Previously: Senator Claire McCaskill (D): media conference call on plane issues

“…I’m disappointed in myself that this mistake was made. But I have done an awful lot on accountability and transparency and ultimately the reason this happened was not because of the Republicans. It was because this was a public record. And this was a public record, um, that, that the flights were taken. It’s a public record on my PFD, my personal financial disclosure, that I owned part of the plane. It’s a public record that the government paid the money. Um, and I think that, that that is why this happened. And that’s a good thing. The transparency part of this is a good thing. I am being held accountable like I should be. And so should everyone else…”

The transcript of the media question and answer portion of this afternoon’s conference call with Senator Claire McCaskill (D):

…Question: …The issue of the plane first came up in two thousand six. Um, now these, my question is, if this came up in two thousand six why did it take four years for you to I guess check out some of this stuff at least to make sure that, um, going forward things would be done right tax wise? I mean, the issue didn’t stick in two thousand six, um, who knows, I mean, but, Republicans are getting a lot of play out of it in the last few weeks this time. And apparently, you know, there is this misstep with the taxes. Uh, why was this not looked into when it first became a political issue?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  I think, honestly I’m kicking myself, but, I think because they were throwing so much on the wall at that point, um, trying to allege that a lot of things, uh, were wrong that weren’t wrong. And, frankly, in two thousand six we didn’t owe any property taxes on this plane. We didn’t but the plane until two thousand six and the taxes would not have been due until the following year…

…Question: So, now, second, uh, on the, on the other side of the ledger, uh, there has been some, uh, contention that actually you’re using your personal plane even though you did assess, I mean, did use your, uh, office account to pay for some of it that’s it’s cheaper for the public for you to do that than, um, let’s say, the way Bond was doing it. Are you gonna end up actually costing the taxpayers more by going to a different system, you sell the plane?

Senator McCaskill: Well, the first thing I’m gonna do is drive as much as possible. There are times when you’re trying to, to, um, respond to a disaster in the state, when there is, um, a limited amount of time and you’re trying to move around the state that charter flights may be necessary. Um, but, I will tell you I kept track of my charter costs every single year I’ve been in the Senate while I’ve been focusing on making sure I didn’t spend all of my office budget I also focused on those costs. And I spent less in four years on charter flights than Senator Bond spent in one year. So, clearly we were being very careful with the way we spent the taxpayer’s money. I will continue to do that. But, the plane is one of those you’re darned if you do and you’re darned if you don’t. If you save the taxpayers’ money by using your own plane you’re subject to the criticism that you’re using public dollars to pay for your private airplane. If you don’t use your airplane for public flights, uh, you’re accused of overcharging the taxpayers by not using the cheapest transportation available. So, in this instance, I think the problems surrounding this, um, frankly, are just, the, the laws here are complex on planes, there’s different laws in every state, uh, there are complex political laws and FEC laws about use of planes, so, my goal is to buy a ticket that has a boarding pass in coach as often as I possibly can and when I, when I, when I’m in Missouri, to drive as often as I possibly can, and, if that’s not an option, to use charter flights as infrequently as possible.

Question: …in, in St. Louis City we all have to pay property tax on our, our own private vehicles so I’m sure a lot of people who hear about this may be scratching their heads wondering how someone could purchase an airplane and then just not have the state find out where that airplane was going to be located and, and thus, you know, account for the proper, uh, uh, personal property tax on this issue. So, I mean, how does something like that fall through the cracks? It would seem like it should, it just happens automatically.

Senator McCaskill: Well, it’s very straightforward. Um, you must license your car or your truck or your boat with the state. You must be licensed. An airplane must be licensed with the FAA. So there is no licensing that’s required by the county, the city, or the state for an airplane. So, that, that means it’s entirely a self reporting mechanism. And, um, I don’t want to, uh, cast aspersions anywhere else, but, I’m just saying that it’s self reporting, So, if you don’t know about it or if you chose not to or any other option it, there is no bill that comes. For, like for your car, the bill comes you gotta go get it licensed. And they know that you have it and they track you down. In this the self reporting didn’t occur. We had, had hangar space in Illinois previously and there is no personal property tax in Illinois. So, I might point out that if we were trying to evade personal property taxes and we knew about it we certainly wouldn’t have moved it from Illinois to Missouri.

Question: …Uh, the, the group or the, the LLC that owns the plane, Timesaver LLC, is incorporated in willing, Wilmington, Delaware. Um, Delaware obviously has a reputation for, uh, for being good for business. Um, was, was incorporating the plane in, in Delaware and effort by you or your husband or your tax attorneys to avoid paying any personal property tax? Delaware does not have a personal property tax.

Senator McCaskill: No, because the, frankly, um, having the plane owned in Delaware would not in any way negate the necessity of paying the personal property tax in Missouri. Uh, this was a mistake. It should have been reported to Missouri, it was owed in Missouri, it will be paid in Missouri today. Delaware is used by most plane companies, I believe, and by most planes, I think aviation lawyers recommend it, because it is a very common jurisdiction for aviation law. And, it is, I think, um, I don’t know if it’s nine out of ten or eight out of ten airplanes are registered there. But, registering in Delaware did not relieve, um, uh, the plane from the obligation of paying the personal property taxes in Missouri. If it had we wouldn’t be on this phone call right now.

Question: …I, in, in terms of your decision to try and sell the plane is that because you don’t ultimately want to continue paying the sales tax and the property taxes on it or because of the publicity that this has gotten?

Senator McCaskill: It’s just been more trouble than it’s worth. It sounded really good, um, but it’s very expensive and it is, um, complicated. Every time you’ve got to figure out, okay, am I gonna do, uh, uh, official, am I gonna do personal, am I gonna do political? How much is official? How much is personal? How much is political? How do we divide it up? I think it does complicate things for the public, that we own the plane. Because on the one hand, are we enriching ourselves by using the plane? On the other hand, are we taking advantage of the fact that we own the plane. It’s just too complicated. Um, you know, frankly, um, it’s, it’s just as convenient in many ways for us to hangar the plane in Illinois. If we really wanted to hold on the plane and not pay personal property tax all anybody has to do is move the plane to Illinois. Nobody’s trying to evade taxes here. That’s why the sales tax was paid fifty five months in a row to the State of Missouri with full information about the
plane and, and, and who owned the plane. And that this was in fact a Missouri company.

Question: …I want to go back to the Truman Days stuff. You, uh, indicated that, uh, you, you found another flight, eight events, uh, the Truman Days in Kansas City and a subsequent fact finding speech the next day and you, you said it represented  eight percent. Eight percent of the eighty-eight thousand you repaid?

Senator McCaskill: Oh, no, no, no, no. On one trip, okay, on one trip where I began and did a number of locations and a number of official events. Um, I did a, a water meeting in Springfield, I did a press conference in Kansas City, I did the office opening in Columbia. Of that trip the Truman Days speech represented eight percent of my time on that trip. In other words, what I was trying to explain is under the rules that would probably be considered de minimus and you wouldn’t even have an obligation to talk about it. But, I wanted to be clear that I had looked at every single trip and other than the big mistake in Hannibal the only other one that came close to even being worthy of acknowledging that there could have been anything political on the trip was in fact that Truman Days speech which represented a very small fraction of that particular trip.

Question: And, and you mentioned a subsequent Kansas City fundraiser the next day. [crosstalk][inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Correct, I stopped by a fundraiser the next morning after I’d had a breakfast with the mayor, uh,  which was an official breakfast.

Question: …Um, obviously this all came forward whenever Republicans were, um, trying to dig up information on you. Do you feel like this has and will, uh, compromise your, your bid for reelection?

Senator McCaskill: You know, I don’t know. I know that I tried to handle this like I’ve handled everything else, as forthright as I could, as honestly as I could. Um, it is, um, I’m disappointed in myself that this mistake was made. But I have done an awful lot on accountability and transparency and ultimately the reason this happened was not because of the Republicans. It was because this was a public record. And this was a public record, um, that, that the flights were taken. It’s a public record on my PFD, my personal financial disclosure, that I owned part of the plane. It’s a public record that the government paid the money. Um, and I think that, that that is why this happened. And that’s a good thing. The transparency part of this is a good thing. I am being held accountable like I should be. And so should everyone else. We should have the same transparency for foreign travel, um, that’s paid for with taxpayer dollars. So, uh, the people of Missouri will make up their mind on this. I have a feeling the Republicans will try to, many, many times over the next eighteen months, try to make this about, um, the fact that my husband has been very successful in business and has lots of different corporations and lots of different companies. And I’m sure they’ll try to make, uh, there to be another, uh, something else. Um, but in this instance, in all fairness to the Republicans, I made this mistake. And I’m being accountable for the mistake. And I am very happy that I’ve convinced my husband to sell the plane.

Question: …Um, one of the things Republicans are talking about is they’re talk about your two, two thousand seven personal financial disclosure that shows income for Timesaver. And they’re saying, and raising questions about that. Can you talk about that a little bit?

Senator McCaskill: Well, um, the, first of all, the word income, uh, does not mean profit. Um, it’s an imprecise term. Do they mean revenue? Do they mean income? Or do they mean profit? And those are not necessarily interchangeable terms. Um, the, the depreciation was not figured in that figure and I can assure you, I can assure you that this plane has not been a profitable endeavor. It, all you have to do is look at the value of the plane and the number of flights that were reimbursed by public dollars and I think anyone, um, that has basic rudimentary math skills would understand this certainly was not a profitable adventure by virtue of the less than twenty thousand dollars a year on average that the government paid, uh, for chartering the plane when I was on a limited number of official business trips.

Question: Can I just follow up with another question? Um, related to the previous question about, you know, the campaign next year. You’ve, in the Senate, you’ve built your reputation over the past, over your first term as someone who looks, a critic, uh, of efforts, government secrecy and excessive spending in contracts and bad contracting. Do you think this is gonna create an, a problem for you in that regard?

Senator McCaskill: Well, um, yeah. [laughter] Um, I, sure, I mean this, this is not good. Um, I am, I am, uh, this is, obviously, I’ve been sick to my stomach for four days that this happened. And I can’t, I’m gonna, you know, I really do feel like a lot of people are gonna feel. How in the world, you know, they got this big, you got this big business and there is, they’re, they’re, they’re wealthy and how did they not self report this airplane? And, um, somebody made a mistake and I made a mistake by not checking to make sure that somebody hadn’t made a mistake. The sales tax was done perfectly. Uh, every month according to the law. And I am glad of that because I think it does show the public that nobody was trying to hide the airplane.

Staff: Last question.

Question: …You mention that the plane was moved from Illinois to, um, to St. Louis County and, and I think there’s actually two planes here, one that was, the plane that was originally reported by Politico last week and I guess there’s a new plane since then. Can you tell me, you know, if in fact there was more than one plane and also, I guess, it sounds like you moved it from downtown St. Louis airport to Sprit of St. Louis.

Senator McCaskill: I moved from down, first of all, I didn’t move this plane. Um, we had hangar space in Illinois for a previous airplane.

Question: Okay.

Senator McCaskill: And, and. Um, the previous airplane, I used to work downtown in, when I was the Auditor. And it was more convenient, um, for, uh, to use the Illinois, uh, hangar. Um, when I was no longer working downtown as frequently and knew I wasn’t gonna be working there on a permanent basis anymore ’cause I was either not gonna be Auditor anymore or I was gonna be a United States Senator , uh, the decision was made to move, uh, the, the then the Pilates airplane which is the one that, uh, we’ve, that we’re talking about today, the decision was made to hangar it in St. Louis. So, um, that, there was no personal property tax in Illinois and obviously, um, I’m not, I don’t know if that’s the reason why this mistake was made or not.  But, if there was going to be an aggressive attempt to evade taxes it seems to me that, um, it would have been pretty simple for us to keep the plane in Illinois where this tax is not even owed. And by the way it’s not owed in Kansas either.  

Question: And, and so the new plane, um, was moved, if, if the old plane was at downtown St. Louis and the new one was, was hangared at, uh, Spirit of St. Louis?

Senator McCaskill: Correct.

Question: And when did you buy that new plane?

Senator McCaskill: Oh, I want to say, I, I don’t have the record sitting here in front of me, but I want to say it was June of oh-six.  Uh.

Staff: [crosstalk][inaudible] It was July of Oh-six.

Senator McCaskill: July of oh-six.

Question: July of oh-six. Okay.

Staff: Thanks everyone for joining today…

Senator McCaskill: Thank you, guys.

“….I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane…I can tell you I will not be setting foot on the plane ever again….”

This afternoon we received a notification that Senator Claire McCaskill (D) would be holding a media conference call on the issues surrounding the use of her plane. The transcript of Senator McCaskill’s opening remarks follows:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Thanks everybody. I know that you all are aware that, uh, several days ago, uh, ten days ago, maybe more, it became, um, I became aware that the perception of me chartering a flight that I had an ownership interest in had the appearance of impropriety in terms of using public funds. I, as you know, we refunded that money immediately to the government and then we discovered, um, because of the public records that are available, that there was one flight that was taken for purely political purposes. Clearly the money had already been paid back, but I acknowledged at the time that there was, this was a big mistake and indicated, um, that I apologized for it and acknowledged the mistake. At that point in time then I realized that that kind of mistake had been made, uh, the former auditor in me wanted to take a really close look at everything surrounding this plane. So I began a thorough review of the plane and all of the flights that have been taken and all of the documentation surrounding the plane. And this is, these are some of the things that I found as a result of this review…

…First, as to political use, I wanted to closely examine every flight that was paid for with public money to determine if there had been any other errors where there had been money paid from the public coffers for any political activity. I examined all eighty-nine of those flights. And other than the flight that we have previously acknowledged was a mistake we are unable to find any other political activity on any of those flights, with one slight exception. There was one flight that involved eight different official events and I realize that in the middle of those official events I went by Truman Days in Kansas City, uh, and gave a speech, and that the following morning I stopped by a fundraiser in Kansas City. We believe that that represented about eight percent of that trip, uh, and frankly, um, that eight percent, even though I believe under the rules that’s, that’s considered de minimus, uh, obviously initially that should have been caught.

All of the money has been repaid to the public funds and we will be releasing for you, uh, all of the purposes of those trips and the official events that took place because I think it’s very important that since I initially used public money that the public have a right to inspect those.

I then, um, looked at some of the, uh, other political issues surrounding flights that the government did not pay for. We are trying to turn over every stone in regards to its use and how it was billed. This includes having campaign lawyers look at all of our flights to make sure that I have given all the inkind contributions that are necessary when the plane was used for political purpose and it wasn’t reimbursed by the campaign. There were many instances where the plane was reimbursed by the campaign. There are some instances where it was not and we are determining if in kind contributions from me do need to be filed or any other amendments would need to be filed in that regard.

I then turn to taxes. And, I first looked at sales tax knowing that these flights were, uh, money was being paid for these flights to the, the company that owns the plane regardless of whether I was flying on the plane personally or in official capacity or politically. But first I wanted to look at the sales tax records. I examined the sales tax records, wanted to make sure that they had been paid, in fact, I found that every month for fifty-five months the sales tax has been paid to the state, uh, to account for the state sales tax as well as the county sales tax. That total amount that has been paid in on sales tax is thirty-eight thousand eight hundred dollars. And we will provide you today all the copies of the sales tax remittance that accounts for every month that the sales tax was paid.

Finally, I have discovered that even though we have paid the taxes to the state for sales tax, obviously showing no attempt to hide the plane, I have discovered that the property taxes, the personal property taxes on the plane have not been paid. I have learned that Missouri is one of a minority of states that require personal property taxes be paid on airplanes that are hangared in the state and that those taxes are due to the county. There should have been a reporting to the county of the existence of this airplane since it has been hangared in St. Louis County. Because it was never declared to the county there was never a bill sent and there was never a bill paid.

There are people I could blame for this. But, I know better. As an auditor I know that I should have checked for myself. I take full responsibility for the mistake. I should have checked the documentation. I should have been asking the questions. I shouldn’t have assumed that someone was doing it.

According to the estimates that I am able to calculate by publicly available information the taxes that are owed are as follows:  for two thousand and seven, seventy-two thousand seven hundred and eighty nine dollars and seventy-four cents; for two thousand and eight, seventy-four thousand six hundred and ninety-eight dollars and fifty three cents; for two thousand and nine, sixty-nine thousand three hundred and ninety-four dollars and thirteen cents; in two thousand and ten, seventy thousand four hundred and one dollars and one cent. There will clearly be additional interest and late fees will be charged on those taxes. There is also a possibility that some of those years the taxes will be less because there is an entitled, in Missouri law, it, that you can allocate the miles from, flown in state and out of state, we may be able to allocate miles for the last year of those years. And I’d be happy to answer more questions about that, um, but to be on the safe side we are going to send in checks today to the St. Louis County Director of Revenue in the amounts that I just specified. And if in fact we have overpaid, um, that [garbled] be fine. Uh, if, and, and, those taxes can be applied to the taxes we’ll owe at the end of this year. If in fact, um, uh, we, we, uh, and obviously we have to calculate, and we’ll even try to calculate before we’re told what the interest and penalties are. Uh, typically this is a three step process. You send in the report to the assessor, the assessor then has you fill out documentation to go to the state tax commission, the state tax commission makes an estimate and it is sent back. In this instance I thought it was more important, since I discovered this literally, um, just a matter of a few days ago that we go as quickly as possible and try to acknowledge the mistake up front and get the money in as quickly as possible that has been owed.

I want to reiterate, um, that there is no attempt to evade the plane because the State of Missouri, um, Sunset Cove, has filed remittances every single month on sales tax. It, it, this is just a mistake which, as I said, I take responsibility for.

Let me finally say, I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane. He has hired a broker and I can tell you I will not be setting foot on the plane ever again. Uh, I know what people are gonna think about this ’cause I know exactly what I would think. How in the world does something like this happen? Ultimately, the problem is, I didn’t do what I should have done. I should have been the one to take responsibility and check and make sure that it had been done properly. And, and that it was handled with the appropriate documentation. Uh, and I am being very open about my failure to do that, um, and hope that the fact that we have done this review and determined, um, that these taxes wer
e not paid, while some were paid that were supposed to be paid, there were others that were not paid. And with that, I’ll be happy to answer your questions…

The transcript(s) of media questions and Senator McCaskill’s answers will follow in subsequent post(s).

Social Security and Medicare both enjoy overwhelming support from Americans. Both programs are under attack from the radical Republicans who now control the GOP. Usually it’s a stealth attack, under pretense of reforming and making the programs better. But, emboldened by Tea Party rhetoric perhaps, poor old Todd Akin (R-2) just can’t keep his anti-Social Security animus to himself. As Think Progress reports (see video there), Akin let it all out on CSPAN’s Washington Journal last Sunday:

Now, Social Security through the years, for many many people, has been a terrible investment. It’s really a tax, that’s all it is. Social Security is a tax. The government has taken the tax. There’s been more money coming in than going out. And we spend it. That’s not been responsible. I don’t like it. I didn’t design Social Security. It actually came from Bismarck, FDR put it in place.

A terrible investment? Think Progress answers:

It has dramatically reduced elderly poverty – nearly half of seniors today would be in poverty without it – and it is the nation’s most effective tool at alleviating poverty among people with disabilities. It does all this while spending less than a penny per dollar on administrative costs. And despite conservatives’ fear mongering, Social Security is not going bankrupt any time soon.

You’ve got to give it to Akin – he really, really wants to stand up and take credit for going after Social Security. Multi-millionaire Rep. Billy Long (R-7), on the other hand, after filling out a questionnaire saying that he wanted to “dismantle” Social Security, refused to take credit for the statement – I’m guessing that he wisely decided that wide dissemination of such views might hurt his election chances.

Senator Roy Blunt is another example of GOP two-facedness. After speaking out against Social Security and Medicare in the past, he had the chutzpah to claim during his campaign that the Democrats would cut Medicare benefits.  Of course, now that Republicans like Paul Ryan are proposing dismantling those programs under the banner of reform, he is discretely silent.

I can only wonder when the poor citizens of Missouri will finally figure out what these radical Republicans, abetted by the Tea Party dupes, stand for. Benefits, like Social Security and Medicare help all of us, not just the brown-skinned “welfare-queens” who live only in rightwing mythology. One thing is sure, if we want to live in a world of haves and have-nots, Akin, Blunt and Long have the road-map that will show us the way.

Taylor Mali on what teachers make:

….Let me break it down for you. Let me break it down for you so you know what I say is true. I make a goddamn difference, now what about you?

Thank a teacher.

I’d like to unpack a little American zeitgeist for you on the Afghan war.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 64% of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan has not been worth fighting; and an even more overwhelming 73% want a “substantial number of U.S. combat forces” to withdraw this summer.

To get a sense of the demographics of this vox populi, this same group of folks when asked about the Tea Party, replied 36% favorable, 48% unfavorable, with 16% having no opinion-seemingly, an accurate cross-section of the U.S. populace.

U.S. General David Petraeus reported on Tuesday and Wednesday to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, withdrawal of “some combat forces” may be included in a future set of policy recommendations for President Obama.

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, stated that the proposed drawdown of U.S. and coalition troops, between now and 2014, “…in no way signals our abandonment of Afghanistan. President Obama and President Karzai have agreed that the United States and Afghanistan will have an enduring strategic partnership beyond 2014, and we are currently working with the Afghans on the details of that partnership.”

The problem with our near decade long war in Afghanistan is that the strategy is not based on any lessons learned from history, cannot be sustained due to America’s economic over-extension, and does not have clearly defined, nor tenable goals for success. With recent developments in the Middle East, our boots-on-the-ground traditional military deployment in Afghanistan, to fight a decentralized, asymmetrical foe (al-Qaeda), puts America squarely on the wrong side of history.

Eight years of bungling

Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald’s book, “Crossing Zero”, aptly describes the feckless first eight years of the Afghan war,

“…the rapacious and incompetent mishandling of the country’s reconstruction monies, the confused misapplication of counterinsurgency/counterterrorism doctrine, and a telltale weakness for ignoring Pakistan’s open support for the Taliban, spelled disaster. After eight years and billions spent, the Bush administration’s efforts by 2009 had amounted to the virtual collapse of governance in much of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the spread of religious violence throughout the region, and the ascent of a narco-funded criminal enterprise global in scope. This is the legacy that has become President Obama’s war.”

Wasted lives and treasure

With America’s deficit for 2011 at $1,500,000,000,000-and our national debt at $14 trillion-the gargantuan annual expense of our military and wars is now threatening to implode our fiscal house. We simply have to find other, more creative and innovative ways to ensure our national security; the Cold War strategic pursuit of supporting strongman thugs, dynastic monarchs, mafia-esque dictators, is not sustainable, nor consistent with the democratic values that we demand for ourselves.  

In his New York Times column, Tom Friedman recently shared the absurdity of continuing to invest in a bad thing,

“When one looks across the Arab world today at the stunning spontaneous democracy uprisings, it is impossible to not ask: What are we doing spending $110 billion this year supporting corrupt and unpopular regimes in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are almost identical to the governments we’re applauding the Arab people for overthrowing?…Last October, Transparency International rated the regime of President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan as the second most corrupt in the world after Somalia’s.”

House vote on Afghan pullout

Following on the heels of Gen. Petraeus’ report, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) took to the floor of the U.S. House on Thursday to debate the Afghan war after sponsoring a bill for an immediate pullout. Kucinich warned against the war being open-ended, with no end in sight. He predicted our presence in Afghanistan will continue until 2020 at a cost of at least another trillion dollars. With America’s skyrocketing deficits and debt, something, somewhere has to give.

Kucinich then fired off a series of rhetorical questions,

“Where are we going to get that money? Are we going to cut Social Security for that? Are we going to cut health care and funds for education? Where are we going to get this money? Are we ready to give up our entire domestic agenda so that we can continue on the path of a war to prop up a corrupt regime whose friends are building villas in Dubai, presumably with money that comes through the United States that’s shipped out in planes out of the Kabul Airport? We have to start standing up for America here.”

A different, globally interdependent approach to national security

“We have to start working with the international community on matters of security-and if we need to continue to track down anyone associated with mass violence against the people of our country or any other country, that should be matter of an international police action. And we must stop the policies of interventionism. We must stop the reach for empire; it is destroying our nation… We have to challenge the underlying premise about war being inevitable, because as soon as people start beating the drums of war, there’s an entire marching band and “Chowder Society” at the Pentagon and their people in the contracting business who are ready to make a case for war at any time-and at any place.” –Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH.)

In support of shutting down the war, Republican Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) made a passionate plea,

“We cannot be a nation that occupies the rest of the world… our foreign policy bureaucracy… set in place a government structure totally inconsistent with the village and tribal culture of the Afghan people… Our troops are there to force the Afghan people to accept an overly centralized and corrupt system put in place by the State Department bureaucracy-I’m sorry, it won’t work. Any attempt to subjugate these people and force them to acquiesce to our vision of Afghanistan will fail… If we’re honest with ourselves, we know (this) tactic won’t succeed. To keep our troops there any longer is sinful! It’s a disservice to our country, but also to those young men who are willing to give their legs and their lives for us.”

Graveyard of Empires

Afghanistan is commonly referred to as the “Graveyard of Empires“, notably because of defeats and hasty retreats made by the British in the mid-19th century and Soviet Union in the 1980s, precipitating its dissolution.

In Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald’s book, “Crossing Zero”, a dire depiction of a waning U.S. empire is made. As a lone super-power, what if we faced the Truman doctrine of containment-except directed at us-restraining American power instead of protecting it?

Nathan Freier of the Army’s Strategic Studies Institute writes: Imagine, “a new era of containment with the United States as the nation to be contained,” where the principle tools and methods of war involve everything but those associated with traditional military conflict. Imagine that the sources of this “new era of containment” are widespread; predicated on non-military forms of political, econom
ic, and violent action; in the main, sustainable over time; and finally, largely invulnerable to effective reversal through traditional U.S. advantages.

This potential eventuality gives one pause to ask, “Will the American people ever wake up and see what’s really happening, or is it too late to turn things around?”

Diversity of America is key

Back in World War II, when the Allies were attempting to defend against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the total war doctrine leveraged all means of production towards the war effort; Detroit made ships, tanks, planes. FDR called our industrial infrastructure, “the arsenal of democracy.”

The arsenal of democracy has now changed. It is no longer the 20th century accoutrements of power: bullets, bombs, planes, tanks-no, the newest tools of democracy are social networking tools of people reaching out to people with their hopes, aspirations, dreams. This new arsenal is notional and abstract; formerly theoretical and academic-now, a very real catalyst lifting people to higher ground, overturning oppressive regimes, engendering what soon will become a “global vox populi.”  

As we examine the merits and faults of Afghan war debate and the business of American empire, let’s make sure not to get stuck in the rut of obsolete thinking, bogged down in the past. We must begin to embrace a new America connected and collaborating with the world’s nations, not by the end of an M-16 assault rifle, but rather through an RSS feed and tweet. This means shifting our funding priorities towards engagement.

Many of America’s detractors rightfully fear a singular super-power wielding a runaway and corporate-sponsored military. But beyond traditional power, to the world, America also represents the transformative power of innovation and technology now connecting the world’s people in ways never seen before. This is the diverse face of our nation, on one hand, we have supported a plethora of anti-democratic revolutions throughout the last century, on the other, we invented solar panels and made personal computing ubiquitous.

The Afghan war debate is really a debate about American empire and our role as global military hegemon. It’s a role we can no longer afford, and frankly, its fruits largely go to a global elite drawing the most from our world’s economic well-not to the people being maimed and dying in Helmand Province, nor the vast majority of our citizens, everyday middle-class Americans.

More time for war

Historically, America has been a warlike nation-and our war making is evolving into a permanent occupation.

George Friedman’s “The Next 100 Years” explains:

“The United States has been at war for about 10 percent of its existence. This statistic includes only major wars-the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, Vietnam. It does not include minor conflicts like the Spanish-American War or Desert Storm. During the twentieth century, the United States was at war 15 percent of the time. In the second half of the twentieth century, it was at war 22 percent of the time. And since the beginning of the twenty-first century, in 2001, the United States has been constantly at war.”

Warfare has also become increasingly more violent for innocents-the meme about smart bombs and smart warfare only targeting bad guys, is a bad guise for an increasingly more terroristic enterprise:

“Civilian fatalities in wartime climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century, to 15 per cent during World War I, to 65 per cent by the end of World War II, to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s.”  ~ Patterns in conflict: civilians are now the target (UNICEF)

How do we as a national family deal with increasing military budgets and debt, heightened violence against innocents, and escalating force commitments with no end in sight?

These are soul searching questions that dig deep down into who and what we are as a people. As history marches on, avoiding these difficult issues will no longer be an option. Sure, it might be easier to pretend we’re still in the springtime of America, summer soldiers, sunshine patriots and all. But as Gould and Fitzgerald say in Crossing Zero, “the United States has crossed a threshold where its capacity for violence undermines its own standards of justice and individual rights without which the violence has no meaning. In other words, the United States has come to a turning point at which the purpose of the force it has created has become its own undoing.”

A dark realpolitik drives the mission

George Friedman, founder and CEO of the think-tank STRATFOR, reveals what really goes down in the minds of strategists creating American foreign policy-that our true intentions in Afghanistan are not nation-building, nor bringing democracy to an oppressed people, but an effort to destabilize, preventing emergent geo-political competitors.

Friedman refers to this as part of our national “grand strategy”:

“The goal of these interventions (Iraq / Afghanistan) was never to achieve something-whatever the political rhetoric might have said-but to prevent something. The United States wanted to prevent stability in areas where another power might emerge. Its goal was not to stabilize, but to destabilize. And that explains how the United States responded to the Islamic earthquake (9/11)-it wanted to prevent a large, powerful Islamic state from emerging. Rhetoric aside, the United States has no overriding interest in peace in Eurasia. The United States also has no interest in winning a war outright. As with Vietnam, Korea, the purpose of these conflicts is to simply block a power or destabilize a region, not to impose order.”

I submit to you, that this kind of thinking, however grounded in the wreckage of the past, is a kind of thinking that will destabilize our ability to lead in the world, and it will topple our nation in the future. If our soldiers only knew they were being used as tools, as a kind of cannon fodder-it’s time for America to awaken out of her media trance and face the music of our being led down a very self-destructive path.

Big picture?

All empires die. They come and go. History shows us this, Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, now we have “Pax Americana”.  If we in America don’t want to follow history’s inevitable prescription, we must demand our leaders make a new way. Given the track record, it would seem the only true and lasting empire would be one made of the common heritage shared by all humankind, the empire of our global family. A family not merely made of one species of life-but rather all species of earth life-the only true empire worth propagating is a government of life and for all life. To me, this would be a new and transcendent “arsenal of democracy” worth going into debt over by borrowing from China to help build.

I will be moderating a Great Minds event with authors Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald, “Crossing Zero: The Afpak War at the Turning Point of American Empire” on April 5th, 2011 in Beverly Hills, CA. If you would like to attend, please RSVP to proctor@artnet.net (310) 858-6643. -BWD  

Offered without further comment:

Ambassador Londo Mollari: Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts.

Marching on the Plaza, Kansas City, March 20, 2003.

March 20, 2003

[We] left Warrensburg at 4:30 p.m. and made it to the J.C. Nichols fountain at 47th and Main in Kansas City by 5:30 p.m. The organizers had planned for some time to have a 6:00 p.m. protest on the Plaza if hostilities broke out. I had been ambivalent about attending given the ugly rhetoric which is now being directed at those who dissent by the purveyors of right wing talk radio, cable television, and “yellow journalism”.  We had to do something positive and affirming rather than sit at home watching the crap on television which passes for real journalism these days, so we were finally resolved to attend.  As we drove up to the fountain we saw that people were already on the picket line and the TV trucks and cameras were in abundance.  At its peak we had 400 to 500 people.

It was overcast, cold and windy – temperature in the 40s.  We took our place on the line. We had decided earlier to only bring our pacifist signs. “Peace on Earth”, “In the Name of God, Stop Killing, In the Name of God”, and my graphic peace sign – it’s getting tattered from so much use…

Somewhat subdued, we quietly spoke on the line.  My favorite new sign: “War is so 20th century”. The response from passing traffic was overwhelmingly positive – a lot of honking and peace signs.  One well pickled Republican matron rolled down her car window and asked, “Don’t you people know the war has already started?”  This kind of cluelessness shouldn’t surprise me anymore.  There were occasional pro-war shouts and one “bird”, though I was surprised that they were not as ugly and aggressive as they were last Sunday – I suppose they’re sated because they are getting their crappy little war.

We stood next to a veteran (there were many there tonight).  We were joined by an old friend and several colleagues.  After a while the organizers called us to the fountain.  Some folk singers sang a witty and satirical “12 days of war” song.  We had brought candles (and plastic cups as wind shields), so we lit them and stood listening to the music.  The singers had us all join in singing “Peace, Shalom, Salaam”.  There were several speakers.  In the most peaceful moment of the day for me, as we stood there with our candles, we were barely aware that a photographer from the Kansas City Star took our pictures (when he finished he asked for our names and where we were from, writing the information down).  After the announcements were finished, the host marched through the Plaza shopping district.

The marchers stayed on the sidewalk, chanting in a call and response “Tell me what democracy looks like. This is what democracy looks like” and “What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!”  As we marched into the Plaza we passed the glassed in front of one of those upscale dining establishments.  Lo and behold, two older women were standing watching us and flashed us peace signs!  We looped back around and passed several clothing establishments.  Some people shopping in the stores or watching us from the doorways flashed peace signs.

After we made it back to the fountain we walked to our car for the hour long drive home.

Has anything changed?

Governor Jay Nixon (D) appointed the apportionment commissions which will determine the map for both houses in the General Assembly.

March 18, 2011

Gov. Nixon appoints bi-partisan apportionment commissions to set new boundaries for state House, Senate districts

JEFFERSON CITY – Gov. Jay Nixon today appointed the members of the bi-partisan apportionment commissions that will set new boundaries for the 34 districts in the Missouri Senate and the 163 districts in the Missouri House of Representatives. The Missouri Constitution requires the Governor to appoint the two commissions to reapportion the state’s legislative districts following the national census that occurs every 10 years.

The state committees of the two major political parties each submitted 10 names to Gov. Nixon to consider for appointment to the Senate apportionment commission. From those lists, the Governor selected five members from each of the lists for the commission, for a total of 10 members.

The congressional district committees from the two parties in each of Missouri’s nine congressional districts each submitted two nominees for appointment to the House apportionment commission. The Governor selected one member from each of the committees’ lists, for a total of 18 members.

The Senate apportionment commission members, along with their hometown and political affiliations are:

   * John Borbonus (D – St. Louis)

   * Doug Harpool (D – Springfield)

   * John Maupin (R – St. Louis)

   * Jeff Mazur (D – Ashland)

   * Joe Passanise (R – Springfield)

   * Terry Riley (D – Kansas City)

   * Miles Ross (R – Springfield)

   * Bob Saunders (D – Liberty)

   * Kathy Swan (R – Cape Girardeau)

   * Yancy Williams (R – Columbia)

The House apportionment commission members, along with their congressional district, hometown and political affiliation are:

   * Marlene E. Davis (D – First Congressional District, St. Louis)

   * Thomas Wilsdon (R – First Congressional District, St. Louis)

   * Cheryl Hibbeler (D – Second Congressional District, O’Fallon)

   * Ann Wagner (R – Second Congressional District, Ballwin)

   * David Courtway (R – Third Congressional District, Festus)

   * Jo Ann Karll (D – Third Congressional District, High Ridge)

   * Violet Corbett (R – Fourth Congressional District, Knob Noster)

   * Paula Willmarth (D – Fourth Congressional District, Jefferson City)

   * Chuck Caisley (R – Fifth Congressional District, Kansas City)

   * W. Mitchell Elliott (D – Fifth Congressional District, Kansas City)

   * Trent Skaggs (D – Sixth Congressional District, North Kansas City)

   * James C. Thomas III (R – Sixth Congressional District, Kansas City)

   * Nick Myers (R – Seventh Congressional District, Joplin)

   * Todd Patterson (D – Seventh Congressional District, Joplin)

   * Eddy Justice (R – Eighth Congressional District, Poplar Bluff)

   * Nate Kennedy (D – Eighth Congressional District, Poplar Bluff)

   * Joe Maxwell (D – Ninth Congressional District, Mexico)

   * Cindy O’Laughlin (R – Ninth Congressional District, Shelbina)

Under the Missouri Constitution, the commissions will hold their first meetings in Jefferson City on April 5, 2011.

I would have appointed RBH.

The relevant sections in the Missouri Constitution:

Article III

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 2

Election of representatives–apportionment commission, appointment, duties, compensation.

Section 2. The house of representatives shall consist of one hundred sixty-three members elected at each general election and apportioned in the following manner: Within sixty days after the population of this state is reported to the President for each decennial census of the United States and, in the event that a reapportionment has been invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, within sixty days after notification by the governor that such a ruling has been made, the congressional district committee of each of the two parties casting the highest vote for governor at the last preceding election shall meet and the members of the committee shall nominate, by a majority vote of the members of the committee present, provided that a majority of the elected members is present, two members of their party, residents in that district, as nominees for reapportionment commissioners. Neither party shall select more than one nominee from any one state legislative district. The congressional committees shall each submit to the governor their list of elected nominees. Within thirty days the governor shall appoint a commission consisting of one name from each list to reapportion the state into one hundred and sixty-three representative districts and to establish the numbers and boundaries of said districts.

If any of the congressional committees fails to submit a list within such time the governor shall appoint a member of his own choice from that district and from the political party of the committee failing to make the appointment.

Members of the commission shall be disqualified from holding office as members of the general assembly for four years following the date of the filing by the commission of its final statement of apportionment.

For the purposes of this article, the term congressional district committee or congressional district refers to the congressional district committee or the congressional district from which a congressman was last elected, or, in the event members of congress from this state have been elected at large, the term congressional district committee refers to those persons who last served as the congressional district committee for those districts from which congressmen were last elected, and the term congressional district refers to those districts from which congressmen were last elected. Any action pursuant to this section by the congressional district committee shall take place only at duly called meetings, shall be recorded in their official minutes and only members present in person shall be permitted to vote.

The commissioners so selected shall on the fifteenth day, excluding Sundays and holidays, after all members have been selected, meet in the capitol building and proceed to organize by electing from their number a chairman, vice chairman and secretary and shall adopt an agenda establishing at least three hearing dates on which hearings open to the public shall be held. A copy of the agenda shall be filed with the clerk of the house of representatives within twenty-four hours after its adoption. Executive meetings may be scheduled and held as often as the commission deems advisable.

The commission shall reapportion the representatives by dividing the population of the state by the number one hundred sixty-three and shall establish each district so that the population of that district shall, as nearly as possible, equal that figure.

Each district shall be composed of contiguous territory as compact as may be.

Not later than five months after the appointment of the commission, the commission shall file with the secretary of state a tentative plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts and during the ensuing fifteen days shall hold such public hearings as may be necessary to hear objections or testimony of interested persons.

Not later than six months after the appointment of
the commission, the commission shall file with the secretary of state a final statement of the numbers and the boundaries of the districts together with a map of the districts, and no statement shall be valid unless approved by at least seven-tenths of the members.

After the statement is filed members of the house of representatives shall be elected according to such districts until a reapportionment is made as herein provided, except that if the statement is not filed within six months of the time fixed for the appointment of the commission, it shall stand discharged and the house of representatives shall be apportioned by a commission of six members appointed from among the judges of the appellate courts of the state of Missouri by the state supreme court, a majority of whom shall sign and file its apportionment plan and map with the secretary of state within ninety days of the date of the discharge of the apportionment commission. Thereafter members of the house of representatives shall be elected according to such districts until a reapportionment is made as herein provided.

Each member of the commission shall receive as compensation fifteen dollars a day for each day the commission is in session but not more than one thousand dollars, and, in addition, shall be reimbursed for his actual and necessary expenses incurred while serving as a member of the commission.

No reapportionment shall be subject to the referendum.

And for the Senate:

>Article III

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 7

Senatorial apportionment commission–number, appointment, duties, compensation.

Section 7. Within sixty days after the population of this state is reported to the President for each decennial census of the United States, and within sixty days after notification by the governor that a reapportionment has been invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the state committee of each of the two political parties casting the highest vote for governor at the last preceding election shall, at a committee meeting duly called, select by a vote of the individual committee members, and thereafter submit to the governor a list of ten persons, and within thirty days thereafter the governor shall appoint a commission of ten members, five from each list, to reapportion the thirty-four senatorial districts and to establish the numbers and boundaries of said districts.

If either of the party committees fails to submit a list within such time the governor shall appoint five members of his own choice from the party of the committee so failing to act.

Members of the commission shall be disqualified from holding office as members of the general assembly for four years following the date of the filing by the commission of its final statement of apportionment.

The commissioners so selected shall on the fifteenth day, excluding Sundays and holidays, after all members have been selected, meet in the capitol building and proceed to organize by electing from their number a chairman, vice chairman and secretary and shall adopt an agenda establishing at least three hearing dates on which hearings open to the public shall be held. A copy of the agenda shall be filed with the secretary of the senate within twenty-four hours after its adoption. Executive meetings may be scheduled and held as often as the commission deems advisable.

The commission shall reapportion the senatorial districts by dividing the population of the state by the number thirty-four and shall establish each district so that the population of that district shall, as nearly as possible, equal that figure; no county lines shall be crossed except when necessary to add sufficient population to a multi-district county or city to complete only one district which lies partly within such multi-district county or city so as to be as nearly equal as practicable in population. Any county with a population in excess of the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by the number thirty-four is hereby declared to be a multi-district county.

Not later than five months after the appointment of the commission, the commission shall file with the secretary of state a tentative plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts and during the ensuing fifteen days shall hold such public hearings as may be necessary to hear objections or testimony of interested persons.

Not later than six months after the appointment of the commission, the commission shall file with the secretary of state a final statement of the numbers and the boundaries of the districts together with a map of the districts, and no statement shall be valid unless approved by at least seven members.

After the statement is filed senators shall be elected according to such districts until a reapportionment is made as herein provided, except that if the statement is not filed within six months of the time fixed for the appointment of the commission, it shall stand discharged and the senate shall be apportioned by a commission of six members appointed from among the judges of the appellate courts of the state of Missouri by the state supreme court, a majority of whom shall sign and file its apportionment plan and map with the secretary of state within ninety days of the date of the discharge of the apportionment commission. Thereafter senators shall be elected according to such districts until a reapportionment is made as herein provided.

Each member of the commission shall receive as compensation fifteen dollars a day for each day the commission is in session, but not more than one thousand dollars, and, in addition, shall be reimbursed for his actual and necessary expenses incurred while serving as a member of the commission.

No reapportionment shall be subject to the referendum.

You think the courts are gonna have to sort this one out? Anyone? Anyone?

The question remains, who’s bankrolling the bankrollers?

Previously:

Campaign Finance: Who is bankrolling the bankrollers? (March 10, 2011)

Campaign Finance: your Friday big bucks contribution dump (March 4, 2011)

Campaign Finance: opponents of the earnings tax in Kansas City get a lot of help (February 26, 2011)

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091269 FREEDOM PAC 3/18/2011

American Democracy Alliance

1100 Main Street Suite 2600

Kansas City, MO 64105

3/17/2011

$100,000.00

[emphasis added]

At this rate billionaires are gonna become millionaires really soon.

And they complain about the earnings tax in Kansas City and St. Louis?

Previously: Who’s running for governor? (March 2, 2011)

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091145 03/17/2011 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER F Joe Delong III 1113 Vineyard Square Jefferson City MO 65101 DeLong’s Owner 3/17/2011 $2,500.00

C091145 03/17/2011 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER Robert Butler 11500 Olive Blvd Ste 106 St Louis MO 63141 Roman Butler Fullington & Co 3/17/2011 $5,000.00

C091145 03/17/2011 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER Melvyn Estrin 7200 Wisconsin Ave. Ste 600 Bethesda MD 20814 Estrin International Executive 3/17/2011 $2,500.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Plumbers & Pipefitters #562 Voluntary Political Fund 12385 Larimore Rd Saint Louis MO 63138 3/17/2011 $5,000.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Teamsters Local Union #688 PAC 4349 Woodson Rd., Ste 200 Saint Louis MO 63134 3/17/2011 $1,000.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Asbestos Workers Local #1 3325 Hollenberg Dr Bridgeton MO 63044 3/17/2011 $1,000.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI St. Louis Building Construction Trades Political Education Fund 2300 Hampton Ave Saint Louis MO 63139 3/17/2011 $1,000.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Government Affairs Committee St. Louis Chapter NECA 3245 Hampton Ave Saint Louis MO 63139 3/17/2011 $2,500.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Phil Hendricks 710 S. Hanley, 20A Clayton MO 63105 Self Chiropractor 3/16/2011 $2,500.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 36 301 South Ewing Avenue Saint Louis MO 63103 3/17/2011 $1,000.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Sachs Electric Company PO Box 96 Saint Louis MO 63166 3/17/2011 $1,000.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Tesson Heights Orthopaedic & Arthroscopic Assoc. 12152 Tesson Ferry Road Saint Louis MO 63128 3/16/2011 $2,500.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Hoisting Engineers Local 513 3449 Hollenberg DR. Bridgeton MO 63044 3/17/2011 $1,000.00

C001135 03/17/2011 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Saleem Abdulrauf 7520 Buckingham Dr Saint Louis MO 63105 St. Louis University Surgeon 3/17/2011 $5,000.00

[emphasis added]

$10,000.00 for sort of candidate Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r) and $23,500.00 for the incumbent, Governor Jay Nixon (D).