By Richard E Walrath

People just can't get their minds off the war in Iraq. I think they'd like to.  I think they want to. They realize there are many other really pressing problems, but what to do about Iraq? 

I can see a better situation than the one we have now, but not until Bush is out of office and a Democrat, any Democrat, is President. 

Once Bush is no longer the president, I see the landscape changing a great deal.  Instead of having the rest of the world against the United States, many countries will be willing to assist in solving the problems caused by the Bush invasion of Iraq. 

First of all, support for al Qaeda will dry up.  It will become harder and harder for al Qaeda to operate in Iraq. 

Assuming that we escape having a third war added to the situation with Iran, the United Nations and the Security Council will be much more likely to work with the next president, provided it is a Democrat.

By Richard E Walrath

The purpose of the Kyl proposal, of course, is to give Bush some cover if and/or when he attacks Iran which seems more and more likely each day. 

The resolution, in final, form doesn't says this--the wording that did has been removed.  But if and when an attack on Iran does come, guess what? 

That resolution supported by all who voted except for 22 Democrats will be cited by the Republicans as they point to all the dumb Democrats who voted for it.  Hillary, who voted for it, also voted for the resolution regarding Iraq, and has spent practically every day since trying to explain why. 

Now she had a second chance and muffed this one, too. 

Who didn't vote for the Kyl-Lieberman proposal? Senators, Biden, Dodd, and Webb.  Remember  the Webb Amendment? That was about getting the troops out of Iraq.  What chances are there of getting the troops out of Iraq after an attack on Iran?

It can't be very far from now.

By Richard E Walrath

I've been reading lately about all the people who have crossed the beautiful river into the land of the sweet bye and bye--and have returned! 

The thing that bothers me, and I wonder about is, Why don't any of the people who are headed the other way ever get a heads-up call with a near-death experience?

Seems to me that would be only fair.  Think about it.

By Patricia L Johnson

The September 26, 2007 Senate vote on the amendment (Kyl Amdt. No. 3017 as Modified) to S. Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008) certainly has created a bit of a stir.  This amendment was proposed by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on September 20, 2007 and has five co-sponsors; Sen. Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

A cursory review of independent news media would certainly give the reader the impression this amendment called for nothing less than an immediate war against Iran.  A few headlines follow:

"Stop the Kyl-Lieberman Iran War authorization (up today)"

"Support for Kyl-Lieberman Equals Support for Al Qaeda"

"Lieberman-Kyl Amendment seeks to Escalate Possibility of Military Action Against Iran"

Rather fascinating how they zoomed in on Lieberman, who is only one of five co-sponsors, but as usual independent media articles don't get as much traction when the real facts are presented.

The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 76-22 with two Senators not voting.  It's interesting to note both Senators that did not vote are 2008 presidential candidates. 

Looks like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) have paid attention to the game of politics - don't vote on controversial issues, and you won't have to explain your actions later.

The first indication I had this amendment may not be calling for War on Iran is the fact my Senator was one of the 76 that voted for it.  For an amendment to be agreed to in the Senate requires a 3/5 majority vote - or 60 votes, yet it received 76 votes.  Is it possible that 78% of the voting Senate thinks war is the solution?

The answer to that question is 'no' - this amendment is NOT calling for war on Iran. 

What it is basically doing is making a statement regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.  The amendment is stating it is in the best interest of the United States to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force.

The amendment further states the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps should be designated a foreign terrorist organization and it should be the policy of the U.S. to 'combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq' ... using 'diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military instruments'.

Whether or not the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is operating in Iraq with the knowledge of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not the issue - they are operating inside the borders of Iraq and there is evidence indicating they are responsible for the deaths of at least five U.S. troops.

Just like this country cannot ignore the danger that the outbreak of cholera poses to our troops in Iraq, we also cannot ignore the danger outside forces pose towards our troops.   

Our world is becoming smaller and smaller and just as many of us read the foreign press, foreigners read our publications.  The situation in the middle east is volatile enough.  Above all else, independent news media should not attempt to aggravate the situation by adding fuel to the fire with exaggerated reports.

By Richard E Walrath

As a general rule, economic numbers are inflation adjusted when you see them.  If you are given "raw" numbers and don't know what the inflation rate is, you don't know what the increase or decrease is.

If your salary was $10,000 last year, and it's $10,000 this year, right away you would know you're not as well off.  But would you know how much worse off you are?

Without an increase in productivity, there is no increase in wages.  There isn't even an argument about it because there is no way to pay for an increase.  As to how to divide productivity gains, there would be nothing produced at all without labor--not to mention nobody to buy the goods and services produced.  Millions of jobs in the last six years, alone, have been exported overseas.  The minimum wage stayed the same for nearly ten years. 

People in low  paying jobs don't set their wages.  Those in the highest paid jobs have a lot to say about how much they're going to be paid. Union membership is now down to 10% or less from a high of 35% thirty years ago.  

Somebody is always coming up with the idea of using robots to replace employees who expect to be paid, want benefits such as health insurance and pensions, and are likely to join unions. 

Henry Ford invented the automobile in 1903 and had the answer to this idea over one hundred years ago.

Who's going to buy all the automobiles if all we have is robots making them?

By Richard E Walrath

How long ago was it that United Nations inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and the United States had over 100,000 troops stationed in Kuwait all alive and well?

How much would it have cost to keep those troops in Kuwait and the United Nations inspectors in Iraq?

My guess is that we would be about one trillion dollars ahead by this time, not to mention the dead and wounded American soldiers and who knows how many tens of thousands of Iraqi innocent citizens.

Only about 1% of the people in the United States have or know anybody in the war in Iraq. 

That's not enough to make that much of an impression on the other 99% who are not involved.  This is the first war in history where people were told to go shop rather than sacrifice.

A new article by Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

"The next time you read or hear those glowing numbers about the economy, just ask yourself these three questions -- "

Click the following link to read full article:

http://www.articlesandanswers.com/GDP.html

Richard E Walrath is a freelance writer, former budget analyst and co-owner of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites. You may read more by this author at http://articles2007.spaces.live.com or http://www.articlesandanswers.com/WordPress/ http://articlesandanswers.com

By Richard E Walrath   

Wouldn't it have been terrible when Rudy was addressing the NRA if he had forgotten the name of his third wife when she called to remind him to take out the garbage when he got home?

That's too long for a bumper sticker.  Maybe I should send it to MoveOn so that they can make an ad out of it--it would do better than their last one.

General Petraeus--General Betray Us is a throw-a-way line, not something that you solicit money for to run an ad. 

The ad that MoveOn should have run is a picture of Bush hiding behind General Petraeus using a general to front for the failed Bush policy in Iraq. 

What this country needs is action on the failed Bush policy in Iraq, not a debate on an ad by MoveOn which has maybe 3 million members  who could be out on the streets opposing the war where they could really make their presence felt.

By Richard E Walrath

Multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have adversely affected  Army and Marine Corps units - ground forces are burning out and there is both an increase in mental health issues and a decrease in retention rates due to multiple tours of duty.

U.S. Army units have historically had a ratio of 1:2 - one year in theatre, two years out, but circumstances have caused a reduction and Army units are now deployed for 15 months with 12 months at home.  In comparison, British units deployed in Iraq have a 4:1 ratio - six months in Iraq and two years at home.

The Webb-Hagel Dwell Time Amendment, to the National defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, was unable to get the 60 votes needed in order to bring it to the floor, thanks to John the flip-flopper Warner, who earlier voted for it when it was introduced in July, but then voted against it. 

The media did their part by referring to it as giving 15 months "at home" after serving in Iraq.  At home?  No, I don't think so.  Not in Iraq, but certainly not at home, unless every place seems like home when you're not in Iraq. 

But I got the impression that this was deliberate--to make people think returning soldiers were going to be able to spend the next 15 months on leave at home.  A soldier gets 30 days a year paid leave.  He can go wherever he wants to, including home.  But the government is not going to be paying soldiers to spend 15 months at home.

Whether the media was deliberately trying to mislead and confuse people, I don't know.  Then, there's also the definite possibility that the TV heads and news reporters are just plain ignorant.  It happens all the time.

According to the Webb website

the Amendment states that if a unit or a member of a regular component of the Armed Forces deploys to Iraq or Afghanistan, when their deployment ends they will have at least the same time at home before they are redeployed. No unit or member of a Reserve component, including the National Guard, could be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within three years of their previous deployment.

That sounds very obscure - what's 'home'?  Are they going to get paid?  So they're out of work for 15 months and then they go back into the Army?  What do they do if their enlistment is up during, before or after the 15 months at home - go back and get their discharge?

Obviously if they're regular Army I don't think they're going to send them "home".  What do they do if they get sick?  Are they covered for health insurance?  Do they go to Walter Reed? 

Those are all the questions that should have been answered by the media before the vote.

By Patricia L Johnson

Senator Ken Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, requested the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, to estimate the potential costs associated with maintaining a long-term military force in Iraq.

The costs were projected using two scenarios - under combat operations and under noncombat operations.  The September 20, 2007 full report may be read at the following link http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8641/09-20-ConradLTpresenceinIraq.pdf

Combat Operations - a force of approximately 55,000 military units and associated personnel would remain in Iraq for various periods of time and then return to permanent bases in the US or overseas.  The assumption would be the troops would operate at the same pace and conduct the same type of missions as currently being performed in Iraq.

• This would result in a one-time cost of $4 to $8 billion dollars and annual costs of approximately $25 billion.

Noncombat Operations - a long-term force of approximately 55,000 would be indefinitely stationed at established bases in Iraq - similar to the forces we have in Korea and Germany.  The assumption would be the troops stationed in Iraq would rarely see combat.

• Up front costs $8 billion (mainly for construction) with annual costs of $10 billion or less.

Is there anyone out there that thinks this isn't going to happen?  That we aren't going to have a long term presence in Iraq?  The fact the largest US Embassy in the world is being built in Iraq would lead even the most uninformed American to understand that we never had any intentions of getting out of Iraq.

We're had troops in Korea since the war was over back in the 1950's.  That's five decades ago and bordering on six - how many decades are we going to have troops in Iraq?

You know how to add - start calculating - if we go with the noncombat scenario that's $8 billion to start, plus $10 billion a year (remember these are only estimates - actual costs will be probably be double or triple) but let's assume $8 billion a year to start and $10 billion a year for 57 years - the length of time we've been in Korea. 

Does this country have $578 billion to spare? 

If we use the figures for combat operations it's even more disgusting.  We'll give them a break and use $6 billion for start up costs, and let's say the non-combat operations end after 5 years and we go to a noncombat mode.  That's $6 billion for start up, plus $125 billion for the first five years, and $10 billion for the next 47 years for a total of $601 billion dollars, IF the fighting is over in 5 years.

Does a country that is cutting back on most social programs have $601 billion to spare? 

This is your tax dollars - what are you planning on doing about it?

As far as I'm concerned this administration got us into the mess in Iraq, so if a long-term presence is needed, the costs should come right out of the back pockets of Bush, Cheney, and the Bush-Cheney cabinet.  They're the ones that brainwashed the world into believing the WMD theory, so they're the ones that should pay.

How many wars do you think would be started if this administration was held personally, financially responsible for any screw ups?  Think maybe they would give some real consideration to the art of negotiation, or do you think they would continue to jump in full speed ahead with eyes open, but unable to see past the end of their noses?

Just because they have tunnel vision does that mean you have to? 

By Richard E Walrath

Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) should talk to each other more often.  Reid came out with his statement about how he was glad Bush was offering up somebody the Senate could confirm. Leahy said, Not so fast--we still have the matter of what Gonzales knows about those nine fired U. S. Attorneys.

By Richard E Walrath

Greenspan may be early in his new book which throws water on the Bush handling of the economy.  But where is the story of how the Bush economy went from a forecast of a surplus "as far as the eye can see" to what will be $4 Trillion added to the National Debt by the end of the Bush terms in office?

Nobody is talking about that.  Greenspan was on 60 Minutes, and he doesn't come off too well, either.  He says he had no idea how bad things in the subprime housing market were.  He just sort of slides by the Bush tax-cuts, but he maintains to the end that he is a Republican. 

What I'm talking about is not just a handful of words such as, oh, there was 911 and a recession, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They don't even come close to covering $4 Trillion. 

Where has all the money gone? 

Don't forget, all this happened when we had such a "wonderful" economy.

The Democrats should be talking about bringing in the Auditors!

It looks to me like Greenspan's afraid he's going to get blamed for the coming recession. 

Bernanke hasn't been there long enough to take a whole lot of blame. 

By Richard E Walrath

Although the $2 billion only represented 4% of its deposit base, thousands of customers withdrawing their savings from UK's fifth-biggest mortgage lender, Northern Rock, looked like a scene from the Jimmy Stewart movie, "It's a Wonderful Life".

If depositors knew how little currency banks kept on hand, they'd be worried all the time.  Their money has been loaned out to make more money--that's what banks do.  As one old man said,  "They'd better not loan out any of mine" and went to get his.

When he found out he could withdraw all he had in his account, he said-- "Well, if I can get it, then I don't want it."

People who are poor know all about not having money. They live their whole lives that way. 

When people who are rich find themselves about to lose a whole lot of money, they panic. They are not happy with the United States for exporting their subprime loans over there.

Let's see what Bernanke has to offer this coming week.

By Richard E Walrath

If the Democrats can't pick up a bunch of seats in the senate next year, they never will.  They have states like New Hampshire, Virginia and, I think, Minnesota where they should have winners.  I can't think of any incumbent Democrats in the senate who are in trouble.

Looks like the problem will be the presidential race and California's 55 electoral votes.  Under the present system, Democrats would get all 55.  They'll get less if the system is changed--one less for every district that votes Republican. 

No question about the Republicans wanting to change the way votes are tallied.  They want to share--one of the Democrats votes in the Democrat pile, one of the Democrats votes in the Republican pile.  That's a big change from putting all the Democrats votes in the Republican pile.

By Richard E Walrath

Bad news for Amurka.  Higher oil prices just in time for the winter heating season.  Adjusted for inflation, oil is still cheap.  A barrel of oil that cost $38 in 1980 would now bring $96 - $101 or more today.  But it's still on its way up.  China is going to be using more, not less.  I think we'll see $100 oil before the next year is out.

Adjusted for inflation doesn't mean much to most people.  They understand that inflation means they pay more, but that's about all they know. 

By Richard E Walrath

Last night on the news, I switch around a lot, but I think it was MSNBC's "Tucker" 6:00 p.m. EDT, which is anchored by Tucker Carlson.  He's dropped the bow tie, wears lots of make-up, parts his hair now, and is as much of a dud as ever.

The crawl was running a line about the on-going discussion regarding immigrants.  The crawl read--

"Do you think that English should be a second language in this country?"

The crawl stayed there, and repeated itself several times and then, finally changed to--

"Do you think that Spanish should be a second language in this country?"

Maybe they got it right the first time.

Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath 

The Associated Press article  U.N.: U.S. workers are world's most productive [1] was recently published by MSNBC and contains the following comments:

"The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries,"

"The productivity figure is found by dividing the country's gross domestic product by the number of people employed. The U.N. report is based on 2006 figures..."

AP is stating the productivity figure is found by dividing the country's gross domestic product [GDP] by the number of people employed.  If you calculate the average U.S. worker productivity rate based on the explanation provided by the Associated Press the numbers don't jibe.  They don't even come close. 

Using GDP for 2006 in billions of dollars $13,194.7 [13 trillion] and dividing it by the number of people employed in 2006 - 151,428,000 (81,255,000 men and 70,173,000 women) will not provide anyone with $63,885 in productivity.

$13,194,700,000,000.00 / 151,428,000 = $87,135.14

If you work backwards and take the 2006 GDP figure [13 trillion] and divide by the $63,885 in productivity, it should provide you with the number of people employed - it doesn't.

$13,194,700,000,000.00 / $63,885.00 = 206,538,311

206.5 million "employed" in the U.S. is no more than wishful thinking.  There are two major problems with the Associated Press productivity article as far as we're concerned.  One is the $64,000 (rounded) figure for worker productivity.  The other is the number of workers--200 million (rounded)--implied to produce the stated GDP of $13.1 trillion.

All the endless formulas and equations presumably showing how productivity is computed are questionable, to say the least, when they end up showing $64,000 per worker.

The ILO report is an extremely complex document and when the AP writes an article with a statement indicating a formula for determining a specific number, readers should be provided with more than a one sentence definition.  We're not familiar with the ILO report so we don't know if the problem is we're using the wrong figure for GDP, the wrong year for GDP, or the wrong number of employed workers - obviously AP knows what to use otherwise they wouldn't be writing an article providing a definition. 

So how about it, AP - what is the full story on the ILO productivity calculation?

The United Nations [2] International Labour Organization (ILO) [3] released their report entitled "Key Indicators in the Labour Market - Fifth Edition" on September 3, 2007.  KILM is a major undertaking by the ILO that is published every other year.  The KILM contains a core set of 20 market indicators with KILM 18 focusing on productivity.

The AP article headlines the fact this report indicates U.S. workers are the most productive in the world.  Based on the explanation of rankings indicated in KILM 18, U.S. workers might be better off being last.

"The difference in rankings can be explained by the fact that annual working hours per person employed are considerably higher in the United States than in the majority of European economies; therefore, each US worker is able to produce more, leading to higher labour productivity when measured based on per person employed."

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

[2] http://www.un.org/

[3] http://www.ilo.org/

© 2007 Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath are co-owners of Articles and Answers and often join forces to write articles on subjects of interest to both.  For further reading please visit the following site:   http://articles2007.spaces.live.com

By Patricia L Johnson

Recession definitions (and fears) are running amuck. 

Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © 2007 Microsoft Corporation.

1. decline in economic activity: a period, shorter than a depression, during which there is a decline in economic trade and prosperity

Econterms

"Definition: A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth.

Thus: a recession is a national or world event, by definition. And statistical aberrations or one-time events can almost never create a recession; e.g. if there were to be movement of economic activity (measured or real) around Jan 1, 2000, it could create the appearance of only one quarter of negative growth. For a recession to occur the real economy must decline."

New York Times

"A recession is typically defined as an extended period in which the economy shrinks, leading to a rise in unemployment and a drop in consumer spending and business investment."

Is there a recession in our immediate future? 

We probably won't know for sure until the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the  National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) issues a statement. NBER is considered the official agency for the measurement of business cycles in the U.S. and they make the determination on when a contraction (recession) officially begins and ends.  "Contractions (recessions) start at the peak of a business cycle and end at the trough."  The NBER definition for recession (contraction) is:

“a period of significant decline in total output, income, employment, and trade, usually lasting from six months to a year, and marked by widespread contractions in many sectors of the economy.”

NBER further states:

"The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP.  Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

Although the press often defines a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in GDP, the two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP is not used by NBER due to the fact that not all recessions identified by them have consisted of two quarters - most have, but not all.

Just like you have good days and bad days, our economy has good days and bad days as part of the normal business cycle.  Unfortunately, the 249 point drop the DJIA took on September 7, 2007 is a rather dramatic showing, but the financial markets are unusually skittish right now over the effects of the subprime mortgage failures and tighter credit policies, so we're probably going to have many market ups and downs over the next year. 

The employment report released Friday indicating a loss of 4,000 jobs in August and downward revisions for both June and July sent the DJIA spiraling, but as bad as the employment numbers are, they still only represent a period of three months, or one quarter.

Following are statements made by the NBER on the most recent peaks and troughs in our economy. 

The November 2001 trough was announced July 17, 2003.
The March 2001 peak was announced November 26, 2001.
The March 1991 trough was announced December 22, 1992.
The July 1990 peak was announced April 25, 1991.
The November 1982 trough was announced July 8, 1983.
The July 1981 peak was announced January 6, 1982.
The July 1980 trough was announced July 8, 1981.
The January 1980 peak was announced June 3, 1980.

An AP article indicates Steve Forbes urged the Federal Reserve to lower their fed funds rate from 5.25 to 4.25, while Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank president Charles Plosser stated a cut may not be necessary.  When the FOMC meets there certainly won't be any shortage of opinions on whether or not the rate should be decreased.

Should the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC vote for a federal funds rate decrease when it meets on September 18, 2007, it will be the first decrease in the fed funds rate since June 25, 2003 when the rate was cut 1/4 point from 1.25 to 1.00.

Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Ben Bernanke, is a former member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee of NBER so chances are, whatever decision is made by the FOMC will be the right choice.

© 2007 Patricia L Johnson

By Richard E Walrath

Hind-sight is a wonderful thing.  It looks like the Fed has fallen behind the curve.  Look for a rate cut very soon--maybe even before they meet on September 18. 

The jobs report is bad enough to give them cover for a cut. It looks like a recession is on the way.  Dow down 250 points on Friday.

The sixth anniversary of 911 comes on a Tuesday this year, same as the original event.  That may affect when Bernanke
makes the rate cut. 

What he doesn't want to do is cut Monday and see the market go down another 250 points.  My guess is that he doesn't announce the cut on Monday.

By Patricia L Johnson

We've all heard the disappointing news by now - instead of adding jobs in the month of August, the preliminary numbers are in and total Nonfarm payroll employment dropped by 4,000, from 138,041,000 to 138,037,000.

That, in itself, is pretty serious, but when you add the fact that June and July employment numbers have been revised to 69,000 and 68,000, respectively - the three months, June, July and August average an addition of only 44,000 jobs per month. 

Makes you wonder where it's all going, especially since 46,000 more manufacturing jobs were lost in August.  Over the past year manufacturing has lost a total of 215,000 jobs.

The number of persons 'Not in the Labor Force" for August is almost 1.4 million - which includes 392,000 "discouraged" workers.  A discouraged worker is a person who did not bother to look for work because they felt no jobs were available for them.  These 1.4 million people are 'marginally attached' to the labor force, which basically means they're unemployed, but not counted as unemployed.

If you don't count the unemployed as "unemployed" does that make them any less "unemployed"?