings and most likely vastly improve the health of the citizenry. Were the monopoly entitlements of doctors and pharmaceutical companies reduced or eliminated, further cost reductions would be realized. So quickly, who are the main beneficiaries of America’s ‘bloated’ entitlement programs?

As Mr. Obama will offer, his proposals include reducing payments to health care providers and negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs. However, the private health care system in America is the global leader in shifting costs to those with the least social power. Cuts in public payments to private providers have a long history of popping up elsewhere, as health insurer profits will attest. For instance, Mr. Obama’s health care ‘reform’ program, the ACA (Affordable Care Act), requires insurance companies to spend fixed percentages of their revenues providing health care or to rebate the difference to their customers. As corporations constitute the majority of their ‘customers,’ corporations apparently now have an incentive to shop around for health insurers that provide the lowest proportion of health care to their employees to maximize the rebates. (The central business of insurers was already to provide the appearance of coverage without providing actual coverage). And health insurance providers can gain market share, if at lower margins, by doing exactly this. Welcome to America.

Last, any honest discussion of ‘entitlements’ would be to the benefit of America’s poor and working classes. The globetrotting plutocrats behind current ‘discussions’ see working class product as their due. This is the very definition of entitlement. We can either disabuse them of this notion or roll over and play dead. Or better yet, roll over and vote Democrat.

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist in New York.

//

Note: This analysis—still cogent and relevant—came out a day or so before Susan Rice, in a theatrical flourish, (*) asked Obama (who fight-averse opportunist that he is was only too happy to oblige) to drop consideration of her name for the post of Secretary of State. A case of noble scum? But, more importantly, although as Margaret Kimberley adduces, it doesn’t matter one fig who sits on the State Department’s top chair, why did Obama have to pick a Bush holdover with one of the meanest and most disgusting records of imperialist warmongering around, a Jeanne Kirkpatrick in black face? No need to answer, we know why.

In a well deserved slap at the filthy imbecilic mainstream media, Kimberley writes, “The facts against Rice and her predecessors are obscured by a corporate media which hides all the atrocities committed by the United States government, making the Rice story appear like nothing more than that of a high achieving black woman being slandered by evil racists.” Too bad such basic truths will not penetrate the disinformation membrane that holds America hostage to the plutocracy’s values.  —PG

By BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
Some African Americans associate racial progress with Black people achieving “the right to perform the evil acts which were once the reserve of whites.” The ascension of Black secretaries of state marks “the first time that black Americans began to look the other way and excuse their government’s inhumanity.”

“The people who hold these supposedly august positions are in fact no better than criminal enforcers in organized crime families.”

Why does it matter if Susan Rice serves as secretary of state [8]? That is a trick question, because in fact, it doesn’t matter at all. American foreign policy will be unchanged regardless of who the next secretary may be. The full force of imperialism will be brought to bear against the people of the world under the Obama administration. The Democratic president has made real the goals of the neo-con Project for a New American Century [9] a 21st century version of Manifest Destiny, the belief that the United States should rule the world and do so with a vengeance.

Rice’s nomination is a non-issue but is treated as an important one for many black people because of the words of right wing racists. The sight of the embittered sore loser John McCain calling Rice “unqualified” and “not very smart” reminds black people of the slights they are personally subjected to in their lives every day. It is especially galling for the insult to come from McCain, the quintessential entitlement baby. He was admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy because his father and grandfather were admirals. The legacy leg up didn’t help much because the mediocre young McCain still graduated at the bottom of his class. McCain’s insistence that the obviously sub-par Sarah Palin was a qualified vice presidential candidate makes the racist slaps at Rice all the more offensive.

The yearning to see a black face in one of the highest and most rarified places is a very deep one and not to be easily dismissed, but it is crucial to note that Rice is no different from John McCain in her beliefs of how the United States should conduct itself in the world. The facts against Rice and her predecessors are obscured by a corporate media which hides all the atrocities committed by the United States government, making the Rice story appear like nothing more than that of a high achieving black woman being slandered by evil racists.

“Rice is no different from John McCain in her beliefs of how the United States should conduct itself in the world.”

The case against Rice or whomever is nominated by the president should be a case made against United States foreign policy and all of the people who now or ever were in charge of carrying it out. The presidents, secretaries of state, United Nations ambassadors, national security advisers and their ilk are held up as paragons of virtue, intelligence and moral rectitude. They emerge from elite institutions and are held up as the “best and the brightest” the country has to offer.

A secretary of state not only has a prestigious position, but is considered an elder statesman or woman for life. Of course, he or she also can walk into positions of great wealth after their public service has ended. Corporate speeches, book deals and lucrative board positions await every living secretary of state from Henry Kissinger to Condoleezza Rice.

The true horror is that the people who hold these supposedly august positions are in fact no better than criminal enforcers in organized crime families. American secretaries of state have plotted invasions and assassinations, occupied countries, destroyed economies, fomented coups and in a myriad of other ways laid waste to sovereign nations. Countries which try to bring about their own democracies are thwarted if their plans are seen as a threat to American interests.

No secretary of state should be lionized and there is nothing wonderful about black people having the right to perform the evil acts which were once the reserve of whites. The Dulleses and Kissingers and their predecessors and successors made wars on huge swaths of the planet and did in fact crush attempts at democracy so that American businesses might be able to harvest bananas at cheap prices.

The appearance of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as part of the Bush administration foreign policy team ended the white monopoly on American state terror. Colin Powell went to the United Nations with his power point presentation full of lies in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. He also removed Jean Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s democratically elected president, from office. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice covered up her own incompetence and the still murky facts which brought the September 11th terrorist attacks onto American soil.

“The black man who destroyed Libya and Somalia and who is on the road to destroying Syria [could have had]  another terrorist of color by his side.”

It was during the Bush administration that the black face in the high place joined in committing the worst kinds of dirty work to be carried out by the United States around the globe. It was also the first time that black Americans began to look the other way and excuse their government’s inhumanity. Defending Colin and Condi became substitutes for analysis and the ideology that once made black Americans the group least supportive of their government’s acts of aggression.

The ascendancy of Barack Obama to the presidency accelerated this grotesque delusion of racial uplift. Not only are NDAA, kill lists, and naked imperialism to be overlooked, but the black man who destroyed Libya and Somalia and who is on the road to destroying Syria will have another terrorist of color by his side. In a perverse way this terrible duo will increase the joy of a people who a mere five years ago recoiled at the very behavior which Obama and Rice have exhibited toward the rest of the world.

America is and will continue to pose terrible threats to the rest of the world, whether the next secretary of state if Susan Rice or John Kerry or an unknown player to be named later. That should be the crux of any debates about who should serve in these positions. Anything else is just drama playing out while the world burns because the United States keeps lighting the match.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. [10] Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.
[11]

Project for a New American Century Colin Powell Condoleezza Rice McCain racist NDAA Susan Rice Secretary of State
Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-susan-rice-and-american-evil
Links:
[1] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/project-new-american-century
[2] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/colin-powell
[3] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/condoleezza-rice
[4] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/mccain-racist
[5] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/ndaa
[6] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/susan-rice-secretary-state
[7] http://blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/rice_rice_rect-460×307.jpg
[8] http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/shameless-vacuity-susan-rices-black-boosters
[9] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
[10] http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/
[11] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblackagendareport.com%2Fcontent%2Ffreedom-rider-susan-rice-and-american-evil&linkname=Freedom%20Rider%3A%20Susan%20Rice%20and%20American%20Evil

//

By Stephen Lendman

In 2003, Forbes magazine estimated Yasser Arafat’s wealth at about $300 million. No verifying source was listed. Fatah was notoriously corrupt. It still is today.  Its finances are a black hole. Bribes, foreign aid, secret investments, hidden bank accounts, slush funds, and other ill-gotten gains define them. Israeli intelligence estimated Arafat’s net worth at $1.3 billion. US accountants conducted a PA authorized audit. They estimated about $1 billion.

Current appointed PA prime minister, Salam Fayyad, once served as Arafat’s finance minister. He confirmed massive corruption, abuse, and impropriety. Arafat’s widow, Suha, got a $200,000 monthly allowance. Top Fatah officials cash in. Abbas benefits hugely. Previous articles discussed his collaborationist history. He sold out at Oslo. He never looked back. Perhaps betraying his people began earlier. He’s a world class scoundrel.

Edward Said once called him “moderately corrupt.” Apparently, he didn’t know the half of it. Reports suggest he amassed a huge fortune. He’s super-rich. As’ad AbuKhalil publishes “The Angry Arab” site. On November 14, he headlined “The personal fortune of Abbas.” He cited YNet News.

It said he earns $1 million a month. Not bad, if true. Obama gets $400,000 a year. Inlight Press was cited. It said Abbas holds several Jordanian accounts. He’s got over $500 million. It’s mostly stolen Palestinian taxpayer money and other embezzled funds.

“The accounts are not under any national or international scrutiny.”

“Recently, Abbas urged Moscow to supply him with a new advanced presidential jet worth $55 million despite the fact that he has a new Global Express speed jet bought for $53 million at his disposal. In addition he also uses a 504 Challenger jet.”

Abbas took office on January 15, 2005. From then until now, his expenses exceeded a billion dollars. PA sources say he has extensive property holdings.

His sons, Tarek and Yasser, profit handsomely from all PA projects. “This explains why (he) tried to promote a Dead Sea tourism project funded by Gulf states. It is claimed that his sons won contracts for more than $250 million.”

On May 18, 2012, Gatestone Institute International Policy Council headlined “How Much is Mahmoud Abbas Worth? Try $100 Million.”

Mohammed Rashid was Arafat’s financial advisor and trusted aide. He handled hundreds of millions of dollars donated by Washington, EU nations, and regional states.

He cashed in like other Fatah officials. On May 17, Haaretz ran a AP story headlined “Arafat aide accused of embezzlement.”

He’s sought for allegedly stealing millions of dollars of public funds. He’s suspected of transferring them from the Palestinian Investment Fund (PIF) into fake companies.

PA Anti-Corruption Commission head Rafik Natsheh accused him of embezzlement. He’s investigating 85 other PA members. Corruption allegations forced two cabinet ministers to resign. One observer called the commission’s work secretive. It’s impossible to know what goes on. At the same time, it selectively decides who to investigate and where to keep hands off. Operating this way destroys all credibility.

Rashid denied all charges. He threatened to expose Abbas corruption. He calls him the “Sultan of Ramallah.” He’s thin-skinned, vengeful, and tolerates no opposition.

He said he “made a huge mistake and must suffer the consequences.”

After Arafat’s November 2004 death, Rashid left Palestine. His whereabouts aren’t known. He’s been “moving between countries.”

An arrest warrant was issued. PA officials asked several countries to extradite him. They requested his assets be frozen. Interpol was asked for help. International donors expressed concern about huge sums gone missing.

In early June, a Ramallah anti-graft court convicted Rashid in absentia. He and two others were sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. They were ordered to return 33.5 million euros in stolen funds.

Throughout much of Arafat’s rule, rampant corruption allegations surfaced often. He and many other Fatah officials were suspected for good reason.

Funds to help Palestine went into private coffers. Rashid apparently cashed in like others. He handled PA finances. He knows where the bodies are buried.

Abbas accused him of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. He said Abbas embezzled $100 million. Perhaps he knows less than he thinks or isn’t telling all he knows.

He said Fatah has a secret Jordanian bank account containing about $40 million. Millions of US donations are included. An unnamed source said Abbas instructed his General Intelligence Service to find Rashid and kill him.

He wants what he knows buried with him. He also wants imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti kept there.

He’s a prisoner of conscience. On May 20, 2004, Israel convicted him unjustly on bogus terrorist charges. He received five consecutive life sentences plus 40 years.

If free, he’d be Palestine’s president, not Abbas. He was hugely popular. He still is. He honorably supports the rights of people. Abbas sold them out long ago.

Israel imprisoned Barghouti to prevent his election. Abbas wants him kept there. He also wants Hamas destroyed.

He’s a longtime Israeli collaborator, a traitor, a world class scoundrel, and embezzler. Why Palestinians tolerate him, they’ll have to explain.

Hamas’ 2006 legislative victory followed promises of fighting corruption. Washington, EU countries, and regional states contribute hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Much of it ends up unaccounted for.

Abbas stands accused of enriching himself throughout his tenure. He has huge sums stashed abroad. He has hidden investments and secret land deals.

He helped his sons become millionaires. A July 2012 House Foreign Relations Committee investigated chronic PA corruption.

Testimony given said “corruption within the Palestinian political establishment has been endemic for decades.”

“Reports suggest that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, like his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, has used his position of power to line his own pockets as well as those of his cohort of cronies, including his sons, Yasser and Tarek.”

The Palestine Investment Fund (PIF) was established to serve all Palestinians. Abbas “asserted complete control.” He appoints cronies as board members. He rejects requested audits.

US taxpayer funds were stolen. Accountability is absent. Operations are opaque. Transparency doesn’t exist. Rampant corruption is endemic.

PA officials enrich themselves at the expense of their own people. Abbas and his sons perhaps profited most of all. Legitimate governance is impossible with him in charge.

“While Abbas prosecutes Rashid, he conveniently avoids controversy surrounding his sons” and his own ill-gotten gains.

Jonathan Schanzer is Foundation for Defense of Democracies research vice president. He testified before the House Foreign Relations Committee.

He said Abbas and his sons line their pockets lavishly. Others made similar comments. They’re involved in all kinds of shady deals. They profit hugely. Bush and Obama officials did nothing to stop misuse of US funding.

Abbas prevents internal investigations. He enforces censorship. He targets press freedom. He blocks PA criticism. He wants his own malfeasance and that of his sons suppressed. He also crushes political opposition.

He’s aged 77. He nears retirement. He has no vice president or heir apparent. Israeli officials wants control over who replaces him.

They also want occupation harshness unchallenged. Massive corruption is a small price to pay. Perhaps they steal plenty on their own.

Washington provides billions of dollars annually. How much goes to secret coffers, who knows. Apparently don’t ask, don’t tell is policy. Media scoundrels go along and say nothing.

A Final Comment

On December 10, Maan News said Palestine’s Anti-Corruption Commission will institute legal proceedings against PA officials suspected of embezzling millions of dollars.

Commission head Natsheh said secret investigations were ongoing for sometime. Officials in Palestine suspected of complicity with Rashid are targeted. His whereabouts remain unknown.

The case goes well beyond him alone. Without naming names, Natsheh said Palestinian corruption is much bigger than what’s known and/or alleged about Rashid.

It remains to be seen who’s charged. Don’t expect Abbas or others he wants protected to be among them.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.” http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

//

Latin America and Europe Compared

To Be in Office, But Not in Power

FRANCE’S PRESIDENT FRANCOIS HOLLANDE. Parties of the “left” that associate closely with social democrats, like France’s Socialists, are bound to become bureaucratized and “moderate”, and soon apt to embrace “pragmatic” solutions to problems caused by the very system they have spent decades denouncing as beyond repair.  By betraying their more radical postures and demands, they stain the very concept of the left.

By Asbjørn Wahl, The Socialist Project

The experiences from having had left political parties in government in Europe in the era of neoliberalism have not been very exciting, to put it mildly. The most recent experiences from such governments in France, Italy and – to a certain degree – also Norway have proved anything from negative to disastrous. In all these three countries right wing populist parties have been the biggest winners – with growing support, including in the working-class, and increasing influence on areas like immigration policies. This is particularly worth noting, since one of the arguments from parties on the left for entering into centre-left coalition governments has been to contain and isolate the radical right.

In analysing these experiences we have to look at external as well as internal factors. Externally, the balance of power between labour and capital is the most decisive factor. This power relationship has changed considerably in favour of capital during the neoliberal era since about 1980. Internally, it is the character of the party in question which is most important – its social roots, its analyses of the current situation, its strategies, its relationship with trade unions and social movements and its aims and perspectives. In this regard, the ideological and political crisis on the left has to be addressed.

Even though a detailed analysis will have to go deep into the concrete situation in each country, its history and traditions, its class formations and its social and political forces, I have chosen a more generalized approach in this paper. My discussion focuses on the initial conditions for left parties to enter into broader coalition governments. Based on the most recent experiences, I will try to develop some general, minimum conditions for government participation for parties on the left – at least as a starting point for further discussion.

A Couple of Clarifications

However, before developing the discussion further, I should like to make a couple of clarifications which I think are important for the following analysis.

Firstly, I do not consider the traditional social democratic (or labour) parties (even if some of them name themselves socialist) to be part of the left. There are important differences between these parties and right wing and centre parties, first and foremost in terms of history, traditions and their roots in the working-class. This creates special challenges to the left. Politically, however, these parties have pursued more or less soft versions of neoliberalism since the 1980s. They have contributed to shifting the balance of power from labour to capital in society through liberalization, privatization and the undermining of labour market regulations.

Secondly, in Europe it has not been a question of the left winning majority governments (like for example in some Latin American countries). In the neoliberal era it has only been a question of joining centre-left coalition governments as a junior partner – most often in coalition with a dominant social democratic party and some green and/or social liberal parties. It has therefore always been a question of what kind of compromises the left party is willing to accept, and where the absolute conditions (if any) are in the different political areas. Political compromises from a junior position have been the order of the day for these parties.

The Balance of Power

The neoliberal offensive from around 1980 led to a considerable shift in the balance of power in society. Through deregulation and privatization power and decision-making have been transferred from democratically elected bodies to the market. Through New Public Management public institutions have been moved arm’s length from politicians and made subject to quasi-market rules and regulations – with increased power to management and the market. Through international agreements and institutions (like the World Trade Organization and the European Union), neoliberal policies have been institutionalized at the international/regional level and further contributed to limiting the political space at the national level.

The room for manoeuvre has accordingly become very limited for left political parties which choose to enter into centre-left coalition governments. Even if many governments and politicians exaggerate the lack of political space, there is no doubt that it is strongly restricted in many areas. The free movement of capital, the right for capital to establish wherever it wants, and the free access to markets across borders are just some of the most important examples on how politicians, through deregulation and reregulation, have strongly limited their own possibility to pursue alternative policies in their own countries.

In short, not only have we seen an enormous shift in the balance of power in society, but also extensive institutionalization of the new power relations – something which simply has made many progressive, left wing policies illegal and in breach of international agreements. This, of course, represents serious challenges for political parties on the left, and any such party which faces the possible participation in a centre-left government has to take this into consideration. The significant English saying “To be in office, but not in power,” can easily come true in such a situation. The danger of becoming just a hostage for neoliberal policies is imminent.

Relations to Social Forces/Movements

Thus, governments have limited their possibility to regulate the economy and to restrict the power of capital, even if the actual government would like to do so. Any government that intends to pursue a radical welfare policy under such circumstances will therefore need strong social movements outside the parliament to challenge the increased structural power of capital. This has not been the case in most European countries over the last 20-30 years. There have been ebb and flow tides of social movements and trade union struggles in many countries, but strong, lasting movements with well developed class consciousness and long-term perspectives have been in short supply.

It seems also to be a problem for political parties on the left to stand with one leg in the government and the other leg outside, as the French Communist Party proclaimed when it joined the so-called pluralistic left Government of Lionel Jospin in 1997. Anyway, this dual power strategy was obviously easier to proclaim than to carry out, and the actual results were not very encouraging for the French left.

In the current Norwegian context the need for such a movement outside Parliament is not even part of the perspective and strategy of the Socialist Left Party, which is currently in a broad centre-left coalition government. On the contrary, movements have been told by official representatives of the party to stay calm, to be patient and to give the government more time rather than to ‘create problems for them’ by criticizing them or mobilizing for more radical solutions.

In today’s society, an enormous mobilization of social power would be necessary to move forward with a progressive social agenda. It would require the combination of strong and highly mobilized social forces and the existence of a political party deeply rooted in popular and working-class movements – and with the ability to represent these movements whether inside or outside governments. Most probably, a left political party of the sort which is needed to lead an emancipatory struggle for the popular classes will hardly be possible to develop without the existence of such strong social movements.

Class Consciousness

The political/ideological situation in the working-class is also of great importance. In Europe, this has been strongly influenced by the pretty successful post WWII developments, based on a class compromise and the social partnership ideology.

The effects of this development were twofold. On the one hand, the European Social Model or the welfare state led to enormous improvements of working and living conditions for the a majority of the people. On the other hand, these improvements, which took place under a social compromise in which capitalist interests gave many concessions to the workers, resulted in the depolitization and the deradicalization of the working-class. Another effect was a strong integration of the working-class in the capitalist order.

Even though the class compromise has broken down, or is breaking down, in the wake of the economic crisis of the 1970s and the following, neoliberal offensive, the labour movement in Europe is still strongly influenced by this social partnership ideology – including many of the political parties on the left. In other words, the ideological legacy of the social pact is still alive and well in big parts of the labour movement.

Some even aim at re-establishing the broad social compromise, or a New Deal, as it was called in the USA (under the current threat of climate change, some also aim for a New Green Deal). These policies, however, seem to be completely delinked from any assessment of power relations in society. They do not take into account the enormous shift in the balance of power which lay behind the class compromise which dominated the post WWII period, including the discredit of free-market capitalism after the depression of the 1930s. Calls for a new social pact from the political left are pretty illusory under the actual power balance and will only contribute to leading the struggle astray.

Competition With the Radical Right

The undermining and the weakening of the European social model, the welfare state, and the general offensive of capitalist forces, have led to increased discontent, insecurity and powerlessness among workers and people in general. The social and economic basis for the discontent among people is in other words deeply embedded in the capitalist economy – particularly in its current neoliberal version, which increases the exploitation of workers, reduces their influence at the workplace, alienates them in relation to the work process as well as to society in general and makes life more socially and economically insecure.

The current financial and economic crises have further strengthened and deepened the discontent among workers. The political articulation of these problems, however, has not been very well developed on the left. This has contributed strongly to the rise of the radical right (right wing populist parties), which is cynically and successfully exploiting this situation. This success is exactly made possible by the lack of political parties on the left which understand the situation, take people’s discontent seriously and are able to politicise it and channel it into an organized struggle against alienation, exploitation and exclusion – for a social, just and solidary society.

With the left party in a centre-left coalition government, dominated by social democrats, this problem can actually become even more serious, since the party then will be bound up in a number of compromises, and there is hardly any opposition on the left that can pick up and politicise the messages of the discontents. Thus, the participation in a broad centre-left coalition government, and all the compromises which necessary will come with it in the current conjuncture, will in itself limit the left’s ability to represent and defend the interests of workers and ordinary people.

“

This development can only be turned if the left is able to create a situation in which workers and people in general experience that they are part of a real emancipatory struggle, a struggle which the recent centre-left governments in Europe have not been able to launch. ”

The right wing populists then become the only anti-establishment, system-critical alternative, while the centre-left government is mainly administering and defending the existing order. Thus we face the paradoxical situation that left parties, which have entered into broad centre/left coalitions with the aim of containing and isolating the radical right, in effect lead to the opposite – to the strengthening of right wing populist parties and the weakening of the left. This development can only be turned if the left is able to create a situation in which workers and people in general experience that they are part of a real emancipatory struggle, a struggle which the recent centre-left governments in Europe have not been able to launch.

The Character of the Party

When discussing the experiences with left parties in government, however, one cannot only assess external, but also internal factors. Does the actual party have a meaningful analysis of the situation? Does it have the strategies and perspectives necessary to mobilize social power for social change? If not, its political practice cannot only be considered a mistake – or an effect of external factors. Maybe we will rather have to conclude that this is not the party we need to lead the struggle for the emancipation of the working-class and the overthrowing of capitalism (if this is still our aim).

Most political parties on the left are a bit confused, influenced as they are by the ideological and political crises in the labour movement after the breakdown of the Soviet model in Eastern Europe and the end of the social democratic model (based on the social pact between labour and capital) in Western Europe. The character of the various parties on the left is therefore the product of many factors. The lack of strong social movements which can influence the party, radicalize it and deliver new activists with experiences from social struggles, is one factor. Another factor is a tendency among party leaders in particular to want to come out of political isolation and become accepted in society. A third factor is careerism of individuals in or close to the party leadership if they see a possibility to become part of the government apparatus etc. All these factors will drive a left party toward more moderate and pragmatic positions.

Based on the experiences so far from left parties in broad centre-left coalition governments in Europe, it seems as if the actual parties have been too eager to become government partners, while the political strategies and tactics on how to use this position have been sparsely developed. It seems also as if the parties have underestimated how the current unfavourable balance of power, together with the broad composition of the government coalitions, limits the political room for manoeuvre for a junior coalition partner on the left.

These developments have led to crises of expectation. While the left parties themselves promise new policies, and the electorate expects reforms which can meet their needs, the results have proved to be quite meagre. Thus, left parties have come into a squeeze between peoples’/workers’ legitimate expectations on the one side and the limited room for manoeuvre in broad coalition governments on the other. The result has become a loss of confidence in and support for the actual left party. Again, what we experience is a weakening of the left and a further strengthening of the radical right – exactly the opposite of what was the aim.

Minimum Conditions

Of course, socialist left parties should seek alliances with other parties, also in government, if this can contribute to shifting the balance of power in society from capital to labour. However, certain preconditions must be in place for the establishment of such coalition governments. Only concrete negotiations with other parties can in the end reveal whether or not the political preconditions are satisfactory. Generalized solutions therefore have to be taken with great caution. In spite of that, and based on the experiences so far with the Socialist Left Party in the Norwegian government, as well as with other experiences with left parties in centre-left government coalitions in Europe over the last 20-30 years, I will put forward the following four minimum conditions as a basis for discussion:

1) A socialist left party should not join a coalition government if this government is not opposed to a policy of privatization – at the national level as well as internationally. The government should defend, not attack, trade union and labour rights, and it should not take part in imperialist wars.

2) The party must let its participation in the government be guided by long-term socialist visions and strategies. It must also be able continuously to assess whether or not its participation serves these long-term goals and be able to break out if this is not the case.

3) Under the current balance of power, there is no possibility to carry out consistent anti-neoliberal policies from a government position without the existence of strong popular movements (including trade unions) outside the parliament. The actual party of the left must therefore also both understand the necessity of such movements and be able to join forces with them.

4) The political platform of such a government and its actions must address the problems, the insecurities, the concerns and the anxieties of ordinary people. Their discontent with current developments must be taken seriously. This includes a programme which challenges existing power structures, limits the power of capital, redistributes wealth and extends democracy. Only a government which, through concrete economic and social reforms, is able to mobilize workers and ordinary people can have any chance to contain right wing populism. The indications from experiences so far are that only in a situation in which workers and people in general experience that they are part of a real emancipatory struggle, can the left in government succeed.

None of the centre-left governments in Europe over the last 20 years have met these four conditions. The conclusion of my analysis is therefore that government participation should be dealt with in a much more strict way than has been the case on the European left in the neoliberal era. Under the current unfavourable balance of power, with rather weak and fluctuating social movements, the main tasks of left political parties should therefore be to organize, to politicize, to raise awareness and to mobilize resistance from below in society. In this way the basis for possible future participation in governments can be developed.

Tactical Considerations

For a left party with the aim of overthrowing capitalism, passive but critical support of a centre-left government would probably be a better choice than to join the government under current power relations. It gives much more room for manoeuvre, and the possibility to pursue primary positions and more radical proposals than the often watered-down compromises reached in the government. One should also not forget that the execution of power in not restricted to government participation. To challenge a centre-left government from a position outside the government, in alliance with strong social movements, can have good effects on governmental parties which are competing for support from the same social basis.

However, an often heard argument from the actual political parties of the left has been that ‘it would not have been understood or accepted by our electorate and the most radical parts of the working-class if we had not joined the coalition government.’ The possible negative effect of staying outside the government would have been that the party had lost support and confidence among workers and people in general, according to this argument.

At least two points can be made against this argument. Firstly, experiences have proved that the actual parties have lost great parts of its support and confidence in government – and probably much more than what would have been the situation if the party had placed itself as part of the actual government’s parliamentary basis, but outside the government.

Secondly, the effect of staying outside the government will probably depend on the way in which the political manoeuvre is made. Any party must of course say yes in principle to government participation – if the right political conditions are present. It is exactly the definition of these conditions which are decisive. If the left party picks up some of the most important demands from trade unions and social movements, and turn them into absolute conditions, it should have a good position to defend its position if government negotiations break down. The problem so far has probably been that the actual left parties have gone too far in compromising their policies already in the initial government negotiations.

Post script

However, the not so successful experiences from participation in centre-left governments in Europe over the last 20-30 years do not seem to frighten new parties on the left from following the same course. Rather the opposite, it seems to have become a dogma that left parties should join centre-left governments if the opportunity offers and the social democratic party in question accepts it as a junior partner. Thus, the Left Party in Sweden, the Socialist Peoples’ Party in Denmark, the Socialist Party in the Netherlands and the Left Party in Germany all seem to be on course for government participation as soon as the opportunity knocks. If this results in governments which are unable to meet peoples’ and workers’ needs and expectations in a deepening economic and social crisis, the situation can be really disastrous – and lead to a further strengthening of the radical right. •

Asbjørn Wahl is Director of Campaign for the Welfare State, Oslo.  Published in Birgit Daiber (ed.) (2009), The Left in Government: Latin America and Europe compared, Brussels: Rosa Luxemburg foundation.

//