| Number 364 | February 26, 2007 |
|
This Week: Numbers. And Infrastructure. And Iran.
|
|
Greetings, I said last time that this issue of the Notes would be another "Stroll Through the News," but it's only sort-of a Stroll, as the pieces are too long for that designation (as decided by me). Instead, this week the Notes is all about numbers. As in, economics reporting, and understanding the inconceivably-huge federal budget. In addition, this week I focus on two items that are, in my mind, closely connected: The crumbling infrastructure in this country, and the ongoing U.S. attempts to assert control over the so-called "Middle East." The connection? The trillions of dollars that we are not investing in taking care of business at home (infrastructure is just one aspect) and the trillions of dollars that it takes to maintain an empire. It's the old "guns vs. butter" debate, and this issue of the Notes shows, rather graphically I think, how much butter we are losing by spending so much on guns. And, in a nod to those who often ask me "Where do you get your information?" I offer a lot of links to useful—and understandable!—sources of information on the things I talk about this week. So, there you go. I know this issue is coming out on a Monday, right after I said that I would try to publish on Fridays. But I can't stick to a schedule, apparently, so here it is. Nygaard |
|
Before you read the following words by economist Dean Baker, writing on February 17th in his excellent blog on economics reporting, called "Beat the Press," here's a little definition: A "copycat drug" is a drug developed to do essentially the same thing as an already-on-the-market drug. Copycat drugs are usually developed for the purpose of horning in on the market held by a very-profitable drug that has a government-protected monopoly. That is, a patent. OK, here's Baker: "[A]ccording to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the country is projected to spend almost $240 billion on prescription drugs this year. If these drugs were sold as generics, the savings would be around $170 billion. [The pharmaceutical industry] claims that it does about $40 billion in research. According to the FDA and [the pharmaceutical industry's] own data, about two-thirds of this research goes to developing copycat drugs. This means that we pay an extra $170 billion for our drugs, in order to finance about $14 billion in research into breakthrough drugs."
|
|
The headline in the February 8th New York Times read: "Gaping Reminders of Aging and Crumbling Pipes." It was about the increasingly-frequent urban phenomenon of sinkholes. That is, big odd holes in the ground. And I mean, big enough to swallow trucks and stuff like that! The reason these things are increasingly common has to do with the part of our national infrastructure that handles water. It seems that we haven't been taking care of things too well in recent decades, with the result that, as the Times put it, "thousands of miles of century-old underground water and sewer lines are springing leaks, eroding and—in extreme cases—causing the ground above them to collapse." According to the Environmental Protection Agency, says the Times, "unless cities invest more to repair and replace their water and sewer systems, nearly half of the water system pipes in the United States will be in poor, very poor or ‘life elapsed' status by 2020." That is, while everyone obsesses about terror attacks on our water supply, or whatever, a gradual process is taking out our infrastructure in a much-less-dramatic way. An EPA official made that point explicit, saying, "You can lose that system all at once because of terrorism, but you can lose it over time by just not taking care of it." Well, we're not taking care of it, and a group mentioned by the Times—the American Society of Civil Engineers, or ASCE—has been telling us about it for years. They put out periodic "Report Cards for America's Infrastructure," and the last one that came out in March of 2005 gave the nation's infrastructure an overall grade of "D." That was down a bit from the "D-plus" grade awarded in 2001. I wrote about this, rather extensively, back in Nygaard Notes #261 (July 2, 2004), in an article called "Grading the U.S. Infrastructure: "A Discouraging D-plus Overall," and I referred to it again last April ("Infrastructure, Schminfrastructure!"). Important as they are, the water and sewer problems (and the sinkholes they cause) are only the tip of the infrastructure iceberg. Here's a rundown of all the grades from the 2005 Report Card: The grades for both DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER declined from a D in 2001 to a D-minus in 2005. "Federal funding for wastewater improvements in 2005 is less than 10 percent of the total national requirement," says the Report. The nation's NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS? Down from a D-plus in 2001 to a D-minus in 2005. Nearly 50 percent of America's locks and canals "are functionally obsolete." The nation's ROADS declined from D-plus to a D in those four years. The nation's TRANSIT SYSTEM, 2001-2005: Down from a C-minus to a D-plus. The nation's BRIDGES: No change. A "C" grade. "More than one in four bridges in the United States is deficient, and many of those must be closed to heavy vehicles like firetrucks and school buses." The nation's DAMS. No change here, either. The grade remained a D.
"It will take more than $10 billion over the next 12 years to address
all critical non-federal dams, dams which can pose a direct threat to
human life should they fail. SCHOOLS also improved slightly, from a D-minus to a D. So what is the solution to our infrastructure crisis? "We estimate it will take a total investment of $1.6 trillion dollars over five years to bring the infrastructure up to acceptable levels." That is, approximately the projected cost of the occupation of Iraq. Check out the Report Card for yourself by clicking here. |
|
Billion, Trillions, War, Peace... Understanding the Federal Budget |
|
"President" Bush released his 2008 budget on February 5th, and it always amazes me how little coverage this annual event gets. It's not like there aren't some articles about it, but there are not enough to help people understand what is going on. The news media tends to report what powerful people say. That's understandable, since that's a lot easier (and cheaper) than analyzing what they actually do. But it's important to remember that, whatever politicians say, the truth of what they are really all about is to be found in where they put the dollars. And, of course, where they do NOT put the dollars. Illuminating the values and intentions of our elected leaders is one of the best reasons for the media to seriously report on the federal budget. They don't do a very good job of it, however. Assuming that some Nygaard Notes readers are interested in more fully understanding the meaning of this fundamental expression of the values of our federal government, I here offer a few resources for learning more about the 2008 Federal Budget, as proposed by George W. Bush. (By the way, with the exception of the occasionally-cited Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, you'll search the corporate press in vain to find any of these reliable sources cited in relation to the federal budget.) First of all, you may be interested in what the White House has to say about it. The White House has a website. Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/ and scroll down to "February 5, 2007." WARNING: The factual information found there is almost completely overwhelmed by the "spin"—that is, the sales job—that makes up most of it. For example, in the document the White House calls "Fact Sheets" you will find statements like, "To keep our economy growing the tax relief should be made permanent." And, "Budget reforms...will help eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending." These are not "facts." Now, for budget analysis from the reality-based community, here are some resources I recommend (in no particular order): The National Priorities Project puts out what they call a "state-level factsheet" for every state, and they actually include FACTS! You can find out the exact size of the cuts proposed for your state in Head Start, for example, or child care, or energy assistance, or special education. You can also find out how much the occupation of Iraq is costing YOUR state. More general information for the nation as a whole is laid out here, in plain language. Go to http://www.nationalpriorities.org/budgetresponse The Federal Budget is managed by the appropriately-named Office of Management and Budget (OMB). There's a really excellent watchdog group called OMB Watch that keeps track of what they do, and tells the public about it. This group's website was one of my "Websites of the Week" back in 2001, and they're still doing a great job. Their analysis of the 2008 budget is a fine piece of work, indeed, and can be found at http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3717/ The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also analyzes the impact of the federal budget on the states, but does so in a very different way. Their overview of the budget focuses on inequality and fiscal responsibility, two of the key aspects any activist should understand and be able to talk to folks about. Find them at http://www.cbpp.org/ The Coalition on Human Needs has a good brief overview of the budget with the title "Less Help for People in Need; Needless Help for Those with High Incomes." They also have a great list of links to the budget analysis of all kinds of other social change, labor, and activist groups. Go to their website at http://www.chn.org/ If you want to focus in on the military aspects of the budget, one of the best sources for many years has been the War Resisters League. Check out the pie charts! Print them out and show them to your friends! Find them at http://www.warresisters.org/
|
|
"Defense Secretary, in Afghan Capital, Scolds Iran." That was the headline in the January 16th New York Times (All The News That's Fit To Print!). The article was filled with amazing comments by Robert Gates, the newly-confirmed (Senate confirmation vote: 95 to 2) Secretary of "Defense." For example, Gates said that Iran "'was doing nothing to be helpful" in Iraq. (!) And that Iran was "acting in a very negative way" in the Middle East. (!) These type of comments are of a piece with reports that the U.S. has been accusing Iran of "meddling" in Iraq, which have been seen often in recent weeks—with no apparent irony—in the U.S. press. But what Gates was doing in talking to the press on this day was commenting on the little-reported (in this country) buildup of U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf. MSNBC had reported on December 19th that "The U.S. Central Command is aggressively planning a naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, including the addition of a second aircraft carrier." And, in fact, the "aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and several accompanying ships" left on January 17th "to join an aircraft carrier group already in the region, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower." The Stennis is expected to arrive in the Gulf by late February. MSNBC quotes "U.S. military officials" as referring to the buildup as an example of "gunboat diplomacy," which is pure propaganda. "Diplomacy," after all, involves negotiations between people or governments, with the aim of reaching some sort of mutually-agreeable resolution of differences. What is called "gunboat diplomacy" is not like that at all. What it is, instead, is a conspicuous show of power aimed by a greater power at a weaker adversary with the intent of forcing the weaker side to follow orders. Gates himself has said that "We are not planning for a war with Iran," but too many people around the world remember the claims by the U.S. in 2002 that "we are not preparing for war with Iraq." But, war or not, the U.S. is asserting its imperial "right" quite baldly these days, which is what this little page-six article revealed quite clearly. According to the New York Times report on the remarks by the Secretary of "Defense," one of Mr. Gates's "priorities" last month was to "deliver a message to Iran." And he stated that message—one that is well-understood by all who are listening, and very ominous—in these words: "We are simply trying to communicate to the region that we are going to be there for a long time." |
