Paul Krugman: Edwards Gets It Right

Paul Krugman is relatively upbeat as he spots a flickering of light at the end of the long, long tunnel to health care reform:

Edwards Gets It Right, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: What a difference two years makes! At this point in 2005, the only question seemed to be how much of America’s social insurance system — the triumvirate of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the Bush administration would manage to dismantle. Now almost all prominent Democrats and quite a few Republicans pay at least lip service to calls for a major expansion of social insurance, in the form of universal health care.

But fine words, by themselves, mean nothing. Remember “compassionate conservatism?” I won’t trust presidential candidates on health care unless they provide ... specifics... And former Senator John Edwards has just set a fine example.

At first glance, the Edwards health care plan looks similar to several other proposals..., including one ... by Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. But ... extra features ... take it a lot closer to what the country really needs. ...

Right now, many people are uninsured because ... insurance companies “game the system to cover only healthy people.” So the Edwards plan, like Schwarzenegger’s, imposes “community rating” on insurers, basically requiring them to sell insurance to everyone at the same price.

Many other people are uninsured because they simply can’t afford the cost. So the Edwards plan, again like other proposals, offers ... help lower-income families... To pay for this aid, he proposes rolling back tax cuts for households with incomes over $200,000 a year.

Finally, some people try to save money by going without coverage, so if they get sick they end up in emergency rooms at public expense. Like other plans, the Edwards plan would “require all American residents to get insurance,” and would require that all employers either provide insurance ... or pay a percentage of their payrolls into a government fund used to buy insurance.

But Mr. Edwards goes two steps further. People who don’t get insurance from their employers would... purchase insurance through “Health Markets”: government-run bodies negotiating with insurance companies on the public’s behalf. ...

Why is this such a good idea? ...[M]arketing and underwriting — ... screening out high-risk clients — are responsible for two-thirds of insurance companies’ overhead. With insurers selling to government-run Health Markets, not directly to individuals, most of these expenses should go away, making insurance considerably cheaper.

Better still, “Health Markets,” ..., “...modeled after Medicare” ... offer a crucial degree of competition. The public insurance plan would almost certainly be cheaper ... — after all, Medicare has very low overhead. Private insurers would either have to match the public plan’s low premiums, or lose the competition. ...

So this is a smart, serious proposal. It addresses both ... the uninsured and the waste and inefficiency of our fragmented insurance system. And every candidate should be pressed to come up with something comparable.

Yes, that includes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. So far, all we have from Mr. Obama is inspiring rhetoric about universal care — that’s great, but how do we get there? And how do we know whether Mrs. Clinton, who says that she’s “not ready to be specific,” and that she wants to “build the consensus first,” will really be willing to take on this issue again?

To be fair, these are still early days. But America’s crumbling health care system is our most important domestic issue, and I think we have a right to know what those who would be president propose to do about it.

_________________________
Previous (2/5) column: Paul Krugman: The Green-Zoning of America
Next (2/12) column: Paul Krugman: Scary Movie 2

Comments

[Movie Guy]

Paul Krugman - Edwards plan would "require all American residents to get insurance,..."

How is that really going to work, other than the mandatory employer angle? That will not cover all individuals.

In the end, will the U.S. Government simply not tax all individuals, forcing the health care coverage in that manner? Isn't that the bottom line? You paid for the health care insurance coverage and here it is...

[Movie Guy]

Paul Krugman - "To be fair, these are still early days. But America’s crumbling health care system is our most important domestic issue, and I think we have a right to know what those who would be president propose to do about it."

Crumbling? And why is it crumbling? Is that all the fault of the federal government? Or does it have to do also with unscreened, illegal immigration, a large portion of a population aging, and declining real wages of average workers in the face of increasing health care costs?

I expect it may be crumbling in parts of the north and west based on the amount of federal monies that have been provided in the past few years to keep more hospitals from closing due to emergency room loads of nonpayers.

[anne]

Yes; of course 47 million Americans with no health care coverage is the fault of an Administration that would have us spend $2 trillion on a tragic insane war and occupation in Iraq rather than provide proper care for Americans. Of course, the fault is the fault of an Administration for which war and occupation forever have been the all in all.

[anne]

Imagine, 47 million Americans with no health care insurance and rather than look to an Administration waging an anti-democratic, immoral, immensely costly forever war and occupation, we look to Americans daring to become, say, older. Of course, we can afford to care, as we should, for a race horse, but Americans are suddenly, say, too old. Always a reason, always nonsense.

[reason]

MG..
That is disingenious, you must realise that there is a fundamental problem with employer provided health care. For a start if gives the employer too much power. Secondly, there is a problem if you want to change insurers if you have a known pre-existing disorder. Health economics is difficult, there is no good answer, but the problems are clear.

[reason]

By the way this proposal sounds awfully like the German system. It may end up with the same problems as the German system. My understanding is that the French system is better.

[Joe]

Anne,

Thanks for your tirade on the war, but I thought this was about medical care, not just a place to rant about loosely connected issues. I don't think anyone intends for the war to go on forever just as nobody (with any sense) expected it to be over quickly.

Medical reform however will be long in implementing and will probably stick around longer, so it should be viewed as a separate issue (which it is).

MG,

Cheers to your comment. Not that I think that is the only reason, (though it is paramount on my list) but kudos for bringing up other factors. Among them, mal-practice suits, overprescription of costly drugs, etc.

I think it comes down to people pining socialism. Maybe they should just move somewhere in the EU? I'm in Frankfurt right now and it stings everytime I pay 20% sales tax or 50% tax on gas (approx $6 per gallon). That's aside from the 15-42% that they pay in income taxes. Granted there are other factors at play here, but the principle stands.

Mr. Krugman,

what makes you think that the government undercutting the private sector is a good idea? I lived in Venezuela for a couple years and that's exactly what Chávez is doing to turn the country into Cuba (communism through destroying capitalism).

I'm not saying that we should hang uninsured people out to dry, but on the other hand I am a poor college student who manages to scrape together $400+ a semester to pay for medical insurance. It seems like if it was such a good idea to get rid of the 2/3 overhead cost of screening applicants were economically benefitial, insurance companies would do. It seems more likely that insuring everyone would be way costly because of the meidcal expenses they will cause. The notion of a government run insurance provider being more efficient is laughable to say the least. Sounds like a ploy to get citizens to sigh up for then pay out of their noses when the bills start rolling in.

This idea of forcing medical insurance is scary. Not because it's bad to have everyone insured, but because it is a restriction of our freedom. My question about it is this: if it is designed to be a safety net for uninsured people going to emergency rooms which cause a drain on local economies which require federal dollars to fix, why make them go on a government insurance plan that will cost the government money anyway? Sounds like it takes away all accountability from the people going to the emergency rooms and makes people who weren't paying insurance before (and not needing it) to subsidize the ones going to the emergency room.

My suggestion: restrict legal action agianst the medical industry by setting up regularly checked standards that if a facilit is complying with will make it difficult/impossible to sue. We as Americans accept the truth that participating in the medical system can be risky and to not complain it the jelly donut that the doctor can't cure is our fault from time to time. Doctors' pay will go back down to "normal" because of the reduced mal-practice insurance and insurance rates will go down making it more attainable for those who want it. The ones who lose out are the practices that don't get certified and re-certified, the map-practice insurers and the lawyers. I think we'll all still sleep well at night.

[anne]

Rubbish, complete rubbish. We were repeatedly told that the war in Iraq would be almost costless and would be over in a flash, let alone would extend longer than the time we took to fight World War II. The idea that there would be a $2 trillion material cost for us to Iraq, let alone the cost in lives and limbs and minds and souls, is hidden from us even now.

Of course, the point is never to rant about the war and occupation having so grievous a cost that the problem of caring for Americans would seem increasingly severe. But, rant I will, for that is the problem. Spending $14 billion a month on Iraq, could be turned to spending on the health of Americans rather than on destruction. Phooey.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/washington/11veterans.html?ex=1318219200&en=57988c04bbbbd7d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

October 11, 2006

Data Suggests Vast Costs Loom in Disability Claims
By SCOTT SHANE

Nearly one in five soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been at least partly disabled as a result of service, according to documents of the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained by a Washington research group.

The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts. About 567,000 of the 1.5 million American troops who have served so far have been discharged.

"The trend is ominous," said Paul Sullivan, director of programs for Veterans for America, an advocacy group, and a former V.A. analyst.

Mr. Sullivan said that if the current proportions held up over time, 400,000 returning service members could eventually apply for disability benefits when they retired....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/us/30wound.html?ex=1327813200&en=d2702dd0edfb0b43&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

January 30, 2007

Agency Says Higher Casualty Total Was Posted in Error
By DENISE GRADY

For the last few months, anyone who consulted the Veterans Affairs Department's Web site to learn how many American troops had been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan would have found this number: 50,508.

But on Jan. 10, without explanation, the figure plummeted to 21,649.

Which number is correct? The answer depends on a larger question, the definition of wounded. If the term includes combat or "hostile" injuries inflicted by the enemy, the definition the Pentagon uses, the smaller number would be right.

But if it also applies to injuries from accidents like vehicle crashes and to mental and physical illnesses that developed in the war zone, the meaning that veterans' groups favor, 50,508 would be accurate....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/opinion/l07wounded.html

All War Injuries Count

To the Editor:

"Agency Says Higher Casualty Total Was Posted in Error":

What a relief it must be to the thousands of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan by anything other than hostile fire to know that as far as the Pentagon is concerned their injuries don't actually count as war injuries. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the precondition to the activities that led to their injuries. That is, their injuries are a direct consequence of the war and should be part of the Defense Department's casualty total.

Dismissing their injuries as the Defense Department does is disrespectful of their service in the name of misleading political posturing. To then couch this secondary assault on America's troops and on the truth as a "correction" is mind-boggling.

Jonathan Maskit
Granville, Ohio, Jan. 30, 2007
The writer is an assistant professor of philosophy at Denison University.

[anne]

So, there we have all the offensive nonsense. The problem is Americans grow older, the problem is immigration, the problem is a patient who is treated with incompetence is still allowed the right to sue. Wish to solve the problem of insuring 47 million, most of the adult and most working, who have no insurance? Then, prevent Americans from growing older ever, make sure there is never again another immigrant allowed, and allow no more law suits ever no matter how fierce the incompetence. So, there we have, say, freedom and 47 million Americans with no health care insurance will sleep well this night even with no insurance.

[anne]

"It seems like if it was such a good idea to get rid of the 2/3 overhead cost of screening applicants was economically beneficial, insurance companies would do. It seems more likely that insuring everyone would be way costly because of the medical expenses they will cause."

What is the whole point of insurance is making sure that no one who will ever need to use the insurance will ever qualify. No insurance for you, Sweetie, since you might just need insurance. No insurance, for you.

[ken melvin]

Anne,

What is it about protecting the nation that you don't understand?

[callahan]

Hey ken melvin, best way to protect this nation is to protect it from gee-o-irge bush.

Would like to know more about what Bernie Sanders of Vermont has in mind on health care. He has a great idea for saving social security - let the bazillion- aires pay a more proportionate amount into it. Watched him talking to Treasury Secretary Paulson about it this morning on CSPAN2. Bernie had Henry stammering.

Bernie for president.

[Joe]

So your policy for saving health care is to not go to war? I can see it now, "Well, we don't have to worry about the Americans, if they get involved in war they won't have any health care."

I still fail to see your point aside from complaining about a war that is still supported by the US (senate and congress, both run by the dems). They know that it is still necessary, but they were all talk to puff the people against the Reps for voter support. Now that they have control they continue to fund it, though demand more from the administration (a good thing).

What does foreign policy have to do with domestic heath care?

And I am not saying that it is right to screen applicants. I'm just saying it's not as simple as saying, "we'll get rid of that overhead and we'll have loads of money," it's just not true.

Just say it, you want socialism.

[Forex]

Great article

I hope everybody read this article

[save_the_rustbelt]

Edwards became very wealthy filing junk science lawsuits against physicians - which qualifies him to reform healthcare I'm certain.

We have a shortage of nurses and an excess of lawyers and that is the biggest current problem in the healthcare system.

For that matter Krugman has no credentials in healthcare other than sitting in his faculty office reading reports.

Sometimes the people who know the least have the loudest voices.

PS: Anne, love you dearly, but does every topic have to be about Iraq?

[Movie Guy]

anne - "Rubbish, complete rubbish. We were repeatedly told that the war in Iraq would be almost costless and would be over in a flash, let alone would extend longer than the time we took to fight World War II."

When is the last time the U.S. public or Congress was told that the Iraq war would be "almost costless"? Do you even know?

I don't recall that there was ever a timetable put forth regarding the occupation. Certainly not a short one. So, if you missed that point, well...you were asleep. I seem to recall early testimony that the U.S. would likely occupy Iraq for eight to ten years.

You act like you're the only individual opposed to this war. Nothing could be further from the truth, regardless of how many good main posts that Mark works up, which you attempt to destroy with your repeater pencil game. Your abuse sucks.

When is the last time you got off your tail and took a train down to D.C. to protest directly in front of the White House or Congress? You live close enough to do it every weekend.

[callahan]

It's a friendly friendly world, a friendly friendly world, why should you want a war in such a friendly friendly world?

[anne]

Rubbish is rubbish, when a certain White House economic adviser suggested that the war in Iraq might actually cost, say, something, the certain adviser was dismissed. When a certain Secretary of Defense planned the war, the certain Secretary did not even bother to plan an occupation. When a certain General suggested that hundreds of thousand of Americans were needed to occupy Iraq, the certain General was, well, you know. Certain economists from the University of Chicago were busily showing us that the war in Iraq would actually be costless, possibly by chance even, say, well, profitable.

[anne]

http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=11646

July 5, 2006

The Price Is Wrong
By Matthew Yglesias

When White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey stumbled off message in September 2002 with his prediction that war could cost $100 billion to $200 billion, the administration flew into crisis mode. Budget Director Mitch Daniels was trotted out to label the estimate "very, very high." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz opined -- in testimony to Congress, no less -- that reconstruction would cost virtually nothing in light of Iraq's promising oil revenues. Daniels proffered an estimate in the $50 billion to $60 billion range, substantially less than the $80 billion inflation-adjusted cost of the Persian Gulf War....

[Health care, you understand is impossible to afford, war is and occupation of Iraq besides being insane and immoral are costless. "Play it again, Sam."]

[Movie Guy]

Whoa...Nellie!

You didn't respond to the big question.

anne, when is last time you traveled to D.C. and protested in front of the White House, Capitol, or either chamber of the Congress? It is well within your travel range.

[ken melvin]

'Tisn't Anne that doesn't get it. It is about the political will. Which is more important for Americans, the war in Iraq or health care at home.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html

March 23, 2006

George Bush's Trillion-Dollar War
By BOB HERBERT

Call it the trillion-dollar war.

George W. Bush's war in Iraq was never supposed to be particularly expensive. Administration types tossed out numbers like $50 billion and $60 billion. When Lawrence Lindsey, the president's chief economic adviser, said the war was likely to cost $100 billion to $200 billion, he was fired.

Some in the White House tried to spread the fantasy that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war. Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary and a fanatical hawk, told Congress that Iraq was "a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

The president and his hot-for-war associates were as wrong about the money as they were about the weapons of mass destruction.

Now comes a study by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University, and a colleague, Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, that estimates the "true costs" of the war at more than $1 trillion, and possibly more than $2 trillion....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/opinion/18herbert.html?ex=1271476800&en=9f23787f95925a8f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 18, 2005

A Radical in the White House
By BOB HERBERT

To get a sense of just how radical [Franklin] Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944....

After talking about the war, which was still being fought on two fronts, the president offered what should have been recognized immediately for what it was, nothing less than a blueprint for the future of the United States. It was the clearest statement I've ever seen of the kind of nation the U.S. could have become in the years between the end of World War II and now. Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education." ...

[Movie Guy]

anne,

When are you going to get off your tail and take a train/plane down to D.C. to protest directly in front of the White House or Congress? You live close enough to do it every weekend.

What is your excuse?

[anne]

When the President presented the budget to Congress, what was stressed was that this budget is critical for protecting American soldiers in Iraq; of course, the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid were not mentioned by the President and even had the cuts been mentioned there would have been no reference to the cost of Iraq.

Why not then have it all; why not simply continue the tragic insanity of occupying Iraq, but properly support Medicare and Medicaid and veterans care and the "gold-plated" health care plans for those fortunate enough to be plated in gold as well as moving to a plan that will insure the uninsured? Say what?

[anne]

Worried about a need for more doctors and nurses, or more college and professional school graduates?

Fine with me, then why not a federal-state revenue sharing plan to end tuition at public colleges and professional schools? Let's have more nurses and doctors and biologists, the more the better, and even more lawyers for I am not sure how we are to methodically discriminate against lawyers or, say, English majors.

[Fair?]

"fair" is a word Krugman shouldn't have in his vocabulary.

Q: What is fair about coercing a company to sell insurance to different clients with differing "costs to serve"?

Q: What is fair about coercing individuals with low "cost to serve" to subsidize other higher cost individuals?

A: Nothing, so plans like Edwards' will offend many individuals as proposing a basic injustice

It is what it is, confiscation, pure and simple, and it will only heighten the disconnect between individual behavior and it's consequences which is so pervasive throughout our society.

...reminds me of an expression "The nail that raises its head will be hammered down." Krugman, sadly, always seems to want to wield that hammer. Ultimately, the floor settles at a new, lower level -- wasn't that the lesson of the 20th Century! Incentives matter.

(And, please, Anne: Can you exercise some self-restraint? It's all too common that you hijack this website with your repetitive, off-topic rants -- and no one has the time or ability, it seems, to out "text paste" you. You're driving people away.)

[anne]

Me, I am fair, I am fairer than fair, fairer than the driven snow, for I am the redundant snow white, who you notice is never called snow green; we are fair she and I for we are one.

1. We worry about socialism, the magic word socialism, but never ever socialism when we are speaking of the defense budget, never ever socialism when we are speaking of war and occupation.

2. Socialism only pertains to say treating a child whose parents do not have health insurance for asthma. There is socialism, a child at a time.

3. The Administration, which had done all possible to mask the cost of Iraq, suddenly justifies a whopping budget for defense by talking of, say, Iraq, while cutting Medicare and Medicaid and complaining of my, yes, my, gold-plated health care.

4. What is essential however is that we spend more on defense, less on health care, never ever mention the past which is after all past, and let parents whose children have asthma but who have no health insurance someone find a cure for asthma after Medicaid is cut sufficiently.

5. No matter, the fair snow green is busily preparing a cure for asthma.

6. What are the lyrics to "I've Got a Hammer?"

[Movie Guy]

anne - "When the President presented the budget to Congress, what was stressed was that this budget is critical for protecting American soldiers in Iraq; of course, the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid were not mentioned by the President and even had the cuts been mentioned there would have been no reference to the cost of Iraq."

I suggest that you read the submitted budget to include the analysis document before making that statement again.

[anne]

Floppity, flippity, imagine fair snow white listened to the President only this very morning, imagine, the President, yes, the President, emphasize just this:

"When the President presented the budget to Congress, what was stressed was that this budget is critical for protecting American soldiers in Iraq; of course, the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid were not mentioned by the President and even had the cuts been mentioned there would have been no reference to the cost of Iraq."

There are those who would claim that the fair snow white hears unfairly, but I ask you, could snow white, the redundat, ever be less than fair, twice fair?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/opinion/l09budget.html

Better Ways to Spend Our Money

To the Editor:

"Mr. Bush's Improbable Budget":

The Bush budget proves that the American empire is in decline. The Iraq war is now unaffordable. Even if it were a triumph of nation-building based on legitimate evidence of a threat to our security, it ravages our economic future. It makes no sense to squander our wealth on this war and assure the deconstruction of our beleaguered social programs.

The Great Society is teetering. Medicare is in jeopardy. Medicaid is in free fall. Next target of the Bush radicals: the New Deal. We are letting this pointless war (which we won four years ago) catalyze the restoration of the Gilded Age.

H. Rex Greene
Elida, Ohio, Feb. 8, 2007

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/opinion/08thur1.html?ex=1328590800&en=0309eaccda72f2c0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

February 8, 2007

Mr. Bush's Improbable Budget

President Bush claims that his new $2.9 trillion budget request is a tough-minded plan for balancing the books by 2012. In reality, it's a smokescreen for making Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent — and either hollowing out the government in the process or digging the country deeper into debt.

The budget is based on a series of improbable, if not dishonest, assumptions. To make it appear as if the tax cuts are affordable in the near term, it assumes that the Pentagon will not spend a single penny on Iraq or Afghanistan after 2009. It also assumes there will be no costs for fixing the alternative minimum tax after this year, even though Mr. Bush and virtually every politician in America is committed to such relief.

The new budget would also slash key entitlement programs and punish many of the country's most vulnerable citizens. Sharp reductions are envisioned for Medicare, with cuts of $66 billion over five years, and Medicaid, down approximately $11 billion. Some of the Medicare proposals could serve as useful starting points for a debate on controlling costs through such steps as raising premiums for high-income beneficiaries. But the Medicaid cuts would be largely counterproductive. At a time when the number of uninsured children is rising, the cuts would force many states to reduce their Medicaid rolls.

Mr. Bush's budget would also take an ax to most other domestic spending. One program that would be gone entirely in 2008 provides monthly bags of groceries, each worth less than $20, to 440,000 needy elderly people....

[Movie Guy]

anne - "4. What is essential however is that we spend more on defense, less on health care, never ever mention the past which is after all past, and let parents whose children have asthma but who have no health insurance someone find a cure for asthma after Medicaid is cut sufficiently."

No factual basis if you're referring to the DoD budget vs. the HHS budget, though DoD is gaining.

Thus far, you have only attacked DoD and not the CIA, HS, Coast Guard, Customs...

As for HHS budget facts, here they are.

According to OMB fiscal year budget submittals for actual prior fiscal year and estimated future HSS budget expenditures:

Department of Health and Human Services
(millions of dollars)

Total Outlays

Actual:
FY2001 - $422,567
FY2002 - $468,187
FY2003 - $501,039
FY2004 - $542,503
FY2005 - $579,951
FY2006 - $616,040

Projected:
FY2007 - $672,932
FY2008 - $700,980

Total Discretionary Outlays

Actual:
FY2001 - $45,936
FY2002 - $59,692
FY2003 - $59,615
FY2004 - $64,520
FY2005 - $66,536
FY2006 - $71,104

Projected:
FY2007 - $72,437
FY2008 - $72,428

Total Mandatory Outlays

Actual:
FY2001 - $376,631
FY2002 - $408,495
FY2003 - $441,424
FY2004 - $477,983
FY2005 - $513,415
FY2006 - $544,936

Projected:
FY2007 - $600,495
FY2008 - $628,552

Medicare - Mandatory

Actual:
FY2001 - $211,357
FY2002 - $224,786
FY2003 - $242,660
FY2004 - $264,890
FY2005 - $294,334
FY2006 - $324,911

Projected:
FY2007 - $367,485
FY2008 - $390,782

Medicaid/SCHIP - Mandatory

Actual:
FY2001 - $133,073
FY2002 - $151,204
FY2003 - $165,048
FY2004 - $180,838
FY2005 - $186,849
FY2006 - $186,076

Projected:
FY2007 - $197,488
FY2008 - $209,310

Sources:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hhs.html

[anne]

There now we have a means of showing old people, you know, people like say your grandparents or your parents or even you, we have a means of showing old people just what compassionate conservatism is about. "No more groceries for you, Granny-pie."

Snow green must do the maths, the maths to find how many years in Iraq we can afford for every $20 bag of groceries we won't have to deliver to Granny-pie. Granny-pie was already a bit chubby.

[Movie Guy]

From OMB:

Department of Defense Spending

Total Discretionary Outlays including ALL emergency and non-emergency supplementals

Department of Defense:

FY2001 - $291.749 billion
FY2002 - $344.407 billion
FY2003 - $388.101 billion
FY2004 - $437.116 billion
FY2005 - $474.434 billion
FY2006 - $499.357 billion
FY2007 - $548.915 billion
FY2008 - $583.283 billion

*All DoD discretionary outlays for FY2001-2006 include approved budget authority and related funding obligations from enacted supplementals. The FY2007 and 2008 amounts include one enacted GWOT supplemental for FY2007, and also the new supplemental requests for FY2007 and FY2008.

[anne]

No longer am I snow white or even the non-redundant but mere snow green, I am super-snow-green for I have now battled America from the Coastal Guards to the Marines, me, a mere would-be snow greenh become super-snow green. I am your queen.
]
Seriously though folks, no groceries for Granny-pie, the Coastal Guards are too needy.

[scooter]

Q: What is fair about coercing a company to sell insurance to different clients with differing "costs to serve"?

This assumes that the individual is somehow in control of what happens to his health. To properly answer this, one would have to go invoke metaphysics.

The crude answer is that it is not the abstract 'individual' that is insured, but the individual's body.
The individual does not have the option of trading in his body and getting a new one.

There are a few options - keep the body in perfect condition, and maintain it. That's not going to save much.

It is nice and moralistic to speak about lifestyles, -exercise can cut down heart disease etc.,- but everything said and done, its effect on costs is minimal (The direct medical costs associated with physical inactivity ~ $76 bill http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/overview.htm#2 ) If need be, risky behaviour can always be penalized, by extra riders.

Most of the chronic costs, like for cancer, asthma, diabetes, arthritis and those for geriatric illnesses like Alzheimers are not going to go away. Especially due to increased longevity.

Q: What is fair about coercing individuals with low "cost to serve" to subsidize other higher cost individuals?

Rawls, veil, choice, perhaps? You make that choice after finding that you are one of the low cost to serve individuals.

I really hope you get cancer and then you lose your insurance.

This is a real problem in this country - even if you have insurance, once you get sick, you cant get insurance(denied/exorbitant cost). This is what single payer insurance will fix.

Once insurance cant be denied, the second problem is free-riding. So everyone needs to get insurance.

There are only two positions of integrity in this debate

(1)Health care is a luxury
If you cant afford care, you can get care. Otherwise, your life can be miserable(as in pain), short(die early), or considered not worth saving(trauma care)

People who take this position must state it. Instead of hiding behind the skirts of confiscation, taxes, unhealthy lifestyles, markets, etc., if they had balls, they would state their hearts deepest desires..

--You cant get insurance? Die, you beggar.
--You got cancer? Tough luck. No insuarnce for you. Try next time you are born.
--You got asthma? That should teach you to get better parents next time.

They should also own up to what would logically follow - Gataca. (I would love to see the insurance cos of the Republican millionaire wing battle it out with the anti-abortion wing)

Since these people don't have balls, they will hide behind skirts.

(2)Health care is a need. Efforts to make it affordable are good. Anyone can get ill, and insurance is the best answer.

People who argue for health insurance, at the same time rail against single payer, mandatory insurance are the worst crooks. The intellectually honest position would be to argue against insurance itself.

But since when have been bullies not cowards?

[dissent]

Edwards became very wealthy filing junk science lawsuits against physicians - which qualifies him to reform healthcare I'm certain.

Ah, Fafblog said it better:

He is a trial lawyer! As a trial lawyer Edwards repeatedly stole money from poor corporations to give to greedy children crippled by their products! Do we really need a candidate who is a lackey of Big Children? Giblets thinks not!

For more details, see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/16/15584/3798

[vorpal]

Mr Thoma,

I really appreciated this article. The suggestion that all people pay the same price is one that is so blatantly sensible, you would think that it was against the law to recommend it.

Krugman nailed this one. The politicians are selling slogans of "Hope," when we really need somebody who knows what is good policy. We don't need a marketing campaign, we need sensible solutions!

Everybody Else,

1) We already are forced to pay for those without health care. The cost may be less perceptible, but it is there. So 'requiring' health care is already in place. We are required to take care of those who are ill. We just pay more because our process is not organized. How is paying more a freedom? It seems to me that in the name of freedom, we are morally compelled to deliver health care as effectively and efficiently as possible. An ill person is not free, they are miserable. So this notion of 'impinging freedom' strikes me as unsophisticated and a bit puerile.

2) Requiring heath care companies to set a common price, is sound economics. We don't want health care companies fighting over how to demographically slice and dice the nation, we want them fighting fraud and waste in health care delivery. Any fool can see that.

[maria]

MG:I recall Wolfowitz saying the war would more or less pay for itself. If I have to look it up for you, I will try to do so. The idea that everyone, like Anne, who is opposed to the war has to demonstrate in person in Washington is an odd, very odd, idea. Have any more of those to offer? LOL.

PS I get the impression you support the war by attacking people who attack it. A kind of underhanded way to semi-justify it.

[maria]

MG: Here it is, and you didn't even have to ask. LOL.

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

[Wimpy]

When I hear socialism, I think of solidarity...

If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this land
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land

If I had a bell
I'd ring it in the morning
I'd ring it in the evening
All over this land
I'd ring out danger
I'd ring out a warning
I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land

If I had a song
I'd sing it in the morning
I'd sing it in the evening
All over this land
I'd sing out danger
I'd sing out a warning
I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land

Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land

Lee Hays and Pete Seeger

[maria]

Wimpy, nice to be reminded what America used to be like. Like another (and morally better) world.

[Esq.]

Joe said: "My suggestion: restrict legal action agianst the medical industry by setting up regularly checked standards that if a facilit is complying with will make it difficult/impossible to sue."

This is way outside my field, but that is pretty much what we have. To win a malpractice case you have to prove that the defendant did not provide the standard of care in the field, and have other doctors testify that the defendant failed to meet those standards. A bad result is NEVER enough to sue. Every study I've ever heard of finds that only a small fraction of malpractice is sued upon.

The way to end high malpractice costs is for the medical profession to delicense bad doctors. So far, it has shown absolutely no inclination to do so.

Besides, my understanding is that completely eliminating malpractice cases would save about 3% of medical costs. Chopping Insurance company overheard to medicare's overhead would save about 30%.

That last bit is why Joe is wrong when he says ""we'll get rid of that overhead and we'll have loads of money," it's just not true."' Joe, it just is true.

[dryfly]

I'd just be happy with some kind of universal 'catastrophic' insurance...

[Esq.]

As for songs about socialism, how about:

This land is your land, this land is my land
From the Redwood Forest to the New York Island
The Canadian mountain to the Gulf Stream waters
This land is made for you and me.

Bernie/Webb for President!

[dryfly]

Besides, my understanding is that completely eliminating malpractice cases would save about 3% of medical costs. Chopping Insurance company overheard to medicare's overhead would save about 30%.

That last bit is why Joe is wrong when he says ""we'll get rid of that overhead and we'll have loads of money," it's just not true."' Joe, it just is true.

I've read similar items... however Medicare reimburses so much less on a 'per item' basis that I doubt we'd see a 30% improvement in overall cost of care converting to Medicare like single payer UNLESS providers accepted an overall 30% reduction in income as well.

That is - in the nutshell - why so many providers fight single payer so ferocously... their experience with Medicare payment terms & conditions.

Regardless - there would be a lot less overhead and it could be made to work.

[Joe]

Anne,

we are all very proud of your prose and your status as an English major. Bravo.

I agree, you shouldn't confiscate this site to blame all the worlds ills on Bush and the war (which you refer to as his war, which simply isn't true. that's just demonizing by putting a convenient face).

What I always wonder is how people can pine about American lives etc in Iraq and ignore the blood bath that will ensue if we pull out. If you don't believe that, you should study more post war history. How ethnocentric can you be saying that American lives are 10-100 times more important that iraqis. We're there because it is the most likely place to stablize the region. All others would be too impossible. And as for non-democratic, how is toppling a dictatorship and placing a democracy non-democratic?

Face it, you are a socialist whose foreign policy is isolationalism. I know nobody on the left likes to here about terrorism, claiming that conservatives are the ones terrorizing, but it is a reality that needs to be dealt with. Turning out the lights and putting your head under the covers won't make people who have sworn to wipe you off the face of the earth go away.

(and i do realized this i said that this discussion shouldn't be twisted into a iraq war debate)

[piglet]

"How is that really going to work, other than the mandatory employer angle? That will not cover all individuals."

MG, the article explains how it is going to work, and it is not the "employer angle": People who don’t get insurance from their employers would... purchase insurance through “Health Markets”: government-run bodies negotiating with insurance companies on the public’s behalf.

[piglet]

By the way this proposal sounds awfully like the German system. It may end up with the same problems as the German system. My understanding is that the French system is better.

reason, would you care to explain yourself? I don't see the parallel to the German system. It is rather similar to the Swiss system, without the "health markets". In this sytem, individuals are chosing among a multitude of private insurance providers at non-discriminatory cost. The employer has no role however.

The German system is based on public social insurance. Employer and employee contribute a payroll tax which is paid to one of several public insurance providers. The employer has no role except to pay.

[scooter]

df:
I'd just be happy with some kind of universal 'catastrophic' insurance...

What is catastrophic? Chronically ill kind of catastrophic? Financially catastrophic? Disablingly catastrophic?

I would bet that after a few years of such catastrophic insurance, it would become clear that

-lack of basic care/prevention "creates" some(not all) catastrophes.

-once catastrophy sets it would be a nightmare to dileneate treatment costs. Suppose (totally made up eg here) you have to follow this expensive drugs after surgery for gall stones(non-catastrophic) instead of the normal ones, because you had a transplant. Is that a catastrophic cost or not?

[anne]

Dryfly:

"I'd just be happy with some kind of
universal 'catastrophy' insurance..."

Precisely; simply offering to pay the costs of catastrophic health care insurance, while mandating employer coverage which would then be far less expensive would be a signal improvement within the current health care and insurance industry structure.

Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices would be another signal improvement.

[Lord]

Why would someone who could afford to buy coverage not do so? Most likely it is because they can afford to self-insure for their expected expenses for the coming year, but could not afford insurance of any kind should something catastrophic happen. Insurance is only a one year gamble with no payoff for anything beyond that. This makes insurance a losing proposition and largely a fraud.

[Movie Guy]

maria,

Note my question to anne.

anne - "Rubbish, complete rubbish. We were repeatedly told that the war in Iraq would be almost costless and would be over in a flash, let alone would extend longer than the time we took to fight World War II."

MB - When is the last time the U.S. public or Congress was told that the Iraq war would be "almost costless"? Do you even know?

maria - "MG:I recall Wolfowitz saying the war would more or less pay for itself. If I have to look it up for you, I will try to do so. "

maria - "MG: Here it is, and you didn't even have to ask. LOL."

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

----

Look at the dates of the quotes in your reference:

09/18/02, 9/25/02, 4/11/03, 4/21/03, 1/19/03, 4/11/03, 2/27/03, 10/4/02, 7/29/03, .... 2/18/03, 3/27/03, 3/27/03, Fall 2002, 06/04/03, 3/27/03

That was my point. My question: When is the last time the U.S. public or Congress was told that the Iraq war would be "almost costless"?

This is 2007. All of that nonsense died down rather quickly after the occupation began. That's almost four years ago.

We already know all about that crap. Four years later, we still a couple of posters throwing this stuff. There is no purpose in that. This whole repeater pencil exercise is just trashing the blog.

[anne]

Now, let me understand. There have been an estimated 650 thousand excess Iraqi deaths since we invaded and occupied the country, but lunatics have been worrying ever so fiercely about the Iraqis. War then becomes peace, and peace become war. "Pity the Iraqis" has been and is the proper cry, but we do so by waging war and occupying Iraq. Leave Iraq immediately, and there may well be peace but at least we will no longer be at war.

Imagine hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and who can possibly imagine how many wounded, beyond a million refugees, but lunatics always have a reason why we have been busily saving Iraqis.

So, we must leave Iraq immediately, as we have needed to leave Iraq from the day the government was deposed almost 4 bloody years ago. Guess what? Leaving Iraq will also save Americans; so leave immediately.

* Snow green is a happy isolationist, you understand. Also, I always refer to "our" war in and occupation of Iraq, though I really do understand that I have not been President these bloody years. Imagine, a President who suddenly we are told has not been responsible for the war in and occupation of Iraq after all. Who was responsible? Me, snow green.

[anne]

Yes; imagine the terrible waste at $14 billion a month in Iraq, now that we know the war is not costless. But, remember little Snow Green, war whether costless or finally costly must never ever be mentioned for fear of, well, for fear of distubing the lving I suppose since the dead are beyond being disturbed.

So, when Linda Bilmes points out that there have been 50,000 casualties in Iraq, immediately the Administration and supporters set about attacking Linda Bilmes. When Joseph Stiglitz points out that the war and occupation will cost $2 trillion, we must be sure to attack Joseph Stiglitz.

Notice the pattern? Snow Green notices all.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "The idea that everyone, like Anne, who is opposed to the war has to demonstrate in person in Washington is an odd, very odd, idea. Have any more of those to offer? LOL. PS I get the impression you support the war by attacking people who attack it. A kind of underhanded way to semi-justify it."

If anne is going to continue to destroy thread after thread on this blog, which she does every week, with all of these repeat phrases and old NYTimes articles over and over again, then hell yes I will ask why she isn't down in D.C. raising hell instead of spamming this great blog. She is a spam freak. And a lot of good people reading this blog are sick of it. She lives close enough to D.C. to go make her case directly on any damn weekend. And from the pattern of her posts, on many other days as well.

Similarly, you can play jerk around and BS about what you think I think, but you are playing a Borg game. I have no interest in justifying this war. But I am not part of the immediate withdrawal crowd, either. I know the withdrawal will take more action than that simple-minded idea or demand. It won't happen. I've explained my positions in more depth than anyone else on this blog. I've done more than my share of letting people know where I stand in responding to personal repeated challenges like yours.

I am direct communicator. If you have a question, ask it. Otherwise, don't try to con other people about what I think. That's just more of the Borg thinking and bullying. I will have no part of that bullshit.

I will challenge spammers all day until Mark finds the time or decides to step in and put a stop to it. Others have asked for his assistance. People are sick of it.

If anne was a serious person about her anti-war convictions, then she would find other outlets for her energies than just wrecking thread after thread on Mark's blog. There is no excuse for what she is doing. I know people who won't visit this blog anymore because of her spam. She needs to get a life or head to D.C. in her spare time.

[anne]

"This is 2007. All of that nonsense died down rather quickly after the occupation began. That's almost four years ago."

Yes; there was a needless war, and an even more needless occupation began, and the mere suggestion of leaving Iraq was met with derision beginning almost 4 years ago. Courageous, compassionate John Murtha came in time to understand the tragic insanity of Iraq, and called for America to leave and was called in turn a cowardly cutter and runner in the House of Representatives. Of course, I think of the lives that might have been saved or might not have shattered and I think of the billions on billions of dollars we would be saving now for health care and more had we listened to John Murtha. Of course, that nonsense died down too I suppose. I suppose.

[dryfly]

What is catastrophic? Chronically ill kind of catastrophic? Financially catastrophic? Disablingly catastrophic?

Yup, yup and yup.

In short have a high annual deduction for a universal coverage plan (either gov't single payer or heavily regulated private coverage) and let us manage our own daily affairs ourselves.

How high should the deduction be? We could debate that. I've had policies as high as $10K and it worked out fine even though we had illness. A 'typical' middle class person can usually manage some of that in their life.

What about those who are poorer? Well there would still be Medicare/Medicaid for the really poor or fixed income elderly. And probably still be some companies with employer benefits (though only up to the deductible cap)... and probably private 'supplemental' insurance as well - think more like HMO plans.

Point is it is catastrophic illness - terminal or chronic - that causes all the economic damage, to the individual and to the system.

These are also the diseases that are so very hard to predict & private insurance wants nothing to do with them... they want the premiums but NOT the risk. No 'insurance' in that.

And while there are risk factors (diet exercise life styles)... the biggest factor is often genetics &/or age. Things you can't control. If you have a family history of heart disease even with good lifestyle habits - you would understand. My docs at Mayo say that is by far the biggest factor.

So quit dancing around the root of the problem - that being the catastrophic illness issue. Take it off the table & the rest falls neatly in place, becomes manageable.

Of course from a political perspective that is the last thing our politicians want.

[piglet]

Well, MG, you are known to post immense amounts of statistics and links often hardly related to the thread topic. There are several posters here who imo should consider writing shorter and more concise posts, and I would also suggest all to refrain from responding to another poster if there is no meaningful debate. Just my two cents.

[dissent]

My suggestion to all of us is that we simply try not to repeat ourselves. Make a point or rebuttal once and move on. That is a courtesy we can show one another.

[anne]

Notice the language; such language for so tender ears as Snow Green has, such language even meant for the fair Snow Green. Snow Green must you understand be bullied and intimidated, because Snow Green understands that our health care crumbles are not crumbles caused by immigration or people who simply refuse to stay forever young or even caused by lawyers. Health care crumbles are caused by an unwillingness to devote needed resources at home for a right set forth in 1944 by Franklin Roosevelt and fought for ever since, while now the needed resources are being squandered in Iraq.

So we have finally come to a budget, where $20 bags of groceries to a grandmother or grandfather is too much to afford. Notice the language, though.

[piglet]

"How high should the deduction be? We could debate that. I've had policies as high as $10K and it worked out fine even though we had illness."

Leaving aside the thorny questions of social justice:

High co-payments may be counter-productive because they induce people to abstain from preventive health services or to wait too long before consulting a doctor.

Switzerland has tried to reduce health care spending by allowing insurance companies to charge high co-payments and deductibles (higher, at least, than in other European countries). There is no evidence that this has worked - Switzerland's health care is the second most expensive. The problem is that while many people will go to the doctor even though they have to pay considerably, others are forced to abstain from necessary medical services. Health care is not a market like any other.

[Movie Guy]

MG - "How is that really going to work, other than the mandatory employer angle? That will not cover all individuals."

piglet - "MG, the article explains how it is going to work, and it is not the "employer angle": People who don’t get insurance from their employers would... purchase insurance through “Health Markets”: government-run bodies negotiating with insurance companies on the public’s behalf."

piglet,

I read the article. Yes, I noted that passage. But I don't think that one will fly. The notion that we're going to make people pay for health insurance other than via employers' support is a pipe dream. The penalties for not buying health insurance from a government pool of private providers would have to huge to force compliance. Something like not being able to keep one's driver's license.

The easier path is direct taxation...month by month or quarter by quarter (depending on one's taxation status). If the government takes your money and says, "Here, you can chose one of these listed private health care policies because you're already paying for it, and if you don't chose, the government will send you the default policy and health insurance cards in the mail." End of story.

Sure, the U.S. needs minimum service universal health care (at least at the level dryfly mentioned above). But the idea that the government is going to force us to independently buy a private health insurance policy will require massive compliance oversight. There is no need to pay for that at any level of government. Tax the citizens for the minimum policy premium on a monthly basis and let that be the end of it. The compliance cops would be chasing a far smaller pool of "violators" under such an approach. If they can run down deadbeat parents, they can track insurance violators, too. But they want to be chasing millions upon millions of "violators".

We need a program along the lines of military family Tricare.

My opinion, anyway.

[anne]

No; the problem has been a Republican President and a Republican Congress, because in the last Presidential election John Kerry proposed government offering to supplement employer based health care insurance with government catastrophic care insurance. Paul Krugman described the plan in a number of columns. Republicans would have nothing to do with the plan.

The idea of $10,000 deductible health care insurance plans is of course bizarre.

[scooter]

Posted by: dryfly | Feb 9, 2007 1:16:02 PM
Cant argue with that - not much difference from my original comment.

the biggest factor is often genetics &/or age. Things you can't control..
right on the mark.

Of course from a political perspective that is the last thing our politicians want
And the last thing insurance companies want.

Still, getting preventive basic care ensures, that catastrophic costs are reduced. Most of the genetic illness (hypertension, coronary ) are better handled through early intervention and management - i.e. better in terms of cost, outcome, and quality of life.

No argument - any form of universal, mandatory, catastrophic insurance would result in a far better outcome over what we have today.

But the power of that - a showdown between the entire public on one side and the insurance cos on the other side - would wipe out most of the easy profits of insurance and drug cos.

So expect a fight tooth and nail. It is easy to kill such schemes by ensuring that it will be poorly written and implemented, and a mess would result.

MG's harping here is the best example of that.

[free will, still]

PRIOR TO or AFTER learning that one is "low cost" or "high cost" to insure, there REMAIN numerous personal choices that an individual makes that impact the overall cost of healthcare (for us all) and the efficiency and fairness of the allocation of that care.

Amoung them, are:
- family size (or having one at all)
- level and type of health care consumed (some terminally ill choose hospice, others "pull out all the stops" at society's expense)
- myriad lifestyle choices ... diet, exercise, etc.

Wishing this not to be true, won't make it so. Coercing everyone into a "one size, type, and price fits all" plan damages incentives. It's just common sense.

Incrementally reforming the current system is a better idea -- whatch it win out!

[dryfly]

Still, getting preventive basic care ensures, that catastrophic costs are reduced. Most of the genetic illness (hypertension, coronary ) are better handled through early intervention and management - i.e. better in terms of cost, outcome, and quality of life.

Preventive care should be included and or offered some how SEPERATE from the deductible. I fully agree with that & for all the reasons you listed. That is cost effective as well as humanitarian - rarely do they dovetail so nicely.

And to anne - the $10K deductible sounds like a stiff bite... but realize there would still be Medicaid for the poor AND Medicare for the fixed income retired... both would cover much more than the $10K deductible. And lastly there would probably be employer sponsored insurance for some... that would be better than the $10K plan... and cheaper for the employers to offer without the catastrophic risk premiums.

The point is a simple one - a typical middle class person could conceivably cover a $10K cost and survive financially... but they can't possibly recover from a $400K cost and that is what a major heart attack w/ bypass & recovery is likely to cost. Or cancer.

And private 'providers' can't take the hit either when their patients default & file BK 'cause they can't pay.

Having a catastrophic insurance format supported by revenue from all of us & supports these occasional but expensive procedures makes it easier to cost out & afford the everyday procedures. Docs and hospitals know they will get paid. Patients know there will be a cost but won't be responsible for all.

When you go in for a routine exam now you pay for yourself & those who had major catastrophic events & didn't pay... we'd at least eliminate that 'cost shifting' via a basic catastrophic plan.

MG - my Mom & Dad had TriCare... it was ass kick. He was a 20 plus year vet (active & reserve & finally NG combined). It is the closest thing I have ever seen to Canadian 'single payer' south of the 49th parallel... we have friends in Canada and could compare.

I'd love to see something like that nationwide but don't see it happening - ever. I'd accept a catastrophic plan at least as an attempt to fix the worst of our current problems.

JMHO.

[maria]

MG: I am not trashing the blog, I am trashing the stupid asses who started the war in Iraq. And please don't tell us to forget it all. Americans need to be reminded again and again and again (I wish I could type this with Roosevelt's voice) of their mendacity and stupidity and evil machinations. You seem always to want to brush all the crap they created under the rug. There isn't enough rug to cover it all.

[maria]

MG Anne doesn't wreck this blog, but you on the hand don't do it much good as far as I can see. I repeat my impression that you dislike Anne since she holds your feet to the fire on Iraq and you'd like to forget you ever were in favor of the war (of course you have denied this but I simply don't believe you any more than I believe Bush). I find your labyrinthine attempts to minimize the disaster quite contemptible.

[maria]

Joe and MG (I trust you are not the same person): your flat statement that there would be a "blood bath" if we pulled out of Iraq is pure speculation. Do you think our being there now has prevented a "blood bath?" That is not what I see on TV every night. The blood bath is well and alive in Iraq NOW and we are doing nothing to prevent it. Your scare scenario is just a fall back attempt to justify the continued imperial occupation of Iraq. Warmongers and imperialists just won't give up, will they? At least as long as the money lasts.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "MG: I am not trashing the blog, I am trashing the stupid asses who started the war in Iraq. And please don't tell us to forget it all. Americans need to be reminded again and again and again (I wish I could type this with Roosevelt's voice) of their mendacity and stupidity and evil machinations. You seem always to want to brush all the crap they created under the rug. There isn't enough rug to cover it all."

You were playing old history week, apparently helping cover anne, all the way back to 2002 and 2003. And most of us, I believe, are very familiar with all of that. If you believe that the readers and posters at this blog "need to be reminded again and again and again" of the Administration's blame for the Iraq war and whatever else, then I suggest you don't know the caliber of your audience. If that is your thinking, and you have so indicated that it is, then I believe you and anne should be teaching elementary school, at a facility where rude, loud repetition is the key to learning. The mental iron fist treatment. We don't need that adolescent behavior here. You communicating with adults who are well read if you make note of some of the comment posts.

Your approach, as stated, reminds me of dealing with the Soviets. Always the know-it-alls and always in your face, pushing and condemning. They didn't know it all. Neither do you. Neither do I. As far as I'm concerned this is a level playing field and everyone's voice matters. Not just the voices of a few hecklers and discontents. Or self-declared Little Blue Book teachers.

I am not trying to brush aside anything with the exception of a few abusive repeated posts that attempt to drown out the normal conversation. If you, anne, or anyone wants an Iraq war thread, I recommend that you ask Mark for an open or dedicated thread to open up such discussions. I would be glad to participate or observe, as that is how I learn. I have already recommended that solution to no avail. But perhaps you will be successful. I wish you well in making that happen.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "MG Anne doesn't wreck this blog, but you on the hand don't do it much good as far as I can see. I repeat my impression that you dislike Anne since she holds your feet to the fire on Iraq and you'd like to forget you ever were in favor of the war (of course you have denied this but I simply don't believe you any more than I believe Bush). I find your labyrinthine attempts to minimize the disaster quite contemptible."

I state my opinion and I respond to questions and attacks, but that's about all other than posting factual references and data. As I recall, you said you didn't read my posts, so I have no idea how many posts you have missed or how frequently you actually visit this blog any more. You don't post very often now, which I think is a shame. But I don't care what read or don't read. That's your business.

anne, on the other hand, has posted over 50 anti-war posts in the past five days. These have been concentrated on 4 comment threads. Two of the threads have 15 and 17 anti-war posts. Two other threads have four and six. Repetitive phrases over and over. On this thread, without provocation, she launched into the anti-war drill from the start. What purpose does that serve? How is that fair to the readers and other comment posters? It simply isn't fair.
anne doesn't hold my feet to the fire on anything. Never has, not even at Brad Setser's blog. I respect her intelligence, but I am not a fan of her abusive use of canned anti-war posts that add little to nothing to the ongoing discussions. It's not that I dislike her, but I dislike what she is doing with these continual rants when she floods a thread with an excess number of near identical posts, as if all other readers and comment posters are little children who memories do not work.

I really don't care that you don't believe me any more than you do the President of the United States. I am not here to win you over. I don't need your approval. This is an excellent information and thought blog, not a personality contest or a Borg session, Borg Left or Borg Right for that matter. That's for the emotionally immature, weak-minded, and paranoid in my judgment.

I am disgusted with your lies about me as evidenced previously, and your prejudgments. I have answered the mail with you at length. I gave you a challenge. If you're so smart (as you appear to believe you are), then you shouldn't any trouble finding some of my old comment posts that prove, without question, that I was in favor of the Iraq war. You have never once brought forth a single post to support your stupid claim. And I am one of the original group of posters here (within the first month or so). I have nothing to apologize for regarding my views of the Iraq war or Afghanistan war. I have stated my positions fully for anyone to read. And you were posting on the threads concerned when that happened last. You should be able to find those threads with ease.

I also don't care that you disagree with my assessments of the Iraq war or Afghanistan war. I am not coming at it from your level, so I see it differently. I not attempting to minimize anything happening on the ground in Iraq or Agfhanistan. I simply see it from a different vantage point. I also confident that I have access to more information about the ground situations that you do based on your limited posts and link article references. I may also have more at stake than you do on the home front regarding the wars, but that's the way it is. I worry quite a lot for good reasons. But I have more hope and greater expectations than you do. It is always easy to be a defeatist, particularly in military matters if you have no experience in the fields concerned. What we're observing is very complicated, and it isn't over yet. I will stick with my inner circle and general knowledge of events. That we may disagree doesn't bother me, nor should it. This isn't a competition, but rather an observation of a real war that has implications going forward. If you post a good reference, know that I read it. Sometimes your references aren't bad. But don't expect me to support cut and run because my information doesn't match yours on the outcome probabilities.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "Joe and MG (I trust you are not the same person): your flat statement that there would be a "blood bath" if we pulled out of Iraq is pure speculation. Do you think our being there now has prevented a "blood bath?" That is not what I see on TV every night. The blood bath is well and alive in Iraq NOW and we are doing nothing to prevent it. Your scare scenario is just a fall back attempt to justify the continued imperial occupation of Iraq. Warmongers and imperialists just won't give up, will they? At least as long as the money lasts."

I don't know Joe, but I agree with his thinking. As I explained previously, I post under my user name and my email address works.

The truth is, you and I see very little of what is happening by watching our evening news stations and news channels. The coverage is quite limited at this stage. You act as though you know for a fact that the U.S. and allied forces (primarily the small UK contingent) are doing nothing to prevent any of the bloodshed occurring within the four separate wars or major battles that are occurring on the ground in Iraq. I doubt that you have access to that level of tactical information. You could read DefenseLink and focus on the weekly transcripts - that would help you, but I won't hold my breath that you are that open-minded to alternate information channels. And you could visit the military web sites in Iraq and learn quite a bit, but I doubt that you will put forth the effort to read those daily news briefs. Besides, it might alter some of your thinking and that prove to be discomforting, wouldn't it? I expect so.

I don't believe you have an accurate picture of what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East, and elsewhere within the sphere of operations of CENTCOM or AFRICOM, the new Africa military command center. And I don't believe you want to know any more. Not really.

As for the what happens when the U.S. military withdraws most of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, that will depend on the events underway at that time, internal and external. To pretend that regional risks are not involved is ridiculous. Of course, risks are involved and those risks will need to be minimized or covered in conjunction with such departures. How that will be accomplished remains to be seen, but it is critically important for many parties involved. Your notion of an imperial occupation is laughable. That card isn't on the table. For obvious reasons to those who keep up with what is unfolding and understand what they are observing. Perhaps you should reread Rumsfeld's options memo to the President. Plenty of headups information. The plan is much different now than as was under consideration during 2003 and 2004. An entirely different overriding situation has unfolded.

You're pretty bright, so I encourage you to think smarter. See the whole board. And park the emotions, as they're fogging the vision. As for our differences, I don't see that as a big deal.

[maria]

Council on Foreign Relations and Anne on the same wave length:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070209/pl_afp/
iraqstrategyus_070209140225

[maria]

I wonder what childhood traumas turn a guy into an arrogant knowitall pipsqueak.

[Movie Guy]

maria,

When you find out what caused you to be a preacher, let us know. Meanwhile, I recommend that you adjust to your audience before trying to cram all the anti-war repeater stuff down everyone's throat again.

The following notion of yours might work on the kids, but not this adult crowd: "Americans need to be reminded again and again and again (I wish I could type this with Roosevelt's voice) of their mendacity and stupidity and evil machinations".

Dumb.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "Council on Foreign Relations and Anne on the same wave length"

Sorry, but no. Not even close.

You should read the report before jumping to that conclusion. Simon is focusing on containment.

Simon's timeline is not an immediate cut and run, as his approach calls for withdrawal after the surge and the majority of force withdrawal occurs by the end of 2008, though not all forces will be removed.

Council Scholar Recommends Policy Shift to Containing Conflict
CFR

Disengagement “would entail withdrawing the bulk of American forces from Iraq within twelve to eighteen months (that is to say, over the course of calendar year 2008); shifting the American focus to containment of the conflict and strengthening the U.S. military position elsewhere in the region; and engaging Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, members of the UN Security Council, and potential donors in an Iraq stabilization plan,” Simon writes.

“The crisis has now moved beyond the capacity of Washington to control on its own,” says the report. “The United States lacks the military resources and the domestic and international political support to master the situation.” And “even if the United States had the abundant ground forces and reconstruction teams necessary, it is not clear that the situation in Iraq today is retrievable.”

The United States should:

Declare its intention to disengage the majority of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within twelve to eighteen months, to begin once the results of the surge become known.

> Retain the forces necessary to secure Baghdad International Airport, the Green Zone, and access routes that connect them.

> During the disengagement period, stage the drawdown to maintain the forces in Iraq needed to protect or relocate vulnerable minority populations and suppress insurgent activity in the largely Sunni provinces.

Shift focus to containment of the conflict and strengthen the U.S. military position elsewhere in the region.

> Plan for humanitarian contingency operations.

> Refocus on containment of the war in Iraq.

> Reinforce the U.S. military presence elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region, for example, Kuwait; explore options for increasing special operations forces deployed to Jordan; increase the number of rotational deployments to the region, including joint exercises.

Engage Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, members of the UN Security Council, and potential donors in a stabilization plan for Iraq.

> Prepare to provide Jordan with help in managing the cross-border refugee flow.

> Work with the UN secretary-general to form an Iraq stabilization group, including Iran and Syria, with an emphasis on control of borders, management of refugees, economic and technical assistance to Iraq, and diplomatic support for political reconciliation.

> Work with the UN, NATO, and neighboring states on plans for humanitarian intervention in the event that violence in Iraq becomes genocidal.

> Act decisively elsewhere in the region, particularly on the Palestine-Israel impasse by articulating a vision for final status, and on support for Lebanese sovereignty.

“Having staked its prestige on the intervention and failed to achieve many of its objectives, the United States will certainly pay a price for military disengagement from Iraq. But if the United States manages its departure from Iraq carefully, it will not have lost everything. Rather, the United States will have preserved the opportunity to recover vital assets that its campaign in Iraq has imperiled: diplomatic initiative, global reputation, and the well being and political utility of its ground forces.”

Full Report - After the Surge
The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement from Iraq
CFR, Simon, Feb 07

Interview - Diminishing Returns in Iraq
CFR

Interviewer, Bernard Gwertzman, CFR: "Your report comes out a time when the President’s new policy is about to unfold, in which a stepped-up Iraqi-U.S. military is supposed to crack down hard on both Sunni and Shiite insurgents in and around Baghdad and in Anbar province. Don’t you think it might be worthwhile seeing how that works out before the United Statesdoes anything along the lines you’re suggesting?"

Steven Simon, CFR: "It’s important to recognize the report doesn’t talk about any sort of complete, across-the-board disengagement from Iraq. American interests will remain heavily involved in Iraq. We’re just talking about military disengagement. In any case, the report states this process shouldn’t begin until the results of the surge become apparent. The surge at this point is a fait accompli, it’s going to happen one way or another. So it would be really pointless to endorse disengagement that is completely unthinkable under the current circumstances. So let the surge play out. General [David] Petraeus [the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq] has said the results of the surge will be known very soon."

Interviewer, Bernard Gwertzman, CFR: "I guess that’s what I’m getting at: What if the surge is successful?"

Steven Simon, CFR: "By that you must mean that the diminished level of violence in Baghdad triggers a process of political cohesion among the Iraqi leaders, which in turn leads to the implementation of a program of genuine national reconciliation. If that happens, well then I presume we can begin to think about military disengagement as well. Indeed, the administration itself has said this. If the surge is successful, the United States can begin to think about drawing down during this calendar year. I’m certainly with the administration on that."

Interviewer, Bernard Gwertzman, CFR: "You’re for disengagement whether we lose or win."

Steven Simon, CFR: "Correct. We have reached the point of radically diminishing returns from our military investment."

Interviewer, Bernard Gwertzman, CFR: "And you’re talking about a withdrawal over twelve to eighteen months?"

Steven Simon, CFR: "Twelve to eighteen months sounds like a reasonable time frame. It’s a practical matter. You can’t withdraw a whole lot faster. Since it’s crucial for the purpose of shaping the narrative of our intervention in Iraq to leave in an orderly and deliberate way, we’re not going to line up all our soldiers on airport ramps, and get them onto cargo planes and haul them out as quickly as possible. We’re not going to leave our armor there, our artillery. We’re not going to leave all of our equipment. We want to make it clear to friend and foe alike that this is not a rout, that the United States is leaving as a matter of deliberate policy and in a systematic way designed to shape the postwar environment. So, given limits on port capacity, on shipping capacity, on the logistical realities of withdrawing 130,000 soldiers from Iraq against the background of these broader objectives, disengagement cannot happen within the next five minutes. It is going to take many months in any case. If you add on the, let’s say, three or four months it will take for the results of the surge to play out, you’re probably looking at a disengagement by the end of 2008, realistically."

[anne]

Flippity, floppity; we have a war and occupation that were supposed to be costless, that are costly beyond proper comprehension; for who can comprehend the needless death and woundingd and material destruction, who can comprehend a $2 trillion war and occupation? We have a $2 trillion war and occupation, and economists continually fret about deficit this and deficit that, but the war and occupation are not to be mentioned, never to be mentioned; mention is to be met with the language of lunacy.

Well, we have a fierce health care insurance problem and we have a President who is trying to cut Medicare and Medicaid and yowling about gold-plated health care insurance in a country with 47 million, mostly adults and mostly working adults, who have no health care insurance. We also have a President who find no problem with a $2 trillion war and occupation of Iraq. Get the connection? Say what?

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html

February 9, 2007

Edwards Gets It Right
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Right now, many people are uninsured because, as the Edwards press release puts it, insurance companies "game the system to cover only healthy people." So the Edwards plan, like Schwarzenegger's, imposes "community rating" on insurers, basically requiring them to sell insurance to everyone at the same price.

Many other people are uninsured because they simply can't afford the cost. So the Edwards plan, again like other proposals, offers financial aid to help lower-income families buy insurance. To pay for this aid, he proposes rolling back tax cuts for households with incomes over $200,000 a year.

Finally, some people try to save money by going without coverage, so if they get sick they end up in emergency rooms at public expense. Like other plans, the Edwards plan would "require all American residents to get insurance," and would require that all employers either provide insurance to their workers or pay a percentage of their payrolls into a government fund used to buy insurance....

[Precisely what is needed to rebuild America's crumbling health care system. Precisely what the President will battle against.]

[anne]

Maria, thank you so much; what a gem you are.

There was a dinner last night, and it was so much fun to listen to a table full of people complaining about what America might be about were we not about the tragic lunacy of occupying and surging and destroying our democratic heritage is so doing. To listen to an economist, a Republican (forgive the partially benighted) rant about the sacrifice of our health care needs to pay for an occupation whose cost is continually masked by the Administration was a revelation though no surprise.

[anne]

We have an Administration that drove us to war in Iraq by deception and fear, and when the Iraqi government was deposed chose the tragically lunatic course of occupying Iraq. While waging war and occupation, this Administration drove us to tax cuts on cuts especially for the wealthiest. Now, when we recognize clearly what our domestic needs are, the Administration wants to slash social benefit and social insurance programs and continue with tax cuts on cuts. But, by magic we are to rebuild America's crumbling health care system through occupying Iraq and cutting taxes and balancing the budget. By the magic of Administration lunatics.

The occupation of Iraq is morally wrong, destroying lives, wounding bodies and minds, bleeding America financially, and I surely am not about to change the subject when that is the subject.

[Notice, by the way, the report of the Inspector General of the Pentagon. Notice the deception that we knew drove us to war and occupation. Notice the deception confirmed by the very Pentagon. We were driven to the destruction of our heritage, to the tragedy of Iraq, by deception and fear, and we need to regain our heritage. Notice the report of the Inspector General, and be saddened and angered anew.]

[maria]

Yes, Anne, and even the Pentagon report tries to spin away the lies, etc., by saying the intel was "inappropriate"--nothing more. No lessons to be learned, of course. Just as Vietnam gave the imperialists no lessons to learn.

[anne]

Yes; the dying and the wounding and the destruction and the squandering have been "inappropriate." So the perverting of America's democratic heritage has been inappropriate. So the desperate choices that are being forced by war and occupation from health care to mere $20 bags of groceries for those older and in need are inappropriate. "O brave new world, That has such people in't!"

[anne]

Before the coming election, there is a trap that Democrats must avoid. Yes; there is a mean-spirited Presidential atttempt to slash social benefit and social insurance programs. Yes, there is a budget deficit, and the House of Representatives has vowed to pay for programs rather than increase the deficit. There is the Republican trap, because a proper health care insurance program will involve either budget cuts elsewhere or a tax increase. Attempting to increase taxes will be politically damaging and impossible with this President who wants more tax decreases.

Where then is the money to come from for widespread health care insurance? The answer has to be from the lunatic occupation of Iraq. we can save $14 billion a month directly and more indirectly by leaving Iraq immediately. This must be made completely and repeatedly clear, so that Republicans do not deceive Americans again.

[ilsm]

Movie Guy/Anne,

Protesting!

I did not go to DC when the event occurred.

I have recently wondered what Woody Guthrie would be doing these days.

I know his guitar, the one that was his 'weapon against fascism' would be strumming away with new protest songs each day.

It is always question of opportunity costs.

Socialism is the government running the means of production.

We already have it in an odd way in the warfare state. The government has done everything to send the taxpayers' dough to industry which are really for profit extensions of the government.

Woody would be in front of a defense plant today.

Is the defense welfare state socialism? There is no market and from what I see no penalty for failure nor corruption.

Is universal health cares socialism, is any act done by government that cannot be done by the libertarian sector socialism?

Cannot tell only the VA and Medicare are socialized medicine and they seem to work fairly well.

I think labeling health care socialism so that we do not clearly and openly debate the opporetunity costs of the society emphasizing the warfare state versus the welfare of the general population is wrong!

Woody would be singing and talking.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/politics/06edwards.html?ex=1328418000&en=975f8cbd9ab1f2d9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

February 6, 2007

Edwards Details His Health Care Proposal
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — John Edwards proposed a detailed plan on Monday to provide health care coverage to the 47 million Americans who now go without, becoming the first major presidential candidate to do so.

Mr. Edwards’s plan is ambitious and expensive, adding as much as $120 billion a year to the nation’s health care bill. Money for the proposal would come from increased taxes on well-to-do families, from new fees to be paid by companies that refuse to provide health insurance for their workers and through steps to streamline the delivery of health services....

The Edwards plan is a pastiche of ideas that have been introduced at the state and federal levels, including some that have been derailed by opposition from business groups, doctors and health insurers.

Mr. Edwards, in an interview on Monday, described the American health care delivery system as dysfunctional and said that incremental steps would not cure it. “This proposal embraces the concept of shared responsibility to provide universal health care,” he said.

The plan would be partly financed by eliminating tax cuts for households earning more than $200,000 a year, cuts that Congress approved in the Bush administration. Mr. Edwards said he would also offset the program’s cost by using the estimated $15 billion in capital gains taxes that go uncollected each year by requiring brokerage houses to report capital gains from taxpayers’ stock sales to the Internal Revenue Service, just as interest and dividend income is reported now.

Mr. Edwards also said that billions of dollars could be saved by making the health system more efficient and investing more in preventive care. The Edwards plan would provide tax credits or subsidies to low-income families who cannot afford health insurance, expand Medicare and the federal program of health care for children, and create a federal health insurance agency that could become the basis for a single-payer system that would eventually do away with private health insurance.

Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies the American health care system, praised Mr. Edwards, saying he was the first candidate in the 2008 presidential race to offer a credible and comprehensive plan to cover the uninsured....

[Movie Guy]

ilsm - "I have recently wondered what Woody Guthrie would be doing these days."

Yep.

Tour buses should be rolling in there every weekend carrying thousands and thousands of protestors. Same for underground train cars. Make it stick if you believe it.

There is no real conviction. Just talk.

Amateurs.

[ilsm]

Yep,

Gonna let my hair grow and wear out a pair of jeans.......

I can't see 'em closing down any colleges this spring either.

[anne]

Always the intimidation, always the lunatic intimidation, because that is what intimidators do, they intimidate. Deception and intimidation drove us to war in and occupation of Iraq; deception and intimidation have been and are being used to keep us in Iraq. Intimidate and deceive on. Martin Luther King understood the lunacy.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/opinion/10sat1.html?ex=1328763600&en=a9de6a7c8dc62976&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

February 10, 2007

The Build-a-War Workshop

It took far too long, but a report by the Pentagon inspector general has finally confirmed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's do-it-yourself intelligence office cooked up a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to help justify an unjustifiable war.

The report said the team headed by Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, developed "alternative" assessments of intelligence on Iraq that contradicted the intelligence community and drew conclusions "that were not supported by the available intelligence." Mr. Feith certainly knew the Central Intelligence Agency would cry foul, so he hid his findings from the C.I.A. Then Vice President Dick Cheney used them as proof of cloak-and-dagger meetings that never happened, long-term conspiracies between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that didn't exist, and — most unforgivable — "possible Iraqi coordination" on the 9/11 attacks, which no serious intelligence analyst believed.

The inspector general did not recommend criminal charges against Mr. Feith because Mr. Rumsfeld or his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, approved their subordinate's "inappropriate" operations. The renegade intelligence buff said he was relieved.

We're sure he was. But there is no comfort in knowing that his dirty work was approved by his bosses. All that does is add to evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and repeatedly misled Americans about the intelligence on Iraq.

To understand this twisted tale, it is important to recall how Mr. Feith got into the creative writing business. Top administration officials, especially Mr. Cheney, had long been furious at the C.I.A. for refusing to confirm the delusion about a grand Iraqi terrorist conspiracy, something the Republican right had nursed for years....

[Movie Guy]

ilsm,

The protests prior to the invasion of Iraq around the world were fairly impressive.

The organizers here in the USA apparently don't know to do a real repeat performance on that scale or larger.

They should think of tapping or paying the illegal aliens to join in. That could in a million-man protest in DC, but they would have to cough up some bucks.

I agree, there will no colleges and universities shut down this spring. And the students won't use their breaks to converge on DC in mass. Rather jet off to the beach areas. Yeah...priorities of the self-centered, lazy and well heeled.

[anne]

Always intimidation and deception for that is what intimidators and deceivers do, they intimidate and deceive. Thousands of Americans killed, tens of thousands wounded bodily and mentally, a country wounded spiritually, $2 trillion squandered. Always there must be intimidation deception though, always.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/opinion/29herbert.html

January 29, 2007

More Than Antiwar
By BOB HERBERT

Washington

It was a few minutes after 11 a.m. when the scattered crowd began moving slowly toward the stage at the end of the Mall. The sky was a beautiful sunlit blue and the Capitol building, huge and white and majestic, offered the protesters an emotional backdrop that seemed almost close enough to touch.

"It's so big," said a woman from Milwaukee, who was there with her husband and two children. "It's lovely. Makes you want to cry."

You can say what you want about the people opposed to this wretched war in Iraq, try to stereotype them any way you can. But you couldn't walk among them for more than a few minutes on Saturday without realizing that they love their country as much as anyone ever has. They love it enough to try to save it.

By 11:15 I thought there was a chance that the march against the war would be a bust. There just weren't that many people moving toward the stage to join the rally that preceded the march. But the crowd kept building, slowly, steadily. It was a good-natured crowd. Everyone was bad-mouthing the Bush administration and the war, but everybody seemed to be smiling.

There were gray-haired women with digital cameras and young girls with braces. There were guys trying to look cool in knit caps and shades and balding baby boomers trading stories about Vietnam. And many ordinary families.

"Where's Hillary?" someone asked.

That evoked laughter in the crowd. "She's in Iowa running for president," someone said.

When a woman asked, "What's her position on the war?" a man standing next to her cracked, "She was for it before she was against it."

More laughter.

The crowd kept building. There were people being pushed in wheelchairs and babies in strollers. There were elderly men and women, walking very slowly in some cases and holding hands.

The goal of the crowd was to get the attention of Congress and persuade it to move vigorously to reverse the Bush war policies. But the thought that kept returning as I watched the earnestly smiling faces, so many of them no longer young, was the way these protesters had somehow managed to keep the faith. They still believed, after all the years and all the lies, that they could make a difference. They still believed their government would listen to them and respond....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/opinion/l30iraq.html

Ways to End the Nightmare in Iraq

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert ("More Than Antiwar") got it right about the United for Peace and Justice march last Saturday. The crowds I marched with "love their country as much as anyone ever has," as he wrote — "they love it enough to try to save it."

While it was reassuring to be among so many others who are as fed up as I am about Iraq and this failed administration, I was surprised and disappointed that few key members of Congress attended or spoke to the crowd starving for the leadership we voted in last November. Where were they?

I rallied and marched on Saturday to voice my hope for America, but I returned home wondering if anyone really listened.

Betsy Craz
Remsenburg, N.Y., Jan. 29, 2007

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/opinion/l30iraq.html

Ways to End the Nightmare in Iraq

To the Editor:

On the morning after the large antiwar demonstration in Washington — a war that has taken the lives of more than 3,000 American men and women, egregiously wounded tens of thousands more, and destroyed the lives of countless thousands of Iraqi civilians — we were shocked to find that your article about that protest was buried inside the paper ("Protest Focuses on Iraq Troop Increase").

Why did The Times not consider that article worthy of the front page (aside from a mention in the "Inside" box)?

At a time when the polls indicate that a majority of Americans have finally awakened from their apathy and are seeing the truth about this reckless and catastrophic adventure, where was The New York Times — the paper of record — on this story?

Barbara Gordon
Rita Lloyd
New York, Jan. 28, 2007

[Tom H.]

John D. Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence
Annual Threat Assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee
2.28.06

Released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Levin, Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to offer the Intelligence Community's assessment of the threats, challenges, and opportunities for the United States in today's world. I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague, DIA Director LTG Michael Maples.

Let me begin with a straightforward statement of preoccupation: terrorism is the preeminent threat to our citizens, Homeland, interests, and friends. The War on Terror is our first priority and driving concern as we press ahead with a major transformation of the Intelligence Community we represent.

We live in a world that is full of conflict, contradictions, and accelerating change. Viewed from the perspective of the Director of National Intelligence, the most dramatic change of all is the exponential increase in the number of targets we must identify, track, and analyze. Today, in addition to hostile nation-states, we are focusing on terrorist groups, proliferation networks, alienated communities, charismatic individuals, narcotraffickers, and microscopic influenza.

The 21st century is less dangerous than the 20th century in certain respects, but more dangerous in others. Globalization, particularly of technologies that can be used to produce WMD, political instability around the world, the rise of emerging powers like China, the spread of the jihadist movement, and of course, the horrific events of September 11, 2001, demand heightened vigilance from our Intelligence Community.

Today, I will discuss:

Global jihadists, their fanatical ideology, and the civilized world's efforts to disrupt, dismantle and destroy their networks;

The struggle of the Iraqi and Afghan people to assert their sovereignty over insurgency, terror, and extremism;

WMD-related proliferation and two states of particular concern, Iran and North Korea;

Issues of political instability and governance in all regions of the world that affect our ability to protect and advance our interests; and

Globalization, emerging powers, and such transnational challenges as the geopolitics of energy, narcotrafficking, and possible pandemics.

In assessing these themes, we all must be mindful of the old dictum: forewarned is forearmed. Our policymakers, warfighters, and law enforcement officers need the best intelligence and analytic insight humanly and technically possible to help them peer into the onrushing shadow of the future and make the decisions that will protect American lives and interests. This has never been more true than now with US and Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan--and the citizens and fledgling governments they help to protect--under attack. Addressing threats to their safety and providing the critical intelligence on a myriad of tactical and strategic issues must be--and is--a top priority for our Intelligence Community.

But in discussing all the many dangers the 21st century poses, it should be emphasized that they do not befall America alone. The issues we consider today confront responsible leaders everywhere. That is the true nature of the 21st century: accelerating change affecting and challenging us all.

THE GLOBAL JIHADIST THREAT

Collaboration with our friends and allies around the world has helped us achieve some notable successes against the global jihadist threat. In fact, most of al-Qa'ida's setbacks last year were the result of our allies' efforts, either independently or with our assistance. And since 9/11, examples of the high level of counterterrorism efforts around the world are many. Pakistan's commitment has enabled some of the most important captures to date. Saudi Arabia's resolve to counter the spread of terrorism has increased. Our relationship with Spain has strengthened since the March 2004 Madrid train bombings. The British have long been our closest counterterrorism partners--the seamless cooperation in the aftermath of the July attacks in London reflected that commitment--while Australia, Canada, France and many other nations remain stout allies. Nonetheless, much remains to be done; the battle is far from over.

Jihadists seek to overthrow regimes they regard as “apostate” and to eliminate US influence in the Muslim world. They attack Americans when they can, but most of their targets and victims are fellow Muslims. Nonetheless, the slow pace of economic, social, and political change in most Muslim majority nations are among the factors that continue to fuel a global jihadist movement. The movement is diffuse and subsumes three quite different types of groups and individuals:

First and foremost, al Qa'ida, a battered but resourceful organization;

Second, other Sunni jihadist groups, some affiliated with al-Qa'ida, some not;

Third, networks and cells that are the self-generating progeny of al-Qa'ida.

Al-Qa'ida Remains Our Top Concern. We have eliminated much of the leadership that presided over al-Qa'ida in 2001, and US-led counterterrorism efforts in 2005 continue to disrupt its operations, take out its leaders and deplete its cadre. But the organization's core elements still plot and make preparations for terrorist strikes against the Homeland and other targets from bases in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area; they also have gained added reach through their merger with the Iraq-based network of Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, which has broadened al-Qa'ida's appeal within the jihadist community and potentially put new resources at its disposal.

Thanks to effective intelligence operations, we know a great deal about al Qa'ida's vision. Zawahiri, al Qa'ida's number two, is candid in his July 2005 letter to Zarqawi. He portrays the jihad in Iraq as a stepping-stone in the march toward a global caliphate, with the focus on Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Israel. Zawahiri stresses the importance of having a secure base in Iraq from which to launch attacks elsewhere, including in the US Homeland.

In Bin Ladin's audio tape of late January 2005, al-Qa'ida's top leader reaffirms the group's commitment to attack our Homeland and attempts to reassure supporters by claiming that the reason there has been no attack on the US since 2001 is that he chose not to do so. The subsequent statement by Zawahiri is another indication that the group's leadership is not completely cutoff and can continue to get its message out to followers. The quick turnaround time and the frequency of Zawahiri statements in the past year underscore the high priority al-Qa'ida places on propaganda from its most senior leaders.

Attacking the US Homeland, US interests overseas, and US allies--in that order--are al-Qa'ida's top operational priorities. The group will attempt high-impact attacks for as long as its central command structure is functioning and affiliated groups are capable of furthering its interests, because even modest operational capabilities can yield a deadly and damaging attack. Although an attack using conventional explosives continues to be the most probable scenario, al-Qa'ida remains interested in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials or weapons to attack the United States, US troops, and US interests worldwide.

Indeed, today, we are more likely to see an attack from terrorists using weapons or agents of mass destruction than states, although terrorists' capabilities would be much more limited. In fact, intelligence reporting indicates that nearly 40 terrorist organizations, insurgencies, or cults have used, possessed, or expressed an interest in chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents or weapons. Many are capable of conducting simple, small-scale attacks, such as poisonings, or using improvised chemical devices.

Al-Qa'ida Inspires Other Sunni Jihadists. The global jihad ist movement also subsumes other Sunni extremist organizations, allied with or inspired by al-Qa'ida's global anti-Western agenda. These groups pose less danger to the US Homeland than does al-Qa'ida, but they increasingly threaten our allies and interests abroad and are working to expand their reach and capabilities to conduct multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.

Jemaah Islamiya (JI) is a well-organized group responsible for dozens of attacks killing hundreds of people in Southeast Asia. The threat of a JI attack against US interests is greatest in Southeast Asia, but we assess that the group is committed to helping al-Qa'ida with attacks outside the region.

The Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), which has allied itself with al-Qa'ida, operates in Central Asia and was responsible for the July 2004 attacks against the US and Israeli Embassies in Uzbekistan.

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was formed to establish an Islamic state in Libya, but since the late 1990s it has expanded its goals to include anti-Western jihad alongside al-Qa'ida. LIFG has called on Muslims everywhere to fight the US In Iraq.

Pakistani militant groups--primarily focused on the Kashmir conflict-- represent a persistent threat to regional stability and US interests in South Asia and the Near East. They also pose a potential threat to our interests worldwide. Extremists convicted in Virginia in 2003 of providing material support to terrorism trained with a Pakistani group, Lashkar-i-Tayyiba, before 9/11.

New Jihadist Networks and Cells. An important part of al-Qa'ida's strategy is to encourage a grassroots uprising of Muslims against the West. Emerging new networks and cells --the third element of the global jihadist threat--reflect aggressive jihadist efforts to exploit feelings of frustration and powerlessness in some Muslim communities, and to fuel the perception that the US is anti-Islamic . Their rationale for using terrorism against the US and establishing strict Islamic practices resonates with a small subset of Muslims. This has led to the emergence of a decentralized and diffused movement, with minimal centralized guidance or control, and numerous individuals and small cells--like those who conducted the May 2003 bombing in Morocco, the March 2004 bombings in Spain, and the July 2005 bombings in the UK. Members of these groups have drawn inspiration from al-Qa'ida but appear to operate on their own.

Such unaffiliated individuals, groups and cells represent a different threat than that of a defined organization. They are harder to spot and represent a serious intelligence challenge.

Regrettably, we are not immune from the threat of such “homegrown” jihadist cells. A network of Islamic extremists in Lodi, California, for example, maintained connections with Pakistani militant groups, recruited US citizens for training at radical Karachi madrassas, sponsored Pakistani citizens for travel to the US to work at mosques and madrassas, and according to FBI information, allegedly raised funds for international jihadist groups. In addition, prisons continue to be fertile recruitment ground for extremists who try to exploit converts to Islam.

Impact of Iraq on Global Jihad. Should the Iraqi people prevail in establishing a stable political and security environment, the jihadists will be perceived to have failed and fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere. But, we assess that should the jihadists thwart the Iraqis' efforts to establish a stable political and security environment, they could secure an operational base in Iraq and inspire sympathizers elsewhere to move beyond rhetoric to attempt attacks against neighboring Middle Eastern nations, Europe, and even the United States. The same dynamic pertains to al-Zarqawi. His capture would deprive the movement of a notorious leader, whereas his continued acts of terror could enable him to expand his following beyond his organization in Iraq much as Bin Ladin expanded al-Qa'ida in the 1990s.

Impact of the Islamic Debate. The debate between Muslim extremists and moderates also will influence the future terrorist environment, the domestic stability of key US partners, and the foreign policies of governments throughout the Muslim world. The violent actions of global jihadists are adding urgency to the debate within Islam over how religion should shape government. Growing internal demands for reform around the world--and in many Muslim countries--further stimulate this debate. In general, Muslims are becoming more aware of their Islamic identity, leading to growing political activism; but this does not necessarily signal a trend toward radicalization. Most Muslims reject the extremist message and violent agendas of the global jihadists. Indeed , as people of all backgrounds endorse democratic principles of freedom, equality, and the rule of law, they will be able to couple these principles with their religious beliefs--whatever they may be--to build better futures for their communities. In the Islamic world, increased freedoms will serve as a counterweight to a jihadist movement that only promises more authoritarianism, isolation, and economic stagnation.

EXTREMISM AND CHALLENGES TO EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE AND LEGITIMACY IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

The threat from extremism and anti-Western militancy is especially acute in Iraq and Afghanistan. In discussing Iraq, I'd like to offer a “balance sheet” to give a sense of where I see things today and what I see as the trends in 2006. Bold, inclusive leadership will be the critical factor in establishing an Iraqi constitutional democracy that is both viable as a nation-state and responsive to the diversity of Iraq's regions and people.

Let me begin with some of these encouraging developments before turning to the challenges:

The insurgents have not been able to establish any lasting territorial control; were unable to disrupt either of the two national elections held last year or the Constitutional referendum; have not developed a political strategy to attract popular support beyond their Sunni Arab base; and have not shown the ability to coordinate nationwide operations.

Iraqi security forces are taking on more demanding missions, making incremental progress toward operational independence, and becoming more capable of providing the kind of stability Iraqis deserve and the economy needs in order to grow.

Signs of open conflict between extreme Sunni jihadists and Sunni nationalist elements of the insurgency, while so far still localized, are encouraging and exploitable. The jihadists' heavy-handed activities in Sunni areas in western Iraq have caused tribal and nationalist elements in the insurgency to reach out to the Baghdad government for support.

Large-scale Sunni participation in the last elections has provided a first step toward diminishing Sunni support for the insurgency. There appears to be a strong desire among Sunnis to explore the potential benefits of political participation.

But numerous challenges remain.

The Insurgency and Iraqi Security Forces

Iraqi Sunni Arab disaffection is the primary enabler of the insurgency and is likely to remain high in 2006. Even if a broad, inclusive national government emerges, there almost certainly will be a lag time before we see a dampening effect on the insurgency. Insurgents continue to demonstrate the ability to recruit, supply, and attack Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces, and their leaders continue to exploit Islamic themes, nationalism, and personal grievances to fuel opposition to the government and to recruit more fighters.

The most extreme Sunni jihadists, such as those fighting with Zarqawi, will remain unreconciled and continue to attack Iraqis and Coalition forces.

These extreme Sunni jihadist elements, a subset of which are foreign fighters, constitute a small minority of the overall insurgency, but their use of high-profile suicide attacks gives them a disproportionate impact. The insurgents' use of increasingly lethal improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and the IED makers' adaptiveness to Coalition countermeasures, remain the most significant day-to-day threat to Coalition forces, and a complex challenge for the Intelligence Community.

Iraqi Security Forces require better command and control mechanisms to improve their effectiveness and are experiencing difficulty in managing ethnic and sectarian divides among their units and personnel.

Sunni Political Participation

A key to establishing effective governance and security over the next three to five years is enhanced Sunni Arab political participation and a growing perception among Sunnis that the political process is addressing their interests. Sunnis will be focused on obtaining what they consider their demographically appropriate share of leadership positions in the new government--especially on the Constitutional Review Commission. Debates over federalism, central versus local control, and division of resources are likely to be complex. Success in satisfactorily resolving them will be key to advancing stability and prospects for a unified country. Although the Kurds and Shia were accommodating to the underrepresented Sunnis in 2005, their desire to protect core interests--such as regional autonomy and de-Ba'thification--could make further compromise more difficult.

In the aftermath of the December elections, virtually all of the Iraq parties are seeking to create a broad-based government, but all want it to be formed on their terms. The Shia and the Kurds will be the foundation of any governing coalition, but it is not yet clear to us whether they will include the main Sunni factions, particularly the Iraqi Consensus Front, or other smaller and politically weaker secular groups, such as Ayad Allawi's Iraqi National List. The Sunni parties have significant expectations for concessions from the Shia and Kurds in order to justify their participation and avoid provoking more insurgent violence directed against Sunni political leaders.

Governance and Reconstruction

During the coming year, Iraq's newly elected leadership will face a daunting set of governance tasks. The creation of a new, permanent government and the review of the Constitution by early summer will offer opportunities to find common ground and improve the effectiveness and legit imacy of the central government. There is a danger, however, that political negotiations and dealmaking will prove divisive. This could obstruct efforts to improve government performance, extend Baghdad's reach throughout the country, and build confidence in the democratic political process.

Let me focus on one of those tasks--the economy. Restoration of basic services and the creation of jobs are critical to the well-being of Iraqi citizens, the legitimacy of the new government, and, indirectly, to eroding support for the insurgency. At this point, prospects for economic development in 2006 are constrained by the unstable security situation, insufficient commitment to economic reform, and corruption. Iraq is dependent on oil revenues to fund the government, so insurgents continue to disrupt oil infrastructure, despite the fielding of new Iraqi forces to protect it. Insurgents also are targeting trade and transportation. Intelligence has a key role to play in combating threats to pipelines, electric power grids, and personal safety.

Afghanistan

Like Iraq, Afghanistan is a fragile new democracy struggling to overcome deep-seated social divisions, decades of repression, and acts of terrorism directed against ordinary citizens, officials, foreign aid workers, and Coalition forces. These and other threats to the Karzai government also threaten important American interests--ranging from the defeat of terrorists who find haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to the suppression of opium production.

Afghan leaders face four crit ical challenges: containing the insurgency, building central government capacity and extending its authority, further containing warlordism, and confronting pervasive drug criminality. Intelligence is needed to assist, monitor, and protect Afghan, Coalit ion, and NATO efforts in all four endeavors.

The volume and geographic scope of attacks increased last year, but the Taliban and other militants have not been able to stop the democratic process or expand their support base beyond Pashtun areas of the south and east. Nevertheless, the insurgent threat will impede the expansion of Kabul's writ, slow economic development, and limit progress in counternarcotics efforts.

Ultimately, defeating the insurgency will depend heavily on continued international aid ; effective Coalition, NATO, and Afghan government security operations to prevent the insurgency from gaining a stronger foothold in some Pashtun areas; and the success of the government's reconciliation initiatives.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND STATES OF KEY CONCERN: IRAN AND NORTH KOREA

The ongoing development of dangerous weapons and delivery systems constitutes the second major threat to the safety of our nation, our deployed troops, and our allies. We are most concerned about the threat and destabilizing effect of nuclear proliferation. We are also concerned about the threat from biological agents--or even chemical agents, which would have psychological and possibly political effects far greater than their actual magnitude. Use by nation-states can still be constrained by the logic of deterrence and international control regimes, but these constraints may be of little utility in preventing the use of mass effect weapons by rogue regimes or terrorist groups.

The time when a few states had monopolies over the most dangerous technologies has been over for many years. Moreover, our adversaries have more access to acquire and more opportunities to deliver such weapons than in the past. Technologies, often dual-use, move freely in our globalized economy, as do the scientific personnel who design them. So it is more difficult for us to track efforts to acquire those components and production technologies that are so widely available. The potential dangers of proliferation are so grave that we must do everything possible to discover and disrupt attempts by those who seek to acquire materials and weapons.

We assess that some of the countries that are still pursuing WMD programs will continue to try to improve their capabilities and level of self-sufficiency over the next decade. We also are focused on the potential acquisition of such nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons--or the production technologies and materials necessary to produce them--by states that do not now have such programs, terrorist organizations like al-Qa'ida and by criminal organizations, alone or via middlemen.

We are working with other elements of the US Government regarding the safety and security of nuclear weapons and fissile material, pathogens, and chemical weapons in select countries.

Iran and North Korea: States of Highest Concern

Our concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, by the IAEA, and of course, Iran's neighbors.

Iran conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its IAEA safeguards agreement, and despite its claims to the contrary, we assess that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. We judge that Tehran probably does not yet have a nuclear weapon and probably has not yet produced or acquired the necessary fis sile material. Nevertheless, the danger that it will acquire a nuclear weapon and the ability to integrate it with the ballistic missiles Iran already possesses is a reason for immediate concern. Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, and Tehran views its ballistic missiles as an integral part of its strategy to deter--and if necessary retaliate against--forces in the region, including US forces.

As you are aware, Iran is located at the center of a vital--and volatile-- region, has strained relations with its neighbors, and is hostile to the United States, our friends, and our values. President Ahmadi-Nejad has made numerous unacceptable statements since his election, hard-liners have control of all the major branches and institutions of government, and the government has become more effective and efficient at repressing the nascent shoots of personal freedom that had emerged in the late 1990s and earlier in the decade.

Indeed, the regime today is more confident and assertive than it has been since the early days of the Islamic Republic. Several factors work in favor of the clerical regime's continued hold on power. Record oil and other revenue is permitting generous public spending, fueling strong economic growth, and swelling financial reserves. At the same time, Iran is diversifying its foreign trading partners. Asia's share of Iran's trade has jumped to nearly match Europe's 40-percent share. Tehran sees diversification as a buffer against external efforts to isolate it.

Although regime-threatening instability is unlikely, ingredients for political volatility remain, and Iran is wary of the political progress occurring in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. Ahmadi-Nejad's rhetorical recklessness and his inexperience on the national and international stage also increase the risk of a misstep that could spur popular opposition, especially if more experienced conservatives cannot rein in his excesses. Over time, Ahmadi-Nejad's populist economic policies could--if enacted--deplete the government's financial resources and weaken a structurally flawed economy. For now, however, Supreme Leader Khamenei is keeping conservative fissures in check by balancing the various factions in government.

Iranian policy toward Iraq and its activities there represent a particular concern. Iran seeks a Shia-dominated and unified Iraq but also wants the US to experience continued setbacks in our efforts to promote democracy and stability. Accordingly, Iran provides guidance and training to select Iraqi Shia political groups and weapons and training to Shia militant groups to enable anti-Coalition attacks. Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-Coalition attacks by providing Shia militants with the capability to build IEDs with explosively formed projectiles similar to those developed by Iran and Lebanese Hizballah.

Tehran's intentions to inflict pain on the United States in Iraq has been constrained by its caution to avoid giving Washington an excuse to attack it, the clerical leadership's general satisfaction with trends in Iraq, and Iran's desire to avoid chaos on its borders.

Iranian conventional military power constitutes the greatest potential threat to Persian Gulf states and a challenge to US interests. Iran is enhancing its ability to project its military power--primarily with missiles--in order to threaten to disrupt the operations and reinforcement of US forces based in the region--potentially intimidating regional allies into withholding support for US policy toward Iran--and raising the costs of our regional presence for us and our allies.

Tehran also continues to support a number of terrorist groups, viewing this capability as a critical regime safeguard by deterring US and Israeli attacks, distracting and weakening Israel, and enhancing Iran's regional influence through intimidation. Lebanese Hizballah is Iran's main terrorist ally, which--although focused on its agenda in Lebanon and supporting anti-Israeli Palestinian terroris ts--has a worldwide support network and is capable of attacks against US interests if it feels its Iranian patron is threatened. Tehran also supports Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other groups in the Persian Gulf, Central and South Asia, and elsewhere.

North Korea

North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons--a claim that we assess is probably true--and has threatened to proliferate these weapons abroad. Thus, like Iran, North Korea threatens international security and is located in a historically volatile region. Its aggressive deployment posture threatens our allies in South Korea and US troops on the peninsula. Pyongyang sells conventional weapons to Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and has sold ballistic missiles to several Middle Eastern countries, further destabilizing regions already embroiled in conflict. And it produces and smuggles abroad counterfeit US currency, as well as narcotics, and other contraband.

Pyongyang sees nuclear weapons as the best way to deter superior US and South Korean forces, to ensure regime security, as a lever for economic gain, and as a source of prestige. Accordingly, the North remains a major challenge to the global nuclear nonproliferation regimes.

GOVERNANCE, POLITICAL INSTABILITY, AND DEMOCRATIZATION

Good governance and, over the long term, progress toward democratization are crucial factors in navigating through the period of international turmoil and transition that commenced with the end of the Cold War and that will continue well into the future. In the absence of effective governance and reform, political instability often compromises our security interests while threatening new democracies and pushing flailing states into failure.

I will now review those states of greatest concern to the United States, framing my discussion within the context of trends and developments in their respective regions.

MIDDLE EAST and SOUTH ASIA

Middle East

The tensions between autocratic regimes, extremism, and democratic forces extend well beyond our earlier discussion about Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to other countries in the Middle East. Emerging political competition and the energizing of public debate on the role of democracy and Islam in the region could lead to the opening of political systems and development of civic institutions, providing a possible bulwark against extremism. But the path to change is far from assured. Forces for change are vulnerable to fragmentation and longstanding regimes are increasingly adept at using both repression and limited reforms to moderate political pressures to assure their survival.

We continue to watch closely events in Syria, a pivotal--but generally unhelpful--player in a troubled region. Despite the Syrian military withdrawal from Lebanon last year, Damascus still meddles in its internal affairs, seeks to undercut prospects for an Arab-Israeli peace, and has failed to crackdown consistently on militant infiltration into Iraq. By aligning itself with Iran, the Bashar al-Asad regime is signaling its rejection of the Western world. Over the coming year, the Syrian regime could face internal challenges as various pressures--especially the fallout of the UN investigation into the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister-- raise questions about President Bashar al-Asad's judgment and leadership capacity.

Syria's exit from Lebanon has created political opportunities in Beirut, but sectarian tensions--especially the sense among Shia that they are underrepresented in the government--and Damascus's meddling persist. Bombings since March targeting anti-Syria politicians and journalists have fueled sectarian animosities.

Egypt held presidential and legislative elections for the first time with multiple presidential candidates in response to internal and external pressures for democratization. The Egyptian public, however, remains discontented by economic conditions, the Arab-Israeli problem, the US presence in Iraq, and insufficient political freedoms.

Saudi Arabia's crackdown on al-Qa'ida has prevented major terrorist attacks in the Kingdom for more than a year and degraded the remnants of the terror network's Saudi-based leadership, manpower, access to weapons, and operational capability. These developments, the Kingdom's smooth leadership transition and high oil prices have eased, but not eliminated, concerns about stability.

HAMAS's recent electoral performance ushered in a period of great uncertainty as President Abbas, the Israelis, and the rest of the world determine how to deal with a majority party in the Palestinian Legislative Council that conducts and supports terrorism and refuses to recognize or negotiate with Israel. The election, however, does not necessarily mean that the search for peace between Israel and the Palestinians is halted irrevocably. The vote garnered by HAMAS may have been cast more against the Fatah government than for the HAMAS program of rejecting Israel. In any case, HAMAS now must contend with Palestinian public opinion that has over the years has supported the two-state solution.

South Asia

Many of our most important interests intersect in Pakistan. The nation is at the frontline in the war on terror, having captured several al-Qa'ida leaders, but also remains a major source of extremism that poses a threat to Musharraf, to the US, and to neighboring India and Afghanistan. Musharraf faces few political challenges in his dual role as President and Chief of Army Staff, but has made only limited progress moving his country toward democracy. Pakistan retains a nuclear force outside the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and not subject to full-scope IAEA safeguards and has been both recipient and source--via A.Q. Khan's proliferation activities--of nuclear weapons-related technologies. Pakistan's national elections scheduled for 2007 will be a key benchmark to determine whether the country is continuing to make progress in its democratic transition.

Since India and Pakistan approached the brink of war in 2002, their peace process has lessened tensions and both appear committed to improving the bilateral relationship. A number of confidence-building measures, including new transportation links, have helped sustain the momentum. Still, the fact that both have nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them entails obvio us and dangerous risks of escalation.

EURASIA

In Russia, President Putin's drive to centralize power and assert control over civil society, growing state control over strategic sectors of the economy, and the persistence of widespread corruption raise questions about the country's direction. Russia could become a more inward-looking and difficult interlocutor for the United States over the next several years. High profits from exports of oil and gas and perceived policy successes at home and abroad have bolstered Moscow's confidence.

Russia probably will work with the United States on shared interests such as counterterrorism, counternarcotics, and counterproliferation. However, growing suspicions about Western intentions and Moscow's desire to demonstrate its independence and defend its own interests may make it harder to cooperate with Russia on areas of concern to the United States.

Now, let me briefly examine the rest of post-Soviet Eurasia where the results in the past year have been mixed.

Many of the former Soviet republics are led by autocratic, corrupt, clan-based regimes whose political stability is based on different levels of repression; yet, at the same time, we have seen in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan the emergence of grassroots forces for change.

Central Asia remains plagued by political stagnation and repression, rampant corruption, widespread poverty and widening socio-economic inequalities, and other problems that nurture nascent radical sentiment and terrorism. In the worst, but not implausible case, central authority in one or more of these states could evaporate as rival clans or regions vie for power--opening the door to an expansion of terrorist and criminal activity on the model of failed states like Somalia and, when it was under Taliban rule, Afghanistan.

LATIN AMERICA

A gradual consolidation and improvement of democratic institutions is the dominant trend in much of Latin America. By the year's end, ten countries will have held presidential elections and none is more important to US interests than the contest in Mexico in July. Mexico has taken advantage of NAFTA and its economy has become increasingly integrated with the US and Canada. Committed democrats in countries like Brazil and Chile are promoting economic growth and poverty alleviation. And despite battling persistent insurgent and paramilitary forces with considerable success, Colombia remains committed to keeping on a democratic path. Nonetheless, radical populist figures in some countries advocate statist economic policies and show little respect for democratic institutions.

In Venezuela, President Chavez, if he wins reelection later this year, appears ready to use his control of the legislature and other institutions to continue to stifle the opposition, reduce press freedom, and entrench himself through measures that are technically legal, but which nonetheless constrict democracy. We expect Chavez to deepen his relationship with Castro (Venezuela provides roughly two-thirds of that island's oil needs on preferential credit terms). He also is seeking closer economic, military, and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea. Chavez has scaled back counternarcotics cooperation with the US.

Increased oil revenues have allowed Chavez to embark on an activist foreign policy in Latin America that includes providing oil at favorable repayment rates to gain allies, using newly created media outlets to generate support for his Bolivarian goals, and meddling in the internal affairs of his neighbors by backing particular candidates for elective office.

In Bolivia, South America's poorest country with the hemisphere's highest proportion of indigenous people, the victory of Evo Morales reflects the public's lack of faith in traditional political parties and institutions. Since his election he appears to have moderated his earlier promises to nationalize the hydrocarbons industry and cease coca eradication. But his administration continues to send mixed signals regarding its intentions.

Haiti's newly elected government has substantial popular support but will face a wide variety of immediate challenges, including reaching out to opponents who question the legitimacy of the electoral process. President-elect Preval's strong backing among the urban poor may improve his chances for reducing the unchecked violence of slum gangs, and the recent renewal for six months of the mandate for the UN Stabilization Mission will give his administration some breathing room. The perception among would-be migrants that the US migration policy is tough will continue to be the most important factor in deterring Haitians from fleeing their country.

SOUTHEAST ASIA

Southeast Asia includes vibrant, diverse, and emerging democracies looking to the United States as a source of stability, wealth, and leadership. But it is also home to terrorism, separatist aspirations, crushing poverty, ethnic violence, and religious divisions. Burma remains a dictatorship, and Cambodia is retreating from progress on democracy and human rights made in the 1990s. The region is particularly at risk from avian flu, which I will address later at greater length. Al-Qa'ida-affiliated and other extremist groups are present in many countries, although effective government policies have limited their growth and impact.

The prospects for democratic consolidation are relatively bright in Indonesia, the country with the world's largest Muslim population. President Yudhoyono is moving forward to crack down on corruption, professionalize the military, bring peace to the long-troubled province of Aceh, and implement economic reforms. On the counterterrorism side, Indonesian authorities have detained or killed significant elements of Jemaah Islamiya (JI), the al Qa'ida-linked terrorist group, but JI remains a tough foe.

The Philippines remains committed to democracy despite political turbulence over alleged cheating in the 2004 election and repeated rumors of coup plots. Meanwhile, Manila continues to struggle with the thirty-five year old Islamic and Communist rebellions, and faces growing concerns over the presence of JI terrorists in the south.

Thailand is searching for a formula to contain violence instigated by ethnic-Malay Muslim separatist groups in the far southern provinces. In 2005, the separatists showed signs of stronger organization and more lethal and brutal tactics targeting the government and Buddhist population in the south.

AFRICA

Some good news is coming out of Africa. The continent is enjoying real economic growth after a decade of declining per capita income. The past decade has also witnessed a definite, albeit gradual, trend toward greater democracy, openness, and multiparty elections. In Liberia, the inauguration of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as President, following a hotly contested multi-party election, was a positive harbinger of a return to democratic rule in a battered nation.

Yet, in much of the continent, humanitarian crises, instability, and conflict persist. Overlaying these enduring threats are the potential spread of jihadist ideology among disaffected Muslim populations and the region's growing importance as a source of energy. We are most concerned about Sudan and Nigeria.

The signing of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan last year was a major achievement, but the new Government of National Unity is being tested by the continuing conflict in Darfur, and instability in Chad is spilling over into western Sudan, further endangering humanitarian aid workers and assistance supply lines. Gains in stabilizing and improving the conditions in Darfur could be reversed if the new instability goes unchecked.

The most important election on the African horizon will be held in spring 2007 in Nigeria , the continent's most populous country and largest oil producer. The vote has the potential to reinforce a democratic trend away from military rule--or it could lead to major disruption in a nation suffering frequent ethno-religious violence, criminal activity, and rampant corruption. Speculation that President Obasanjo will try to change the constitution so he can seek a third term in office is raising political tensions and, if proven true, threatens to unleash major turmoil and conflict. Such chaos in Nigeria could lead to disruption of oil supply, secessionist moves by regional governments, major refugee flows, and instability elsewhere in West Africa.

GLOBALIZATION AND RISING ACTORS

To one degree or another, all nations are affected by the phenomenon known as globalization. Many see the United States as globalization's primary beneficiary, but the developments subsumed under its rubric operate largely beyond the control of all countries. Small, medium, and large states are both gaining and losing through technological and economic developments at a rate of speed unheard of in human history.

Such recalibrations in regional and global standing usually emerge in the wake of war. But globalization isn't a war, even though its underside-- fierce competition for global energy reserves, discrepancies between rich and poor, criminal networks that create and feed black markets in drugs and even human beings, and the rapid transmission of disease--has the look of a silent but titanic global struggle.

One major recalibration of the global order enabled by globalization is the shift of world economic momentum and energy to greater Asia--led principally by explosive economic growth in China and the growing concentration of world manufacturing activity in and around it. India, too, is emerging as a new pole of greater Asia's surging economic and political power. These two Asian giants comprise fully a third of the world's population--a huge labor force eager for modern work, supported by significant scientific and technological capabilities, and an army of new claimants on the world's natural resources and capital.

China

China is a rapidly rising power with steadily expanding global reach that may become a peer competitor to the United States at some point. Consistent high rates of economic growth, driven by exploding foreign trade, have increased Beijing's political influence abroad and fueled a military modernization program that has steadily increased Beijing's force projection capabilities.

Chinese foreign policy is currently focused on the country's immediate periphery, including Southeast and Central Asia, where Beijing hopes to make economic inroads, increase political influence, and prevent a backlash against its rise. Its rhetoric toward Taiwan has been less inflammatory since Beijing passed its “anti-secession” law last spring. China has been reaching out to the opposition parties on Taiwan and making economic overtures designed to win favor with the Taiwan public--although Beijing still refuses to deal with the elected leader in Taipei.

Beijing also has expanded diplomatic and economic interaction with other major powers--especially Russia and the EU--and begun to increase its presence in Africa and Latin America.

China's military is vigorously pursuing a modernization program: a full suite of modern weapons and hardware for a large proportion of its overall force structure; designs for a more effective operational doctrine at the tactical and theater level; training reforms; and wide-ranging improvements in logistics, administration, financial management, mobilization, and other critical support functions.

Beijing's biggest challenge is to sustain growth sufficient to keep unemployment and rural discontent from rising to destabilizing levels and to maintain increases in living standards. To do this, China must solve a number of difficult economic and legal problems, improve the education system, reduce environmental degradation, and improve governance by combating corruption.

Indeed, China's rise may be hobbled by systemic problems and the Communist Party's resistance to the demands for political participation that economic growth generates. Beijing's determination to repress real or perceived challenges--from dispossessed peasants to religious organizations--could lead to serious instability at home and less effective policies abroad.

India

Rapid economic growth and increasing technological competence are securing India's leading role in South Asia, while helping India to realize its longstanding ambition to become a global power. India's growing confidence on the world stage as a result of its increasingly globalized business activity will make New Delhi a more effective partner for the United States, but also a more formidable player on issues such as those before the WTO.

New Delhi seeks to play a key role in fostering democracy in the region, especially in Nepal and Bangladesh, and will continue to be a reliable ally against global terrorism, in part because India has been a frequent target for Islamic terrorists, mainly in Kashmir. India seeks better relations with its two main rivals--Pakistan and China--recognizing that its regional disputes with them are hampering its larger goals on the world stage. Nevertheless, like China, India is using its newfound wealth and technical capabilities to extend its military reach.

On the economic front, as Indian multinationals become more prevalent, they will offer competition and cooperation with the United States in fields such as energy, steel, and pharmaceuticals. New Delhi's pursuit of energy to fuel its rapidly growing economy adds to pressure on world prices and increases the likelihood that it will seek to augment its programs in nuclear power, coal technologies, and petroleum exploration. Like Pakistan, India is outside the Nonproliferation Treaty.

THREATS TO GLOBAL ENERGY SECURITY

World energy markets seem certain to remain tight for the foreseeable future. Robust global economic expansion is pushing strong energy demand growth and--combined with instability in several oil producing regions--is increasing the geopolitical leverage of key energy producer states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela. At the same time, the pursuit of secure energy supplies has become a much more significant driver of foreign policy in countries where energy demand growth is surging--particularly China and India.

The changing global oil and gas market has encouraged Russia's assertiveness with Ukraine and Georgia, Iran's nuclear brinksmanship, and the populist “petro-diplomacy” of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Russia's recent but short-lived curtailment of natural gas deliveries to Ukraine temporarily reduced gas supplies to much of Europe and is an example of how energy can be used as both a political and economic tool. The gas disruption alarmed Europeans--reminding them of their dependence on Russian gas--and refocused debate on alternative energy sources.

Foreign policy frictions, driven by energy security concerns, are likely to be fed by continued global efforts of Chinese and Indian firms to ink new oilfield development deals and to purchase stakes in foreign oil and gas properties. Although some of these moves may incrementally increase oil sector investment and global supplies, others may bolster countries such as Iran, Syria, and Sudan that pose signif icant US national security risks or foreign policy challenges. For example, in Venezuela, Chavez is attempting to diversify oil exports away from the US.

THE SECURITY THREAT FROM NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING

In addition to the central US national security interest in stemming the flow of drugs to this country, there are two international threats related to narcotics: first, the potential threat from an intersection of narcotics and extremism; and second, the threat from the impact of drugs on those ineffective and unreliable nation states about which we are so concerned.

Although the worldwide trafficking-terrorist relationship is limited, the scope of these ties has grown modestly in recent years. A small number of terrorist groups engage the services of or accept donations from criminals, including narcotics traffickers, to help raise operational funds. While the revenue realized by extremists appears small when compared to that of the dedicated trafficking organizations, even small amounts of income can finance destructive acts of terror.

The tie between drug trafficking and extremism is strongest in Colombia and Afghanistan. Both of Colombia's insurgencies and most of its paramilitary groups reap substantial benefits from cocaine transactions. In Afghanistan, the Taliban and Hizb-i Islami Gulbudin gain at least some of their financial support from their ties to local opiates traffickers. Ties between trafficking and extremists elsewhere are less robust and profitable. North African extremists involved in the 2004 Madrid train bombings reportedly used drug income to buy their explosives.

Most major international organized crime groups have kept terrorists at arm's length, although some regional criminal gangs have supplied fraudulent or altered travel documents, moved illicit earnings, or provided other criminal services to members of insurgent or terrorist groups for a fee.

Narcotics traffickers--and other organized criminals--typically do not want to see governments toppled but thrive in states where governments are weak, vulnerable to or seeking out corruption, and unable--or unwilling--to consistently enforce the rule of law. Nonetheless, a vicious cycle can develop in which a weakened government enables criminals to dangerously undercut the state's credibility and authority with the consequence that the investment climate suffers, economic growth withers, black market activity rises, and fewer resources are available for civil infrastructure and governance.

THE THREAT FROM PANDEMICS AND EPIDEMICS

In the 21st century, our Intelligence Community has expanded the definition of bio-threats to the US beyond weapons to naturally occurring pandemics. The most pressing infectious disease challenge facing the US is the potential emergence of a new and deadly avian influenza strain, which could cause a worldwide outbreak, or pandemic. International health experts worry that avian influenza could become transmissible among humans, threatening the health and lives of millions of people around the globe. There are many unknowns about avian flu, but even the specter of an outbreak could have significant effects on the international economy, whole societies, military operations, critical infrastructure, and diplomatic relations.

Avian flu is not something we can fight alone. An effective response to it is highly dependent on the openness of affected nations in reporting outbreaks where and when they occur. But for internal political reasons, a lack of response capability, or disinclination to regard avian influenza as a significant threat, some countries are not forthcoming. In close coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Intelligence Community therefore is tracking a number of key countries that are--or could be--especially prone to avian influenza outbreaks and where we cannot be confident that adequate information will be available through open sources. The IC also coordinates closely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and provides input to the national Bio Surveillance Integration System at DHS.

CONCLUSION

Each of the major intelligence challenges I have discussed today is affected by the accelerating change and transnational interplay that are the hallmarks of 21st century globalization. As a direct result, collecting, analyzing, and acting on solid intelligence have become increasingly difficult. To meet these new and reconfigured challenges, we need to work hand-in-hand with other responsible nations. Fortunately, the vast majority of governments in the world are responsible and responsive, but those that are not are neither few in numbers nor lacking in material resources and geopolitical influence.

The powerful critiques of the 9/11 Commission and the WMD Commission, framed by statute in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and taken to heart by the dedicated professionals of our Intelligence Community, have helped make us better prepared and more vigilant than we were on that terrible day in September 2001. But from an intelligence perspective, we cannot rest. We must transform our intelligence capabilities and cultures by fully integrating them from local law enforcement through national authorities in Washington to combatant commanders overseas. The more thoroughly we do that, the more clearly we will be able to see the threats lurking in the shadow of the future and ward them off.

Thank you very much.