Sunday, 26 July 2009

us running out of grains

Thursday, July 23, 2009

"http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/07/us-govt-completely-out-of-wheat.html"

Starfish Acres reports that

http://starfishacres.blogspot.com/2008/07/us-govt-out-of-wheat-completely.html

(emphasis mine) [my comment]

Wednesday, July 23, 2008
US Gov't out of wheat. Completely.
Government Holdings of Wheat are at Zero
By Benjamin Gisin

IDAHO FALLS, ID -
Quietly, the last of the U.S. government's wheat reserves, held in the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, were sold in late May onto the domestic market for cash. The cash was put in a trust for food aid. With no other government wheat holdings, U.S. government wheat stocks are now totally exhausted.

The following recent statements by Rebecca Bratter, director of policy for U.S. Wheat Associates, provides insights:

"While U.S. wheat industry strongly supports the administration's goal of maintaining current food aid programs to prevent rampant hunger worldwide, there is concern regarding the impact of selling reserve wheat o­n the domestic market and over the lack of commitment from the administration to replenish the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. U.S. Wheat Associates has shared these concerns with high officials at USDA and o­n the President's staff and has asked about the Administration's intent regarding replenishment of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.

Staff from the office of the President's Special Agricultural Assistant noted that while there is no commitment at this time, the administration intends to replenish the Trust once the supply and price scenario stabilizes." (Note: U.S. Wheat Associates works in 90 countries promoting U.S. wheat exports.)

The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust was established in 1980 by an act of Congress and is authorized to hold up to 4 million metric tons of wheat, corn, sorghum and rice as a reserve for global food crises. The wheat is purchased and managed by the Commodity Credit Corporation and included in the total amount of wheat owned and held by the U.S. government. Holdings by the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust for corn, sorghum and rice are also zero.

For the decade of the '80s, government wheat holdings (including those in the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust) averaged 358 million bushels. For the decade of the '90s, government wheat holdings averaged 133 million bushels. Since 2000, government wheat holdings dropped steadily until recently when the last of the government-owned wheat was sold.

With no formal plan for wheat stocks by the U.S. government,
wheat stocks have defaulted to the arena of the private free-market sector. Unfortunately, the private sector has no plans for any kind of minimum wheat stocks that would protect from a price and/or availability standpoint the American public.

Private wheat stocks are divided into two major categories — o­n-farm wheat stocks owned by farmers and off-farm wheat stocks owned by warehouses and grain companies. These two together held 305.6 million bushels of wheat as of June 1 — or roughly 1 bushel per person living in the United States — the lowest level in 60 years.

Of these stocks, o­n-farm wheat stocks are at 25.6 million bushels, the lowest level of o­n-farm wheat stocks since the USDA started keeping tabs back in 1934. So as you are driving in rural America before wheat harvest, the farmer's bins have never been so empty.

The USDA, projects America to have a bumper wheat crop in 2008 — producing 2.43 billion bushels and consuming and exporting 2.30 billion bushels. This leaves a meager 133 million bushels (5.5 percent of production) as a margin for error. Globally, the USDA projects wheat production to be 24.36 billion bushels, consumption to be 23.74 billion bushels for a relatively smaller margin of 622 million bushels or 2.6 percent of production.

The recent wheat crises in America was sparked by the nation exporting more wheat than it produced. This means the true 2008 wheat margin for Americans is really the global margin of 2.6 percent. Any decline from global projections could precipitate greater wheat exports from America and further draw down already low domestic and global wheat stocks.

Food security is emerging as a global focal point. With the U.S. government and the private sector lacking visions for stocks, food security is poised to grow as a grass-roots issue around the nation.

The Infinite Unknown reports that the US has no remaining grain reserves.

The U.S. Has No Remaining Grain Reserves
Posted On Jun 10 Economy, Politics Add comments

WASHINGTON - Larry Matlack, President of the American Agriculture Movement (AAM), has raised concerns over the issue of U.S. grain reserves after it was announced that the sale of 18.37 million bushels of wheat from USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.

"According to the May 1, 2008 CCC inventory report there are only 24.1 million bushels of wheat in inventory, so after this sale there will be only 2.7 million bushels of wheat left the entire CCC inventory,"
[As stated in article above, the US has no grain inventory left] warned Matlack. "Our concern is not that we are using the remainder of our strategic grain reserves for humanitarian relief. AAM fully supports the action and all humanitarian food relief.

Our concern is that the U.S. has nothing else in our emergency food pantry. There is no cheese, no butter, no dry milk powder, no grains or anything else left in reserve.

The only thing left in the entire CCC inventory will be 2.7 million bushels of wheat which is about enough wheat to make 1/2 of a loaf of bread for each of the 300 million people in America." [Nothing left in CCC inventory]

The CCC is a federal government-owned and operated entity that was created to stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices. CCC is also supposed to maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities and aids in their orderly distribution.

"This lack of emergency preparedness is the fault of the 1996 farm bill which eliminated the government's grain reserves as well as the Farmer Owned Reserve (FOR)," explained Matlack. "We had hoped to reinstate the FOR and a Strategic Energy Grain Reserve in the new farm bill, but the politics of food defeated our efforts. As farmers it is our calling and purpose in life to feed our families, our communities, our nation and a good part of the world, but we need better planning and coordination if we are to meet that purpose. AAM pledges to continue our work for better farm policy which includes an FOR and a Strategic Energy Grain Reserve."

AAM's support for the FOR program, which allows the grain to be stored on farms, is a key component to a safe grain reserve in that the supplies will be decentralized in the event of some unforeseen calamity which might befall the large grain storage terminals.

A Strategic Energy Grain Reserve is as crucial for the nation's domestic energy needs as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. AAM also supports full funding for the replenishment and expansion of Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.

CCC Inventory numbers

The Farm Service Agency gives us current and past CCC inventory numbers.

Year

CCC Inventory

1975/76

0.4

1976/77

0.1

1977/78

19.0

1978/79

49.5

1979/80

50.1

1980/81

199.0

1981/82

194.0

1982/83

189.5

1983/84

311.7

1984/85

300.3

1985/86

456.9

1986/87

791.2

1987/88

708.6

1988/89

237.3

1989/90

162.4

1990/91

125.9

1991/92

160.8

1992/93

151.3

1993/94

150.2

1994/95

145.5

1995/96

140.6

1996/97

104.8

1997/98

93.1

1998/99

111.2

1999/00

121.0

2000/01

105.0

2001/02

97.0

2002/03

86.4

2003/04

61.8

2004/05

60.1

2005/06

49.0

2006/07

43.1

2007/08

37.6

2008/09

0



Price of wheat




My reaction: The US government is completely out of wheat.

1) the last of the US government's wheat reserves, held in the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, were quietly sold in May 2008 onto the domestic market for cash.

2) US government wheat stocks are now totally exhausted.

3) The US has nothing else in our emergency food pantry. There is no cheese, no butter, no dry milk powder, no grains or anything else left in reserve.

4) This lack of emergency preparedness is the fault of the 1996 farm bill which eliminated the government's grain reserves as well as the Farmer Owned Reserve (FOR).

5) Government wheat holdings over time:

A) Averaged 358 million bushels for the decade of the '80s.
B) Averaged 133 million bushels for the decade of the '90s.
C) Dropped steadily until zero in May 2008

6) With no formal plan for wheat stocks by the US government, wheat stocks have defaulted to the arena of the private free-market sector

7) The private sector has no plans for any kind of minimum wheat stocks that would protect from a price and/or availability standpoint the American public.

8) In July 2008, on-farm wheat stocks are at 25.6 million bushels, the lowest level of on-farm wheat stocks since the USDA started keeping tabs back in 1934.

9) The recent wheat crisis in America was sparked by the nation exporting more wheat than it produced.

10) Any decline from global production could precipitate greater wheat exports from America wiping out already low domestic wheat stocks.


Conclusion: The US has done the same thing to wheat as it has to gold (though perhaps to a lesser degree). Since 1987, the US has sold nearly 800 million bushels of wheat, emptying its reserves. These sales, besides making the US vulnerable to a food crisis, have depressed wheat prices below what they would otherwise have been.

pencil icon, that\

cartoon: state violence in rio

.





TAKING THE MESSAGE TO THE STREETS IN RIO

July 25, 2009 at 8:05 am (Activism, Associate Post, Cartoons, Terrorism)
Human rights organizations launched billboards in downtown Rio de Janeiro with my cartoon about state terror in the slums.

Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff….. followed by the Billboard.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/taking-the-message-to-the-streets-in-rio/

georgia: serious mistakes by the west


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,572686,00.html

08/18/2008 12:06 PM

'Serious Mistakes by the West'

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder discusses the war in the Caucasus, the possibility of Germany serving as an intermediary in the conflict and his belief in a constructive role for Russia.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Schröder, who is at fault for the Caucasus war?

Gerhard Schröder: The hostilities undoubtedly have their historic causes, as well, and the conflict has had several historic precursors. But the moment that triggered the current armed hostilities was the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. This should not be glossed over.

SPIEGEL: You see no partial fault on Moscow's part, no lack of proportionality in the actions of the Russian military?

Schröder: That is something I cannot and do not wish to judge. But we know, of course, that military conflicts develop their own dynamics. The crucial issue now is that all parties involved will take advantage of the French president's six-point plan.

SPIEGEL: Do you believe that the American military advisors stationed in Tbilisi encouraged Georgia to launch its attack?

Schröder: I wouldn't go that far. But everyone knows that these US military advisors in Georgia exist -- a deployment that I've never considered particularly intelligent. And it would have been strange if these experts had not had any information. Either they were extremely unprofessional or they were truly fooled, which is hard to imagine.

SPIEGEL: The US government claims that it warned Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili against taking military action. But wasn't the whole thing only too convenient for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin?

Schröder: These are speculations in which I prefer not to participate. I assume that no one in the Moscow leadership has an interest in military conflicts. There are enough internal problems in Russia that need to be solved. For instance, corruption and abuse of authority must be addressed. Russia has plenty of deficits, an issue I've addressed many a time. President (Dmitry) Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are addressing these problems -- together, by the way, in friendship and mutual respect, not in competition with one another, as journalistic fortune-tellers often imply.

SPIEGEL: That may well be, but something else is now at stake: Russia has never overcome the loss of its superpower status, and in recent years it has felt cornered and humiliated by NATO. During the wars in the Balkans, the Iraq invasion by the "Coalition of the Willing" under Washington's leadership, the Kosovo declaration of independence ...

Schröder: ... don't forget the development of an American missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic ...

SPIEGEL: ... the Kremlin has been forced to look on. Isn't it possible that an economically and militarily strengthened Moscow now sees US friend Saakashvili as the best possible opportunity to retaliate against the West? And that Putin wants to assert imperial claims?

Schröder: In my view, there have indeed been serious mistakes made by the West in its policy toward Russia. Can we conclude that this bears some relationship to the recent events in the Caucasus, as Russia's response, so to speak, to the Georgian provocation? I think it's wrong to combine these two notions.

SPIEGEL: You don't share the newly erupted fear among many in the West of a "Russian threat?"

Schröder: No, not at all. There is a perception of Russia in the West that has very little to do with reality.

SPIEGEL: Could the new, highly self-confident leadership duo in Moscow feel that the West needs them more than they need the West?

Schröder: It is a mutual dependency. There is not a single critical problem in world politics or the global economy that could be solved without Russia -- not the nuclear conflict with Iran, the North Korea question and certainly not bringing peace to the Middle East. The set of problems relating to the climate can also only be addressed universally. Incidentally, Moscow ratified the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming, while we are still waiting for Washington to do so. And when it comes to energy policy, only dreamers can pursue the idea that Western Europe could become independent of Russian oil and natural gas. On the other hand, the Russians need reliable buyers for their energy shipments.

SPIEGEL: You see no reason, in light of the harsh actions in the Caucasus, to terminate the special German-Russian "strategic partnership," or at least to put it on ice?

Schröder: No. I don't see why this concept should be jeopardized because of Georgia. Mutual dependencies also create mutual securities. I am also opposed to criticism of Russian investments in Germany. Who should have a problem with Mr. (Alexei) Mordashov investing in the (tourism company) TUI, Mr. (Oleg) Deripaska owning 10 percent of (the construction company) Hochtief or another oligarch owning a share of the fashion house Escada? I would like to see more and not less investment in the German economy. Historically speaking, such economic integration has proven to be politically beneficial.

SPIEGEL: Now you sound like (former US Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger. Have you always thought this way?

Schröder: Certainly not in my Young Socialist days. But ever since I became professionally involved in foreign policy as chancellor, this sober approach has always been my preference -- and it's certainly the most reasonable one.

SPIEGEL: With all due respect to cool-headed realpolitik: Don't we have to draw a red line now, one that Moscow cannot cross if it wants to continue playing a role in international institutions and as a partner of the West? Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Georgia, for example, and recognition of its territorial integrity, as US Secretary of State Rice has vehemently demanded?

Schröder: I do not believe that Russia is pursuing a policy of annexation. And I also do not believe that there can be a return to the status quo ante in South Ossetia or Abkhazia. It's out of the question. In my opinion, this has less to do with supposed Russian expansionist interests than with the wishes of the civilian population.

SPIEGEL: Should Germany participate militarily in a peacekeeping force in the Caucasus?

Schröder: The German foreign minister has long been involved in the search for political solutions through his shuttle diplomacy, and he has astutely said that if the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were to play a role in coordination with the parties to the conflict, Germany could not be uninvolved. However, if there is a mission without express Russian consent, I do not want to see any German soldiers stationed there. This is simply a matter of our shared history.

SPIEGEL: Does Georgia belong in NATO?

Schröder: I thought that the German government -- and I certainly wish to compliment Ms. Merkel and Mr. Steinmeier in this regard -- together with the French government, took the smart approach at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April ...

SPIEGEL: ... because they opposed the Americans' and the Eastern Europeans' desire for fast acceptance of Georgia and Ukraine, and instead shelved the issue with what amounted to vague promises.

Schröder: Imagine if we were forced to intervene militarily on behalf of Georgia as a NATO country, on behalf of an obvious gambler, which is clearly the way one ought to characterize Saakashvili. Georgia and Ukraine must first resolve their domestic political problems, and they are still a long way off. I see the chances of Georgian accession becoming even more remote as a result of the recent events in the Caucasus and, in this connection, I have great difficulties following the rather ostentatious promises made by the NATO secretary general a few days ago.

SPIEGEL: The Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, followed up by saying: "Today we're all Georgians."

Schröder: I am not.

'Those in Washington Have also Understood that One Can Win Wars Alone, but not the Peace.

SPIEGEL: Robert Kagan, an idol of the neoconservatives and still the Republicans' leading foreign policy thinker, has defined the day of Russia's invasion of Georgia as the beginning of renewed territorial conflicts between the major powers and "as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell."

Schröder: I read that, but it too means nothing to me. Kagan, after all, was one of the men who strongly advised intervening in Iraq. The consequences were not pleasant, neither for America nor Europe. Perhaps one should simply not listen to his advice.

SPIEGEL: In an article in Die Zeit a few weeks ago, you wrote that the "transitional phase of American dominance" is now coming to an end. What exactly did you mean by that? And does this automatically lead to the conclusion of a multipolar, better world?

Schröder: The end of unipolar America is not just evident in the rise of a Democratic presidential candidate, Obama, but also in the policies of rationally thinking Republicans. If you read the nonpartisan Baker-Hamilton report on the future of Iraq, you will find it difficult not to recognize that the next US president will hardly have any other choice but to act in a multipolar way -- no matter what one politician or another says in the US election campaign.

SPIEGEL: Regardless of whether the next man in charge at the White House is Barack Obama or John McCain?

Schröder: Of course that will make a difference. But I believe that even a Republican administration, which I certainly am not hoping for, could not avoid taking a more multipolar approach once again, involving allies and working together with international organizations. Apparently those in Washington have also understood that one can win wars alone, but not the peace.

SPIEGEL: What role should Europe play in this multipolar world? Isn't there a sharp division between countries like Germany, France and Italy, who are unwilling, especially now, to allow cooperation with Moscow to come to an end, and the Baltic states, Poland and the Czech Republic, all characterized by their fear of Russia?

Schröder: The process of European unification on foreign and security policy certainly has not become easier since I left office as chancellor in 2005. This also has something to do with the integration of the newly added states. This unification process must be understood as a historic opportunity, even if it has its price.

SPIEGEL: It is dragging on.

Schröder: That is precisely the price. Europe will only be able to play a true role in the context between America, on the one side, and Asia, on the other, if it manages to establish and maintain a strong relationship with Russia. I see Russia as part of Europe, more than as part of any other constellation.

SPIEGEL: And is that how Russia sees itself?

Schröder: At least it is the way the current leadership sees it. And we in Germany and Europe should interpret this as an opportunity. Russia has an Asian alternative, but Europe does not. Besides, such a constellation does not necessarily have to lead to Europe distancing itself from the United States.

SPIEGEL: This sounds very optimistic. You don't see a remake of the Cold War developing?

Schröder: No. At least it would not be in the Russian leadership's interest. I am completely opposed to demonizing Russia. And I believe that Moscow will soon see the need, once again, for greater integration into the international community.

SPIEGEL: And Washington will refrain from punishing the Kremlin leadership and forcing Russia out of organizations like the G-8?

Schröder: This narrow view, which McCain, for example, holds, will not prevail -- that's what I hope and expect.

SPIEGEL: Are you speaking in your capacity as former chancellor or as an employee of the Russian state-owned company Gazprom?

Schröder: SPIEGEL should not participate in the spreading of misinformation. I am not anyone's employee, but rather the chairman of the shareholders' committee of Nord Stream, a Dutch-German-Russian joint venture, whose sole purpose is to build a pipeline through the Baltic Sea that will make Germany's and Europe's gas supply significantly more secure.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Schröder, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Erich Follath and Gerhard Spörl.

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2008

Saturday, 25 July 2009

tarpley: a window of opportunity for action

source: réseau voltaire

http://www.voltairenet.org/article161170.html

Interview with Webster Tarpley :

« The War on terror is a myth »

Webster G. Tarpley - historian, journalist and critic of US foreign and domestic policy - replies to the questions of two French associations, ReOpen911 and Geopolintel, and delivers his impressions of the geopolitical endgames in the shifting sands of the post-9/11 world and the new Obama era.

24 July 2009

Webster G. Tarpley participated in the 2005 Axis for Peace conference, chaired by Thierry Meyssan, President of Voltaire Network. He is an eminent authority in modern methods of interference, in particular the manipulation of the terrorist threat and false flag operations. He addressed the Axis of Peace Conference on these issues, stating that “It is impossible to understand the current US policy if the scope of the September 11 events is underestimated. The attempts occurred that day constituted a coup. The war on terror is based on a myth and it has become a compulsory religion of state since the events took place. The only way of fighting neocons is by destroying that myth. The creation of a truth commission, similar to that of Russell after the Viet Nam war, could help to destroy the myth.”


Foreword

Before broaching the actual interview, Webster Tarpley offered his analytical perception of the present geopolitical juncture, complementing the analysis he had made prior to Barack Obama’s election [1] :

"The main US-UK project at the moment is to break up Pakistan, so it cannot become an energy corridor for China with Iran and the rest of the Middle East, as we see in the port of Gwadar. The lunatic escalation in Afghanistan which has been Obama’s trademark issue only makes sense when you see that the goal is to destroy the central government of Pakistan, and bust that country into five parts in an extension of the Bernard Lewis plan. Pakistan is a more important target than Iran.

There is also a US-UK plan to destroy the pro-Chinese string of pearls countries across the Indian Ocean. But Sri Lanka has wiped out the US-UK terror army known as the Tamil Tigers, terrorists with headquarters in London. How grotesque it was to see Kouchner and Milliband desperately trying to save the Tamil Tigers so these butchers could fight another day! Places like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Thailand, Cambodia, Bangladesh and various islands groups are now a battlefield between the US-UK and China, with China pushing for peaceful trade and development and the US-UK trying to sabotage those and maintain the discredited Washington Consensus against the emerging Beijing consensus, which rejects imperialist bullying of the IMF-World Bank-WTO type."

Interview

Q: Could Obama’s letter to Medvedev, asking the Russians to negotiate Iran’s abandonment of its legitimate right to a nuclear program, be seen as a diplomatic ploy to ignite a new war in the Middle-East?

Webster G. Tarpley: As I wrote in Obama The Postmodern Coup – The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, the general policy of the Obama administration is to foment conflict between Iran and Russia. They call this buck passing — playing one enemy state against another and hoping that both can be damaged or destroyed in the process. The Obama regime would like to maneuver Russia into a posture of hostility to Iran, playing on Russian fear of what Iran might finally do with nuclear weapons if they got them. With people like Putin and Lavrov, the Russians are not likely to fall for such a crude trick. The recent experiment in rioting and mob rule in Iran clearly represents a CIA people power coup, color revolution, or velvet Revolution which does not appear to be succeeding too well.

If an Anglo-American puppet were to take power in Iran, one of the first things he would do would probably be to cut off oil deliveries to China, since this is the main interest of the US and the British in the Middle East these days. Obama’s Cairo speech was nothing more than an attempt to play the Arab and Islamic world in the Middle East against Russia and China. India is also a leading candidate to become the US-UK Eurasian land dagger, but again the Indians may prove too smart to fall for this. Everyone knows that the US Congress has passed repeated laws calling for regime change in Iran, funded with $400 million [2], and Seymour Hersh has been writing in the New Yorker of the past five years or more about US espionage and provocation teams who have been active in Iran, attempting to foment the rebellions of Arabs, Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, Pashtuns, and others, with the goal of finally partitioning and Balkanize in Iran in the same way that Yugoslavia and Iraq have been partitioned, and Sudan may be soon.

The color revolution in Iran [3] is largely the handiwork of the "soft power" group inspired by the writings of Joseph Nye, and including Brzezinski’s [4] circles at the Rand Corporation, plus the International Crisis Group and other operatives who use left cover, humanitarian slogans, and human rights for what they are doing. If I have understood Jacques Sapir clearly, he seems to be saying that the slogans of human rights have been so abused by Western imperialists in the service of their own predatory goals that these slogans have become completely discredited because of the hypocrisy and double standards involved. If that is Sapir’s point, it is well taken. I would say that it is time to stress the economic rights of the developing countries, starting with industrialization, full employment, and an end to poverty, disease, illiteracy, and a situation where we have one billion people living in hunger on the verge of starvation according to the latest United Nations reports, and probably 2 billion people who are eking at a miserable existence at less than a dollar a day. That is the real issue facing humanity today.

Q: The Gates-Brzezinski plan envisages a new approach towards Iran. If this plan falls through, what are the chances of the United States carrying out an atomic strike against Iran as was advocated by William Schneider, Jr.?

Webster G. Tarpley: The entire basis of the Obama regime is a growing awareness in US imperialist circles that the United States is far too weak, far too isolated, far too hated, and far too bankrupt to undertake any further adventures in the Middle East directly. Therefore, they are falling back on buck passing and waging war through proxies or kamikaze puppets, much in the way that Ethiopia was played against Somalia a couple of years ago.

Q: If the United States and Russia don’t succeed in stopping Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, do you think Israel could strike Iran like it did Iraq during Saddam Hussein?

Webster G. Tarpley: The Israelis have been ordered repeatedly by Gates, by Panetta, by Biden, and by Obama himself to drop and abandon any idea of a solo breakaway ally-style strike against Iran. I write about this in Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography. I think the British are on the same line. Senator Kerry and Obama have also said that Iran has a right to a program of peaceful nuclear energy. All of this reinforces the idea that the US is desperately attempting to mobilize Iran as a kamikaze puppet against Russia and/or China. Those who continue to ignore this tendency are living in the world as it was before December 2007, when the official US intelligence estimate announced that there was no Iranian nuclear weapons program. I doubt the Israelis would start such an attack. If they do, it would of course be the beginning of a true world catastrophe. Our friends at the Quai d’Orsay should do what they can to dissuade Netanyahu & co.

Q: Since the U.S. intelligence services have acknowledged that Iran suspended its military nuclear program back in 2003, shouldn’t we accept Iran’s entitlement to a civilian nuclear energy capacity?

Webster G. Tarpley: Of course, despite the demagogy of Sarkozy and Kouchner on this point, where they have tried to be out in front. Every country has an inherent and inalienable right to science, technology, industry, and modern energy production, and in today’s world this can only mean the full exploitation of peaceful nuclear energy. This used to be the basis of US foreign policy during much of the Cold War in the form of the Eisenhower Atoms for Peace approach.

Every country in the world which wishes to assert its sovereignty and its right to development is now either pursuing or seriously considering a significant application of nuclear energy, starting with China, India, Russia, Jordan, and many others. They are following the very successful French example, which is far more eloquent than Sarkozy’s speeches. After the massive violations of the non-proliferation regime which are built into the current US-India nuclear accord, the US does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to bullying and hectoring others on this issue.

Q: The ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) system and NATO expansion constitute the backbone of U.S. foreign policy in Europe. How do you view this provocation against Russia and the potential risk of a clash among European allies?

Webster G. Tarpley: NATO expansion [5] is useless at best and highly dangerous in most of the likely scenarios. Who in his right mind would want to be committed to fighting and dying for a demented madman like Saakashvili, after he has documented his total mental instability with his kamikaze attack against Russia in August 2008? Who in his right mind would want to be committed to following the latest adventures of that gang of IMF kleptocrats in Kiev? When East Germany was incorporated into West Germany, the US gave specific commitments to Russia that NATO forces would not even enter the former DDR. Now they have gone much further. It is time to reverse this trend.

I had urged that France urgently reconsider the idea of reentering the NATO command structure. Given the US commitment to these unstable and aggressive regimes on the Russian doorstep, France might risk being dragged into a catastrophic war as a tail on the Anglo-American kite. That is no future for a great nation like France.

We can also see a possible second echelon of provocateur states composed of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, and some others that can be thrown into action against Russia in questions like cutting off natural gas deliveries to Western Europe just about every winter. The Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi has been one of the best Western European leaders on constructive relations with Russia and on questions like the Southstream pipeline, and it is therefore no surprise that the Anglo-American scandal machine is singling him out for special slanders and attacks.

Q: In connection with the ABM Treaty, what do you think about the deployment of anti-ballistic missile shields in East European countries like the Czech Republic without the agreement of the European Parliament?

Webster G. Tarpley: I have repeatedly challenged Obama in public to take some specific steps if he wants to prove that he is really the peace angel that he claims to be. The first is to announce that there will be no deployment of alleged ABM systems in Poland, since these can easily be inserted into a first strike preventive nuclear war strategy against Russia, thereby putting the world back on the old Cold War hair trigger. Obama could simply announce "no Polish missile crisis will occur." The other step Obama could take is to withdraw all US support for further NATO expansion. That is what any sane European would be demanding that he do. Instead, we had 200,000 German lemmings at the Brandenburg gate last summer who had been duped by Obama.

Q: In the current context how do you see France’s reintegration in NATO, and its participation in the war against terrorism?

Webster G. Tarpley: I had recommended that France not submit to the authority of the NATO command [6]. President de Gaulle was absolutely right in ousting the NATO headquarters from Versailles, and in withdrawing France from the NATO command structure. This did nothing to undermine the traditional Franco-American friendship, but did prevent lawless elements within the NATO structure from causing serious problems inside France. I am thinking in particular of General Lyman Lemnitzer, who came up with the idea for Operation Northwoods [7] when he was in the Pentagon, and then went on to become the NATO commander who did so much to set up Gladio [8] in Italy and most of the other NATO countries. De Gaulle, in short, was right, and in Western world needs France to maintain its intellectual independence and its ability to develop a responsible and realistic critique of the excesses of the Anglo-American. This is what de Gaulle did, and this is what we will need French leaders to do in the future.

Q: With regard to September 11, 2001, do you think that an independent investigation will ever materialize? If so, will it be triggered by a U.S. judicial decision, or by international initiaves like that of "Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth"?

Webster G. Tarpley: The significant movement for 9/11 truth which had emerged in the US society through the end of 2006 and into 2007 has largely fragmented into impotence. As the US primary election campaigns for president began to gather momentum during 2007, many former 9/11 truth activists made the serious mistake of sacrificing their own activity to professional politicians who were promising to do something to investigate 9/11.

The Democratic left liberal candidate Dennis Kucinich delivered formal public promises that he would investigate 9/11 and also the rogue B-52 affair of August September 2007, which emerged just after a group of activists of which I was a part had issued the Kennebunkport Warning, pointing out that Cheney was in the process of making a final bid to start a war with Iran. This was at the same time that the Israelis made their air raid into Syria. But Kucinich failed to deliver on his promises.

An even larger segment of the former 9/11 truth movement was siphoned off by the Republican libertarian candidate, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Ron Paul did not make such public promises as Kucinich had done, but he privately assured 9/11 truth activists that he shared their views and would say so in public at the proper time. Based on these assurances, many 9/11 truth activists gave their time, their money, and their support to Ron Paul’s presidential efforts. But, when Ron Paul was asked about 9/11 in one of the nationally televised cable television debates which were witnessed by the entire national press corps, he stated vehemently that he considered the ideas of the 9/11 truth movement to be “preposterous” and an embarrassment to him, adding that the truth activists should stop their efforts. He also said that his skepticism in regard to the 9/11 commission report was the same as his skepticism towards any government document, no more and no less.

Finally, when it became clear that Obama had a real chance to be president, the remaining left liberals gave up all of their issues to join the messianic and utopian quest offered by Obama. As a result of Obama, the peace movement, the impeachment movement, and the 9/11 truth movement were all virtually swept away. This illustrates the important role of Obama in suppressing dissent and shielding the Wall Street establishment from mass popular agitation. Right now it would take the decisive commitment of one or more world leaders outside of the United States to bring about the necessary independent international truth commission concerning 9/11.

Q: Many citizens have discovered geopolitics and the behind-the-scenes reality of conflicts while researching the 9/11 cover-up; what would you like to say to those people who find out, much to their dismay, that many wars/attacks are actually orchestrated by States and/or interest groups against the interests of their own people.

Webster G. Tarpley: The problem of US foreign policy in this regard is not located mainly inside the US federal government, but is a result of the fact that US foreign policy is largely manufactured by powerful Wall Street banking interests who operate through such organizations as the [9], the Trilateral commission, the Bilderberger group [10], and the very insidious Mont Pelerin Society, which deals with economics.

Obama, Biden, Holbrook, and many others are the valets of these Wall Street bankers. These forces do not pursue an American national policy, which would for example dictate good relations between the US and Russia in the way that they were maintained during the American Revolution, during the American Civil War, and during the F.D. Roosevelt administration. Instead of an American national policy what we have is a policy agreeable to financiers and imperialists. This is also the mentality of the city of London, and also of parts of the European Commission and the European Central Bank. We live in an age of oligarchical preponderance across the globe. The only way that this can be remedied is by increased politicization and activism of parts of modern society which currently tend to be reduced to a stupor of passivity, apathy, and alienation by popular culture.

Q: Internet plays a very important role in providing ready access to information and in what could be called the "education of the masses". As far as you know, is there a concerted plan looming to clamp down on the Internet?

Webster G. Tarpley : One of the positive aspects of the US system has been a strong protection of free speech embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You can contrast this to the terrible situation in a country like Great Britain. The totalitarian liberals of the Obama regime are clearly very hostile to a continuation of the tradition of free speech. They would like to narrow the realm of free speech using the pretext of hate crime legislation designed to criminalize not so much criminal acts, but rather the opinions entertained by those who commit such criminal acts – criminalizing opinions is a very strange idea in jurisprudence.

The Democratic Party also seems to want to attempt to silence or intimidate the right wing or reactionary radio commentators who are very prominent in this country and to represent one of the main forces criticizing the Obama regime. This is being attempted under the pretext of forcing broadcasters who use the public airwaves to offer a broad variety of political opinions, or to reflect local community groups. A better idea would be to prohibit one corporation from owning all the mass media in a given city, and then letting free speech take its course.

Q: You have often taken a pessimistic view of the future (cf. your latest book expounding on the little faith that you have in Obama); are you more optimistic when it comes to the prospects of achieving a more peaceful world?

Webster G. Tarpley : Not believing in the demagogy of a Wall Street puppet like Obama does not make me a pessimist, but merely a realist. Obama has passed his peak and is now on a downward slide, although the danger of a new false flag operation targeting Russia, China, Sudan, Pakistan, or other news targets is now surely increasing. As a student of Plato, Leibniz, and Machiavelli, I am of course committed to optimism in so far as prospects for action in the world are concerned. I’d go with Leibniz against Voltaire on these points. I would also endorse what Dante says in the central point of his Divine comedy in the Marco Lombardo canto where it is stressed that the state of the world is not the responsibility of God, predestination, or fate, but is rather a task which is delegated to human beings who have to exercise free will. People need to understand that world historical action is at the present moment more feasible than at any other time in history, and it is time to take advantage of these possibilities before the window of opportunity closes, which it might do at virtually any time.

Q: To conclude, for someone like you who is familiar with the Machiavellian power wheels of our times, what can our readers and ordinary citizens do to help this become a better and more peaceful world?

Webster G. Tarpley : There is no reason for a world economic depression, nor for the next world war that may follow it in the same sequence of events that we had in the 1930s. Above all, the laws of economics are not mysterious at all. I lay them out in my newest book, Surviving the Cataclysm.

In order to get out of a depression we first need to do things to reduce the burden of fictitious capital and speculative incomes on the world economy. This means doing things like banning the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble, or taxing derivatives out of existence, banning adjustable rate mortgages, outlawing hedge funds, stopping foreclosures on homes farms and businesses, putting a 1% Tobin tax on speculators, re-regulating the oil markets, and seizing and shutting down the bankrupt zombie banks which dominate Wall Street and the city of London. We need to seize the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and the other privately controlled central banks and nationalize them.

They should start making 0% interest loans to productive activity, by which I mean the creation of tangible physical wealth in the form of manufacturing, agriculture, construction, transportation, infrastructure building, mining, scientific research, health care facilities, and the other prerequisites of human existence. This is especially acute here in the United States for the overall economy is approaching the point of a physical or thermodynamic collapse. We need to do things in this country like build a thousand hospitals, build a hundred ultramodern fourth-generation pebble bed high temperature nuclear reactors, build 100,000 miles of maglev rail, rebuild the interstate highway systems, and rebuild all water and sewage facilities.

We need a crash program in high-energy physics to solve the remaining problems for thermonuclear fusion power. We need a crash program in biomedical research to find cures of the dread diseases which afflict mankind. These are efforts would by definition be international. Of course, we need to fully fund and restore the social safety net which will be important for the victims of the depression over the next couple of years. To crown all of this, we will need a new world monetary conference to create a viable world monetary system to restart world trade and promote the full economic and technological development of Africa, South Asia, much of Latin America, eastern Europe, and other areas which have been denied economic development.

We need to address the great projects of world infrastructure like the Dakar to Djibouti maglev, the Cape to Cairo maglev, bridges and tunnels across the Mediterranean at Gibraltar and between Sicily and Tunisia, a Eurasian maglev system, a Bering Strait Bridge Tunnel, a new Kra canal, a Tennessee Valley Authority for the Ganges Brahmaputra, the Mekong, the Amazon, and the other main river systems of the world, and the development of water transport in Africa with a system of locks and canals between the upper Nile and the upper Congo.

We should do this with the full awareness that if we do not realize such necessary progressive steps in our own time, world civilization may collapse into a period of chaos the horrors of which are difficult for us to imagine at this time, but which ought to be clear enough. My favorite litany remains one that was taught to me by a Spanish coal miner from the Asturias region of northern Spain, who told me that his personal motto was: "your choice in the modern world is clear. You can either get active, or you will surely get radioactive. So choose." This alternative has not changed so much as people might think. My hope is that more and more people will choose to get active.

Mr. Tarpley, thank you very much.


Source: ReOpen911

[1] "The Men Behind Obama", Voltaire Network, 30 April 2009

[2] CIA has Distributed 400 Million Dollars Inside Iran to Evoke a Revolution, Voltaire Network; 22 June 2009.

[3] The grassroots takeover technique « Color revolution » fails in Iran, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network; 27 June 2009.

[4] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Voltaire Network

[5] EU, NATO, US: 21st Century Alliance For Global Domination by Rick Rozoff, Voltaire Network; 2 April 2009.

[6] President Sarkozy has accepted the dominance of the United States, interview by Sandro Cruz, Voltaire Network; 2 April 2009

[7] The Terrorist Attacks Planned by the American Joint Chief of Staff against its Population, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 5 November 2001.

[8] NATO’s Hidden Terrorism, interview by Silvia Cattori, Voltaire Network; 22 January 2007.

[9] Council on Foreign Relations Address by Hillary Clinton at the Council on Foreign Relations, by Hillary Clinton, Voltaire Network; 15 July2009.

[10] The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy, by Andrew G. Marshall, Voltaire Network; 7 June 2009

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

chine: strategie de la faction hu


Répartition des rôles au sein de la nouvelle faction présidentielle, la faction de Shanghai actuellement réduite au silence.


Confirmation de la stratégie économique d'ouverture par le Premier Ministre, reprise en main de l'appareil diplomatique par le Président, supervision de la campagne idéologique en interne par le Vice-Président. Le Vice Premier-Ministre, protégé du Président, reste à l'affût en seconde ligne et continue de faire ses classes.

Hantés par les évènements du Xinjiang et d'autres mauvais coups à venir, la nouvelle équipe gouvernementale contre-attaque avec rapidité pour ne pas se laisser déborder.

Trois nouvelles importantes en deux jours :

- Se préparant à une crise économique de longue durée, le Premier Ministre réformateur Wen Jiabao, n°3 du Comité Permanent du Politburo, annonce la participation chinoise à des actions internationales "non-conventionnelles" pour lutter contre la crise économique en échange d'une meilleure acceptation de la projection à l'international des entreprises chinoises.

Chinese premier urges long-term preparedness for global downturn
Xinhua
20 juillet 2009
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 740826.htm

- Le Président Hu, n°1, appelle pour sa part le personnel diplomatique à l'étranger à "défendre les intérêts du pays" et surtout à se ranger dans son camp. Un appel qui ressemble étrangement à celui lancé il y a quelques mois par le même Hu Jintao, à l'époque en direction de l'armée.

Chinese president urges diplomats to serve national interests
Xinhua
20 juillet 2009
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 741320.htm

- Et c'est le Vice-Président Xi, n°6, longtemps allié officieux de la faction de Shanghai mais se présentant désormais comme l'allié du Président Hu, qui annonce le lancement de la troisième vague de la campagne idéologique en faveur du Président Hu, concernant cette fois les "organisations de terrain" et leurs quelques 40 millions de responsables.

Chinese VP urges implementation of "Scientific Outlook on Development"
Xinhua
21 juillet 2009-07-21
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 747803.htm

Le Vice-Premier Ministre Li Keqiang, n°7, le protégé du Président de la République, apparaît désormais en charge de l'environnement, sujet à la fois international mais également crucial au niveau national, dans le cadre de sa préparation à de futures responsabilités de premier plan.

Chinese Vice Premier stresses environmental protection, energy conservation
Xinhua
21 juillet 2009
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 747304.htm

Cette répartition des rôles est un peu étonnante. On aurait pu penser que le contrôle idéologique en ces temps difficiles aurait été verrouillé par Li Keqiang, véritable créature politique du Président Hu. Mais le fait de confier les campagnes idéologiques au Vice-Président Xi Jinping peut être analysé comme une volonté de conciliation, afin de rallier au Président certains éléments supplémentaires de la faction de Shanghai ou du moins de négocier leur neutralité. Mais nul doute que l'action du Vice-Président restera sous étroite surveillance à la fois du Président et de son fidèle Li Keqiang.

Quant au reste des 9 membres du Politburo, le n° 5, Li Changchun, responsable de la propagande, avait également fait allégeance officielle au Président Hu en juillet et le n°8, He Guoqiang, responsable de l'anti-corruption, annonce ce même 21 juillet le lancement d'une campagne anti-corruption en direction du système bancaire.

Senior Chinese official underscores anti-corruption efforts in banking sector
Xinhua
21 juillet 2009
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 747071.htm

Le n°9, Zhou Yongkang, responsable de la sécurité, est totalement occupé par le Xinjiang, les troubles sociaux et la prévention d'autres mauvais coups avant le 60ème anniversaire de la République Populaire de Chine à l'automne.

Restent le n°2, Wu Bangguo, Président de l'Assemblée Nationale, et le n°4, Qia Qingling, Président de la Conférence Consultative. Les deux piliers de la faction de Shanghai sont actuellement totalement silencieux ou réduits au silence. Jusqu'à quand ?

http://www.bulle-immobiliere.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=49068&sid=77c1e7853a4b10180630abc0ed7b19da&start=250

strasbourg court: boycott calls are discriminatory!


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1246443852848

European court: Israel boycotts are unlawful discrimination

Jul. 20, 2009
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

Israel finally won one last week in an international human rights court.

On Thursday, the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights upheld a French ruling that it was illegal and discriminatory to boycott Israeli goods, and that making it illegal to call for a boycott of Israeli goods did not constitute a violation of one's freedom of expression.

The Council of Europe is based in Strasbourg, has some 47 member states and is independent of the European Union. The court is made up of one judge from each member state, and the rulings of the court carry moral weight throughout Europe.

On Thursday the court ruled by a vote of 6-1 that the French court did not violate the freedom of expression of the Communist mayor of the small French town of Seclin, Jean-Claude Fernand Willem, who in October 2002 announced at a town hall meeting that he intended to call on the municipality to boycott Israeli products.

Jews in the region filed a complaint with the public prosecutor, who decided to prosecute Willem for "provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds." Willem was first acquitted by the Lille Criminal Court, but that decision was overturned on appeal in September 2003 and he was fined €1,000.

His appeal to a higher French court was unsuccessful, and as a result he petitioned the European Court of Human rights in March 2005, saying his call for a boycott of Israeli products was part of a legitimate political debate, and that his freedom of expression had been violated.

The court, made up of judges from Denmark, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Macedonia and the Czech Republic ruled that interference with the former mayor's freedom of expression was needed to protect the rights of Israeli producers.

According to a statement issued by the court on Thursday, the court held the view that Willem was not convicted for his political opinions, "but for inciting the commission of a discriminatory, and therefore punishable, act. The Court further noted that, under French law, the applicant was not entitled to take the place of the governmental authorities by declaring an embargo on products from a foreign country, and moreover that the penalty imposed on him had been relatively moderate."

The one dissenting opinion was written by the Czech judge.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor hailed the ruling Sunday, saying it provided important ammunition for those challenging on legal grounds calls frequently heard in Europe for a boycott of Israeli products, as well as calls for a boycott of Israeli academia.

"It is now clear that in every country in Europe there is a precedent for calling boycotts of Israeli goods a violation of the law," Palmor said. "This is an important precedent, one that says very clearly that boycott calls are discriminatory. We hope this will help us push back against all the calls for boycotts of Israeli goods."

poll: us going in the wrong direction ,54%


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/ap-poll-doubts-growing-obamas-presidency/

AP Poll: Doubts Growing Over Obama's Presidency

An Associated Press-GfK Poll shows that a majority of Americans are back to thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction after a fleeting period in which more thought it was on the right track.


AP

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

That was fast.

The hope and optimism that washed over the country in the opening months of Barack Obama's presidency are giving way to harsh realities.

An Associated Press-GfK Poll shows that a majority of Americans are back to thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction after a fleeting period in which more thought it was on the right track.

Obama still has a solid 55 percent approval rating -- better than Bill Clinton and about even with George W. Bush six months into their presidencies -- but there are growing doubts about whether he can succeed at some of the biggest items on his to-do list. And there is a growing sense that he is trying to tackle too much too soon.

The number of people who think Obama can improve the economy is down a sobering 19 percentage points from the euphoric days just before his inauguration. Ditto for expectations about creating jobs. Also down significantly: the share of people who think he can reduce the deficit, remove troops from Iraq and improve respect for the U.S. around the world, all slipping 15 points.

On overhauling health care, a signature issue for Obama, hopes for success are down a lesser 6 points.

Add it all up, and does it mean Obama has lost his mojo? Has yes-we-can morphed into maybe?

"I think it's just reality," said Sandy Smith, a 48-year-old public relations worker from Los Angeles. "He's not Superman, right?"

Indeed, it's not unusual for approval ratings to slide once presidents actually get to work. They're pulled down by things going on in the real world, by people who don't agree with the ways they're addressing problems, by criticism from political opponents.

In Obama's case, the problems he's confronting domestically and internationally are legion, and his ability to blame them on his predecessor is fading. Challenges still abound in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unemployment, at 7.6 percent in January, hit 9.5 percent in June and is expected to keep rising well into next year. Almost 4 percent of homeowners with mortgages are in foreclosure, and an additional 8 percent are at least a month behind on payments -- the highest levels since the Great Depression.

The president is deep into the debate over how to overhaul the nation's health care system, and people are nervous about how their own insurance could be affected. Obama's critics are accusing him of conducting a risky "grand experiment" that will hurt the economy and could force millions to drop their current coverage.

It's all taking a toll on expectations. The number of people who think it's realistic to expect at least some noticeable improvement in the economy during Obama's first year in office dropped from 27 percent in January to 16 percent in the latest survey.

There's been slippage, as well, in how people view the president personally, although he's still well regarded. About two-thirds now think he understands the problems of ordinary Americans, down from 81 percent in January. Sixty-nine percent think he's a strong leader, off from 78 percent before the inauguration.

"He doesn't know enough about any of this," says Michelle Kelsey, a 37-year-old student in Breckenridge, Mo., who gives Obama a three for leadership on a 10-point scale. But then again, Kelsey says, "Nobody could have done better."

"I just feel like people haven't given him enough time. It's going to take longer for the economy to come around."

It's not just Obama who's feeling the drag. Approval of Congress -- already low -- has gotten lower, slipping 6 percentage points to 32 percent.

Overall, the number of people who think the country is going in the wrong direction hit 54 percent in the latest AP-GfK poll, up from 46 percent in June.

That's not necessarily surprising. In years past, the public has tended to be more pessimistic than optimistic about the country's future. Recent exceptions have been short-lived, at the start of the Iraq war, after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, after the capture of Saddam Hussein and late in the Clinton administration.

Perhaps most troubling for Obama may be where he is losing ground. His approval rating was down 9 points among Americans overall but 20 percent among independents. Similarly, the increase in those who think the country is headed in the wrong direction came mostly from independents and Democrats.

Dissatisfaction among independents grew disproportionately on Obama's handling of a range of issues, including the economy, taxes, unemployment, the environment and more.

Independents are "the ones to watch," according to Professor Robert Shapiro, a Columbia University expert on public opinion. "The Republicans were more pessimistic from the outset. The Democrats are going to be more resistant to negative information."

Overall, Obama still can feel good about a 55 percent approval rating, Shapiro said, but "the fact that it is on the downswing is something to be concerned about. That's going to affect how members of Congress, and in particular people in his own party, may respond to him."

The AP-GfK Poll was conducted July 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. It involved interviews on landlines and cell phones with 1,006 adults nationwide. The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Tuesday, 21 July 2009

watchdog: us gov faces $23.7 trillion exposure


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32010841/ns/business-us_business

Watchdog says U.S. bill for TARP could be huge


Financial bailout's cost to U.S. could total almost $24 trillion

The Associated Press
updated 4:07 p.m. ET July 20, 2009

WASHINGTON - The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a watchdog report said Monday.

Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.

The figures are part of a tough new quarterly report to Congress from special inspector general Neil Barofsky, who accuses the Treasury Department of repeatedly failing to adopt recommendations aimed at making one component of the government financial rescue effort more accountable and transparent.

The $4.7 trillion commitment to the industry equals about one third of the overall U.S. economy and takes into account about 50 initiatives and programs set up since 2007 by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve. Barofsky oversees one of the initiatives — the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face. No one has suggested that the full amount will be used.

Because of declining participation in short-term loan programs and because some infusions of money have been repaid, the maximum amount actually spent has declined to a current outstanding balance of $3 trillion, Barofsky said.

The agencies and the programs assisting the financial sector include a newly created Federal Housing Finance Agency, increased deposit insurance initiated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and 18 support programs created by the Fed under the special powers it can deploy to address a systemwide financial crisis.

Banks have cut back on their use of the Fed's emergency lending program as well as other programs to ease credit stresses. Given that, the Fed has reduced the amount it will lend to financial institutions under two programs and it has decided to let a program to support money market mutual funds to expire as currently scheduled at the end of October.

Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the maximum exposure that the government would face if all eligible applicants requested the maximum assistance at the same time. It does not account for the fees and other costs that some of these programs charge and for the collateral that many of the programs require that participants provide.

"While quantity and quality of the assets backing all of these programs vary, ignoring that side of these programs misrepresents 'potential exposure' associated with them," Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said.

In his report, Barofsky says Treasury has accepted some of his recommendations for greater accountability, but says the department has not taken steps to require all TARP recipients to report on their actual use of funds. He said Treasury also should report the values of its investments in banks and other financial institutions, disclose the identity of borrowers under a nonrecourse loan program and disclose trading activity under a public-private investment fund.

Barofsky says Treasury's inaction means taxpayers have not been told what the financial institutions that have received assistance are doing with the money.

Barofsky's conclusion is contained in a quarterly report to Congress and in testimony he is prepared to give Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"The very credibility of TARP (and thus in large measure its chance of success) depends on whether Treasury will commit, in deed as in word, to operate TARP with the highest degree of transparency possible," Barofsky said.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32010841/ns/business-us_business/


© 2009 MSNBC.com