OBAMA FACES ECONOMIC WORLD WAR II

“…We’ve essentially gone from $5 trillion in debt to $15 trillion of debt, and considering that our economy is a $14 trillion economy.” Linda Blimes

We are in trouble! The Great Depression of 1929 pales in comparison to our current economic woes. President Obama and is not half-stepping in his war against economic implosion, and it shows in his pick of economic advisers, and his upping the ante of creating 3 million jobs.

But for all this to work it will take not only leadership, and a well thought out and executed economic stimulus package, but it will also require an economic austerity program that rivals that of World War 2, where every sector of the economy and every person in America is pitching in for the war. Well, where is the leadership for this?

President Bush left President Elect Obama holding the bag in Bush’s eight years we have amassed a debt greater than all of his presidential predecessors combined. The economic team President Elect Obama has selected will not be enough to hold back the probable collapse of the economic dike.

What Obama’s team will attempt to do to save the economy conjures the image of the little boy putting his finger in the dike to keep it from collapsing. The problem is we have several leaks occurring at the same time, and the proverbial economic waters are about to crest the proverbial economic dam.

The stress cracks keep running and the leaks are as follows: Our financial markets are illiquid, our credit markets are over extended, our stock market is unstable, our industrial base has eroded, our economy is in a recession, our debt is soaring, millions have lost jobs, millions more have lost health insurance, our residential real estate sector of our economy exploded, we had an astronomical increase in the price of fuel that almost bankrupted us.

Our manufacturing sector is in disarray and we are about to lose an important part of our economic engine, our own industrial base. Add another catastrophe like the collapse of our commercial real estate sector or another spike in fuel and we will all lose our shirts.

Nothing in modern history will matter more than how we handle this "Economic War." It will either mark the fall of the United States or catapult us as an economic powerhouse beyond the 21^st century. But we need more troops on the ground to win this “Economic War” like Joseph Stglitz and Linda Blimes, and we need every American from the wealthiest, and the most poor to cooperate. President Obama will need the brain trust of all of America to win this war.

Amy Goodman reports on Democracy Now!, how Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, and Linda Blimes, a lecturer in public finance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and co-author with Joe Stiglitz of The Three Trillion Dollar War. Spoke about and wrote the article in Harpers magazine called “The $10 Trillion Hangover: Paying the Price for Eight Years of Bush.” Linda Blimes notes:

Well, first of all, it’s important to know that we started with a debt that was about $5.7 trillion. And that debt had been growing for some period of time. But in the time since the President took office and now, that debt has more than doubled. So, in another words, we have amassed more debt over the past eight years than we have under all the previous forty-two presidents combined.

Now, in addition, we have taken on the debts recently of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And if you follow standard accounting practices, that $5 trillion of debt for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be counted as part of our debt. So we’ve essentially gone from $5 trillion in debt to $15 trillion of debt, and considering that our economy is a $14 trillion economy, you can quickly see that the ratio of debt to the economy has gone from something that looked relatively healthy to something that looks extremely unhealthy.

For the rest of the Amy Goodwin’s interview with Linda Blimes go to:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/linda_bilmes_the_10_trillion_hangover

Foreign Car Makers view Detroit Collapse Disastrous

It is all based on self-preservation, and if the Detroit car makers fail our economy fails, and no one is more sensitive to that than the foreign car makers who make and sell their products here:

President Lee Myung Bak told reporters in Washington on Nov. 16 that a bailout was vital because of links between the U.S. auto industry and the Korean economy. "I'm in favor of the efforts to rescue the U.S. auto industry," Korean newspapers reported Lee as saying. Hyundai, Korea's biggest carmaker, also wishes Detroit well. "We recognize there may be extraordinary situations [which] may require unprecedented actions to assure [the auto industry's] long-term viability and a healthy American economy," says Hyundai spokesman Oles Gadacz.

In an artcile by Business week:

Surprise: Japanese, Korean Carmakers Want a Detroit Bailout

For Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai, a collapse of GM, Ford, or Chrysler would create more problems than opportunities

Follow this article written by Ian Rowley and Moon Ihlwan

Considering the home states of some of the Republican Senators opposed to a $25 billion bailout of Detroit, a cynic might concede that they are doing Asian automakers' work for them. After all, Republicans who have criticized the planned aid package for (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler include those from states where Japanese and Korean automakers have factories. For instance, Republican Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions represent Alabama, home to Honda (HMC), Toyota (TM), and Hyundai plants. John Cornyn represents Texas, which has a 200,000-capacity Toyota Tundra plant in San Antonio. And Bob Corker, who is "very skeptical" of the package, is a GOP Senator from Tennessee, which has two Nissan (NSANY) plants—in Smyrna and Dechard—and the company's U.S. headquarters in Nashville.

Yet the senators opposing a bailout bill also may be in disagreement with those same Japanese and Korean automakers. For Asia's leading automakers, the prospect of one or all of the Big Three failing is arguably of greater concern than rivals receiving government aid. Indeed, since executives worry the collapse of GM, Ford, or Chrysler would have a negative impact on car sales, hurt the financial health of suppliers, and trigger a possible backlash against import brands, the problems of Detroit are problems for foreign rivals, too.

While a bankruptcy filing would likely boost Asian sales and shares eventually, in the short term it could make matters worse for Toyota, Hyundai, and the others. One problem, notes Andrew Phillips, an analyst at KBC Securities in Tokyo, is that one or more U.S. carmakers entering into Chapter 11 would do little to cut excess capacity and probably worsen consumer confidence. "It's in the Japanese and Korean carmakers' interest for the U.S. economy to stabilize and, if bailing out the Big Three means that, they are not going to be opposed to it," he says.

In Their Interests to Help Detroit

With no bailout plan yet agreed upon, Japanese and Korean automakers are mostly avoiding commenting on what the U.S. authorities should be doing. For one thing, it might look as if they're crowing when rivals are in need of emergency surgery. Those who have spoken have offered qualified support for U.S. government aid for their struggling rivals. Among them, Nissan Chief Executive Officer Carlos Ghosn and Honda CEO Takeo Fukui have indicated that they back bailouts in principle. Fukui, for instance, said on Nov. 6 that he isn't opposed to the U.S. government helping automakers as long as fair competition is maintained. The Honda boss, who would also like to see the Japanese government intervene to weaken the soaring yen, added that it's only natural for a government to support one of its country's key industries.

In Korea, a bailout is also garnering support. President Lee Myung Bak told reporters in Washington on Nov. 16 that a bailout was vital because of links between the U.S. auto industry and the Korean economy. "I'm in favor of the efforts to rescue the U.S. auto industry," Korean newspapers reported Lee as saying. Hyundai, Korea's biggest carmaker, also wishes Detroit well. "We recognize there may be extraordinary situations [which] may require unprecedented actions to assure [the auto industry's] long-term viability and a healthy American economy," says Hyundai spokesman Oles Gadacz.

Consumer Perceptions Matter

Of course, self-interest is the motivating factor. Despite market share in the U.S. of a combined 44% in October, Japanese and Korean automakers are hurting. Toyota, for instance, projects it will only make around $200 million during the second half of its financial year which ends in March and has formed an Emergency Profit Improvement Committee, led by President Katsuaki Watanabe, to search for new ways to trim costs (BusinessWeek.com, 11/6/08) and reevaluate the size and timing of new projects.

A Detroit bankruptcy might only make matters worse, if consumers perceive Asians' success as having unfairly contributed to the Big Three's decline. "A bankruptcy would have a tremendous impact on the U.S. economy and on demand for new cars," says Yasuhiro Matsumoto, an analyst at Shinsei Securities in Tokyo. "In no way should Japanese automakers let their U.S. counterparts fail."

A U.S. car market without one or all of the Big Three might not be as attractive as it first appears. In Japan, Japanese automakers account for well over 90% of sales, but that means they have to compete almost completely with some of the toughest rivals in the industry—each other. Profits are low, but competing with less efficient Big Three rivals may make it easier to eke out bigger earnings. "Japanese carmakers would be wise to help ensure the U.S. market doesn't become like the Japanese market," Matsumoto adds.

Plenty to Lose

Just as important are the close ties between Japanese and Korean automakers and their U.S. rivals. On Nov. 18, Ford sold 20% (BusinessWeek.com, 11/18/08) of Mazda (7261.T), reducing its stake to 13%, but the fortunes of the two automakers remain closely aligned. For example, Mazda and Ford share production at several plants and work closely together on new vehicle development. In particular, Mazda plays a large role in the development of Ford's passenger cars.

Similarly, Korea's Daewoo is responsible for GM's small-car output and would have plenty to lose if GM were to go under. South Korea is the home to GM's small-car design and production and GM Daewoo Auto and Technology made about a quarter of the 4 million cars built in Korea in 2007. "GM's collapse would not only be a disaster for the U.S. economy, but also a major blow to the Korean auto industry," says Kim Jun Kyu, research manager at Korea Automobile Manufacturers Assn. And hundreds of Korean parts makers depend on GM for their sales. "I have invested $16 million to make parts for GM Daewoo's new Gen3 engine, but now nobody knows when GM can introduce new vehicles in the face of the global economic meltdown," says Choi Bum Young, who also heads the association of 228 primary part suppliers of GM Daewoo.

While the linkup is less vital to their financial health, Toyota and GM share production at the New United Motor Manufacturing plant in Fremont, Calif. Meanwhile, Nissan and Chrysler have inked production agreements that will see Nissan make small cars for Chrysler. In return, Chrysler will supply pickups and vehicles to Nissan in North America.

Even Asian carmakers that don't have alliances, particularly Japanese players such as Honda, still share U.S. suppliers with the Detroit Three. Indeed, analysts say that the biggest short-term worry if GM fails is it will also damage suppliers. That would then have an impact on all their customers, says KBC Securities' Phillips. The ideal situation for Japanese automakers is to continue to take market share gradually from Detroit in a way that allows suppliers time to adjust and avoids a consumer backlash against import brands. From a Japanese carmaker's point of view, "It is better that the Big Three slowly wither away, but that scenario is looking increasingly difficult," says Phillips.

Rowley is a correspondent in BusinessWeek's Tokyo bureau. Moon is BusinessWeek's Seoul bureau chief.

Intelligence 007 Style: Picking the Right Person

Here is an article worth reading and discussing among President-Elect Obama supporters. Traversing the forest of the Intelligence community will require an all hands approach.

We need to help the transition team with our our input and research with positions as pivotal and important as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the CIA.

We absolutely do not want our President-Elect or his staff to step on the same land mines and quagmires as President Clinton and President Bush encountered.

If you have information and ideas be sure to post them at change.gov in Homeland Security section, under the AGENDA tab of the President-Elect's new website.

Read this article, by David Ignatius of the Washington Post, it is worth discussing:

A Spy CEO for Obama

By David Ignatius

Thursday, December 11, 2008; Page A25

What should President-elect Barack Obama do about the intelligence community? He has appointed the other top members of his national security team, but intrigue still surrounds his choices for director of national intelligence and director of the CIA. Prospective nominees are caught in a rumor mill that's worthy of Beirut.

As usual with anything involving intelligence, the left and the right are trading blows -- with the professional spooks caught in the middle. The only people who looked really happy at the CIA Christmas party last week were the journalists, who were feasting on the hors d'oeuvres and spicy gossip.

Rather than rush to answer "who" questions, Obama should spend some time thinking about what he wants from the intelligence agencies -- and whether the structure that's in place makes sense. More than any part of the government, the intelligence community needs good management, but that requires more clarity about the mission.

Administrations that don't know what they want from intelligence often pick the wrong people. Under Bill Clinton, for example, the clamor for a conservative Democrat led to the appointment of James Woolsey -- a smart lawyer, but someone with so little White House access he might as well have communicated by carrier pigeon. Clinton's next choice was John Deutch, who wasn't sure he wanted the job and, by most accounts, did it poorly. George W. Bush made a string of mistakes with intelligence, but among the worst was his appointment of Porter Goss, a former congressman who further demoralized a battered agency.

The "what" questions are crucial now because the intelligence community is still reeling from a messy reorganization in 2006. That ill-considered "reform" created a big new DNI bureaucracy while leaving everything else intact. The result was like a lumpy pudding. The CIA has gotten the brunt of the DNI's often duplicative supervision, partly because the other big intelligence agencies (the FBI, the NSA, etc.) are all protected by Cabinet officers.

The DNI's hand got heavier in July with a new executive order that specifies his authority -- especially to second-guess the CIA. The spy world is now in a dither about a new directive that would allow the DNI to designate a non-CIA person as his representative in foreign capitals, gutting the authority of the local chief of station. These bureaucratic machinations have left foreign intelligence chiefs wondering who's in charge.

Should the Obama administration continue the DNI structure? The answer is probably yes, because yet another reorganization would drive everyone bonkers. But what should this intelligence czar do? In a perfect world, he would be the Warren Buffett of intelligence. That is, the DNI would be the chief executive of a diverse portfolio of intelligence agencies. The director would maintain accountability and quality control but let the agency heads run their businesses.

What's needed is an experienced, first-rate manager "who is less interested in briefing the president in the morning than in ensuring that the community has the best tools and processes to make the PDB [President's Daily Brief] a world-class product," says one former top-level intelligence official.

I would add that the left-right slugfest -- in which liberals stress accountability and conservatives emphasize performance -- is wrong. The intelligence community needs more of both, urgently.

To avoid duplicating functions, it would make sense to move analysis into the DNI's shop -- and let a leaner, more aggressive CIA focus on spying. "We should be thinking about CIA the way the British think about MI6, with a career intelligence professional at the head who has a fixed term that transcends elections," the former top official argues.

The Great Mentioner (whom we pundits consult about who's being "mentioned" for top jobs) continues to spin out names for intelligence posts: Former CIA officer and Obama intelligence transition chief John Brennan was thought to be a likely CIA director until he was vaporized by left-wing opposition. Retired Adm. Dennis Blair is a leading candidate for DNI, but some wonder whether the community needs yet another ex-military official. Rep. Jane Harman gets high marks for strong oversight, but some worry about the Porter Goss problem of appointing a politician.

The right answer? Find the Buffett-like manager who can create a truly great U.S. intelligence system at DNI, then let that person pick a CIA director who will be nonpolitical. And then, as the late CIA Director Richard Helms liked to tell his trench-coated colleagues, "Let's get on with it."

The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address is davidignatius@washpost.com.

AMAZING VIDEO: DOG SAVES DOG

In a world fraught with politics, war, danger, corruption; death, and life hangs merely by a thread.

Today we still find things that make us wonder - Are animals mere savages or are humans mere mortals? Do animals have souls and reasoning?

It is Santiago, Chile, on a cloudy rainy day an unusual act of courage occurs. What we witness is not human heroism it is canine heroism.

One dog entered the danger of a highway and suffers a blow by a speeding truck. Another dog enters the same highway with a different almost human altruistic motive.

He risks his own life to pull his fellow mutt off the highway that just took a hit from a speeding truck. Watch!

Sadly the one hit by a truck was found dead on arrival, but the other dog was sent to a refuge.

OBAMA'S RECIPE FOR STRONG DEFENSE: Requires Strong Beliefs, Strong Personalities, Strong Opinions, with Vigourous Debate

MSNBC Reports: December 1, 2008, Bullet Excerpts from President-Elect Obama's National Security Team Press Conference.

TEAM OF SUPPORTING RIVALS

• National Security Team shares consensus
• I will be Setting Policy as President
• I will be Responsible for the Vision
• I will expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made.
• "The Buck Stops with Me."
• I did not ask for assurances from these individuals that they would agree with me at all times.
• On the Broad Core Vision where America needs to go - We are almost in complete agreement
• There are going to be differences in tactics, and different assessments, and judgements made,
• That is what I expect that is what I welcome
• That is why I asked them to join the team.

"LOOKING FOR BROWN FACES: Latinos got 8 percent of President Bush's appoinments,"... Will President-Elect Obama do Better?

LOOKING FOR BROWN FACES
by Miguel Perez


As President-elect Barack Obama takes his time to make his first Hispanic appointment, the Latino leaders who supported him are beginning to squirm — not because they all expect job offers, but because they fear they could end up with egg on their faces.

Just a few days ago, they were saying they expected Obama to repay his debt to Latino voters by naming between two and four Latinos to his Cabinet — at least one to his executive staff and many others to sub-Cabinet positions.
It was these leaders who persuaded 67 percent of Latino voters to support Obama and helped him win the battleground states of Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

If the president-elect fails to deliver, he and his Latino surrogates will be held accountable. If Obama doesn't at least match President Bush's good record of Latino appointments, they will have "problemas" explaining it to their own constituents.

Yet as more and more people are appointed — or reported to be shoo-ins for various nominations — the cards being drawn have only black and white faces. The brown-faced cards are not coming up!

In fact, the main card Latinos have in this game — bearing the face of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — has been switched.

Instead of secretary of state, which is the job Richardson is most qualified to fill and the high-level appointment Latinos expected from Obama, it looks as if Richardson will be relegated to commerce secretary.

Ironically, Sen. Hillary Clinton, the presidential candidate who enjoyed the most Hispanic support during the primaries, is now the leading candidate for the high-level job that could have gone to a Latino. Richardson, a former Cabinet member under President Clinton, was called a traitor for supporting Obama over Clinton during the Democratic primaries. Now it is Clinton who is getting the secretary of state position, the job Richardson wanted, and it is Latinos who still are waiting for the appointments they feel they earned on Election Day.

To do better than recent presidents, Obama would have to name a significant number of Latinos not only to his inner circle of White House advisers and his Cabinet but also throughout his administration.

According to a Brookings Institution study, in 1993, 6 percent of President Clinton's initial round of appointments went to Latinos. In 2001, Latinos got 8 percent of President Bush's appointments.

In 2009, will Obama do better? He should! More Latinos voted for him than for any other president.

Of course, Obama himself helped to raise Latinos' expectations. "When I'm president, I'll be asking many of you to serve at every level of government," Obama said during a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute in September.

For that reason, Latino elected officials and the leaders of many Hispanic organizations have been expressing complete confidence in their belief that Latinos will be in many positions of authority in the Obama administration. They bragged about how it was a foregone conclusion that Latinos would have seats at the table where policy debates will be held.

And they have a long list of qualified candidates, including labor leader Linda Chavez-Thompson, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or Rep. Xavier Becerra of California for the Department of Labor; Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York for the Small Business Administration; Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado or former New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid for the Department of the Interior; Miami Mayor Manny Diaz or Bronx President Adolfo Carrion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development; educators Susan Castillo or Blandina Cardenas for the Department of Education; and Federico Pena, who was the secretary of transportation and energy in the Clinton administration and who already serves on Obama's transition team, for a White House inner-circle assignment.

But as more non-Latinos are named to the Obama administration, the confidence of the Democratic Latino leadership is turning into nervousness. In this historic moment, when we will have our first minority president, could we end up with an administration that doesn't represent America's diversity?

Now that we will have a black president, some people might think we no longer need an administration that "looks like America." But it's the other way around! Now that we will have our first minority president, many of us are hoping to see a U.S. government that actually looks like the American people — for the first time.
If not now, when?



To find out more about Miguel Perez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com/.





COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

The Greatest Latin American Poet of the Twentieth Century: Pablo Neruda

Gabriel Garcia Marquez once called Pablo Neruda, “The greatest poet of the twentieth century in any language.” Pablo Neruda was born Ricardo Eliezer Neftalí Reyes y Basoalto, but he derived his name from a Czech poet Jan Neruda, and Pablo is thought to be from Paul Valentine.

Pablo Neruda was first published as a teenager. He assumed Pablo Neruda as a pen name, first as a fad, and later to hide his work from his austere father. He later legally changed his name. After a lifetime of work, and despite his political leaning as a known communist, Mr. Neruda, gained worldwide notoriety, and fame for his poetry, and won the Nobel Prize for Literature, in 1971.

Mark Eisner, a nationally known Pablo Neruda expert, who has written the best selling translation on Neruda in the States and who created a non-for-profit organization, a website geared to merge the written and cinematic power of literature called Red Poppy writes about Neruda receiving the Nobel Prize: “In 1971 Neruda received the Nobel Prize for Literature, which he accepted, “not as a Chilean but as a Latin American.”

For more on Pablo Neruda go to: http://www.redpoppy.net/pablo_neruda.php or click on the above title.

Neruda on Love

I Do Not Love You Except Because I Love You
by Pablo Neruda

I do not love you except because I love you;
I go from loving to not loving you,
From waiting to not waiting for you
My heart moves from cold to fire.

I love you only because it's you the one I love;
I hate you deeply, and hating you
Bend to you, and the measure of my changing love for you
Is that I do not see you but love you blindly.

Maybe January light will consume
My heart with its cruel
Ray, stealing my key to true calm.
In this part of the story I am the one who
Dies, the only one, and I will die of love because I love you,
Because I love you, Love, in fire and blood.

Neruda on Politics

The Dictators
by Pablo Neruda

An odor has remained among the sugarcane:
a mixture of blood and body, a penetrating
petal that brings nausea.
Between the coconut palms the graves are full
of ruined bones, of speechless death-rattles.
The delicate dictator is talking
with top hats, gold braid, and collars.
The tiny palace gleams like a watch
and the rapid laughs with gloves on
cross the corridors at times
and join the dead voices
and the blue mouths freshly buried.
The weeping cannot be seen, like a plant
whose seeds fall endlessly on the earth,
whose large blind leaves grow even without light.
Hatred has grown scale on scale,
blow on blow, in the ghastly water of the swamp,
with a snout full of ooze and silence

Neruda on Common Culture

Ode to My Socks
by Pablo Neruda (translated by Robert Bly)

Mara Mori brought me a pair of socks
which she knitted herself
with her sheepherder's hands,
two socks as soft as rabbits.
I slipped my feet into them
as if they were two cases
knitted with threads of twilight and goatskin,
Violent socks,
my feet were two fish made of wool,
two long sharks
sea blue, shot through
by one golden thread,
two immense blackbirds,
two cannons,
my feet were honored in this way
by these heavenly socks.
They were so handsome for the first time
my feet seemed to me unacceptable
like two decrepit firemen,
firemen unworthy of that woven fire,
of those glowing socks.

Nevertheless, I resisted the sharp temptation
to save them somewhere as schoolboys
keep fireflies,
as learned men collect
sacred texts,
I resisted the mad impulse to put them
in a golden cage and each day give them
birdseed and pieces of pink melon.
Like explorers in the jungle
who hand over the very rare green deer
to the spit and eat it with remorse,
I stretched out my feet and pulled on
the magnificent socks and then my shoes.

The moral of my ode is this:
beauty is twice beauty
and what is good is doubly good
when it is a matter of two socks
made of wool in winter.