| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:30 pm Post subject: Bush Rejects Aid to States but Will Flow Billions to Israel |
| Bush Rejects Aid to States but Will Flow Billions to Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deficit may drag economy down further
Sam Zuckerman, Chronicle Economics Writer
Sunday, January 12, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/01/12/MN74559.DTL
The economic impact of California's $34.6 billion budget deficit is going to be bad. The question is how bad.
Although the state Legislature is certain to alter Gov. Gray Davis' new plan for $21 billion in spending cuts and $8.3 billion in tax hikes, any program that emerges will unavoidably destroy jobs and hinder growth at a time when business conditions in California are already weak.
"Any way you slice it, we're in a pickle," said Dan Van Dyke, an economist with Rosen Consulting Group in Berkeley.
Economists say that over the next year or two, the drag from the state budget crisis will cancel out any benefits from President Bush's $764 billion tax cut plan.
"The federal tax relief will probably be a little smaller than the contractionary effect from California," said Steven Sheffrin, director of the Center for State and Local Taxation at UC Davis.
California is hardly alone. Virtually every state in the nation is struggling to cope with big budget deficits.
Bush rejected aid to states
The president considered, but ultimately discarded, a proposal to send billions of federal dollars directly to the states to help them fill their budget shortfalls. Many economists think Bush should have gone ahead with the plan.
"If the president is serious about having a stimulative effect, he has to take the state and local forecasts into account," said UCLA economist Tom Lieser. The California Finance Department, taking the budget crisis into consideration, projects slow job growth of 0.7 percent for the state in 2003, with unemployment rising from the current level of 6.5 percent. In 2004, California jobs should grow at a healthier 2.1 percent pace and the unemployment rate should fall, the department forecasts.
Experts don't see eye to eye on how much the state's budget woes will harm the economy.
One group of economists warns that the budget crisis is severe enough to significantly worsen the Bay Area's downturn and pull the entire state into negative territory.
"If the state closed the whole gap in one fell swoop with spending cuts, that would be very harsh and we would have a recession," Van Dyke said. "Based on a realistic look at how things will probably get done, our best guess is that we will have a slight downtrend in employment and flat growth in the state's production of goods and services."
A Sacramento official near the center of the budget debate who asked not to be identified warned that a return to recession is a real possibility. "It's easy to underestimate things," the official said. "These kinds of cuts will have a maximum effect on the economy."
Cuts to take toll on jobs
Budget cuts will hit the state's job market especially hard, because government has been one of the few sources of hiring strength in the past few years. Since 1999, state and local government employment in California has grown more than 12 percent, to 2.13 million.
"Growth in public sector employment is just about over," said Ted Gibson, former chief economist at the California Finance Department. "That's going to make the job recovery in 2003 more difficult."
Still, some economists play down the budget's effects.
They acknowledge that many individuals and businesses will be hurt by higher taxes and higher costs for health care, education and other services. But they say that in a $1.3 trillion state economy - about equal to that of France - the effects of $35 billion in budget-balancing measures spread out over 18 months will shave growth by only a few tenths of a percentage point.
"It's going to hurt, but I don't see it as a back breaker," said Michael Bazdarich, director of the Forecasting Center at UC Riverside.
For one thing, spending cuts will be a lot smaller than the $21 billion cited in the governor's budget. "The shortfalls are from projected spending levels," said Brad Williams, senior economist in the California Legislative Analyst's Office. "The actual decline in spending is about $13 billion."
What's more, the health of California's economy will hinge much more on national and global trends than on how much the state government taxes and spends. Forecasters say they will be more closely watching how consumer outlays, military expenditures and a possible recovery of business spending on technology equipment affect the state in the year ahead.
"A lot of factors will have a much more important effect on economic growth than the budget, such as the timing of a pickup in (business) spending," Williams said.
Economists are divided on whether the state should stress spending cuts or tax increases to close the budget gap.
Those who favor tax increases say that spending cuts take the most dollars out of the economy in the short run. Less money for health care and education means smaller payments to doctors and fewer jobs for teachers, all of whom in turn trim their spending, rippling through the economy.
"There is a good rule of thumb that for each dollar of spending you cut, you get another dollar of secondary effects," said Van Dyke, the Berkeley economic consultant.
By contrast, Van Dyke says, raising taxes does not take dollars out of current spending one for one. Some of the money that an individual would pay in higher taxes might have been saved or invested instead of spent, he points out.
Still, many economists argue that making California's sales and income tax rates among the nation's highest would damage the state's competitive position.
The Pennsylvania consulting firm Economy.com calculates that California is the sixth most expensive place in the nation for businesses, behind Hawaii, Washington, D.C., and three Northeastern states.
Raising taxes "is very detrimental for California in the long run," said Steven Cochrane, an economist with the firm. "It puts a speed limit on the rate of growth and makes it hard to attract business."
E-mail Sam Zuckerman at szuckerman@sfchronicle.com. | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:45 pm Post subject: Liberating America From Israel |
| Liberating America From Israel
by Paul Findley
Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any determined president-even President Bush this very day-could prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these facts before the American people:
Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to annex the West Bank-biblical Judea and Samaria - so Israel will become Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are committed, aggressive, and influential. Because of deep religious conviction, they are determined to prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West Bank.
In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing the territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.
Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths.
How did the American people get into this fix?
Nine-eleven had its principal origin 35 years ago when Israel's U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to Israel.
Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1967 when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years and to this day maintain a close watch on Congress.
For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East policy. No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel have been offered for 20 years, and none of the few offered in previous years received more than a handful of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself-were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.
As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally lop-sided in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as if it were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.
However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news media candidly cover Israel's conquest and generally excoriate America's complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as "my dear friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces, using U.S.-donated arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank last spring, worldwide anger against American policy reached the boiling point.
The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or listens to BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded 9/11, cited U.S. complicity in Israel's destruction of Palestinian society as a principal complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of government, express their opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity, especially since Bush announced his determination to make war against Iraq.
The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S. Jews who object to the lobby's tactics and Israel's brutality.
Nothing can justify 9/11. Those guilty deserve maximum punishment, but it makes sense for America to examine motivations promptly and as carefully as possible. Terrorism almost always arises from deeply-felt grievances. If they can be eradicated or eased, terrorist passions are certain to subside.
Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to redress grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the scene far worse by supporting Israel's religious war against Palestinians, an alliance that has intensified anti-American anger. He seems oblivious to the fact that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of Palestinians as today's most important foreign-policy challenge. No one in authority will admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 9/11 and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because U.S. policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.
Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in 1967. The suspension would force Sharon's compliance or lead to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House.
If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can justify the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential step in winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can cite a worthy precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation that freed only the slaves in states that were then in rebellion, he make the restriction because of "military necessity."
If Bush suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long years of bondage to Israel's misdeeds.
Mr. Paul Findley, who served as a Republican congressman from Illinois for 22 years, is the author of 'They Dare to Speak Out' and a member of the American Educational Trust's Foreign Relations Committee.
Zionism Unbound (in US Government)
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/23/zionism-unbound-in-us-government.php
The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/19/the-bush-administration-s-dual-loyalties.php
The Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/04/return-of-zionist-extremist-elliott-abrams.php | | | | Alpha | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Alpha | | | | Guest-400c | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
