"Every gun that is made, every
warship launched, every rocket
fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger
and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." --Dwight
D. Eisenhower
34th
U.S. President
Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Washington -- The White House forecast Friday that the U.S. budget
deficit for this year will be a record $445 billion, lower than
the administration previously predicted but nearly 20 percent
larger than last year's highest- ever shortfall.
President Bush's budget director, while calling the figure "unwelcome,"
said the new forecast for fiscal year 2004 -- in line with recent
congressional forecasts -- provides evidence that the economy
is growing and tax receipts are recovering. The message echoed
a new refrain in President Bush's campaign speeches, voiced repeatedly
Friday in Missouri: "We're turning the corner, and we're
not turning back."
Democrats -- and the campaign of presidential nominee John Kerry
-- countered that the new estimate looks good only in comparison
to a previous estimate of $521 billion that was unrealistically
high and that the deficit is still on pace to be $70 billion higher
than last year's $375 billion.
Still, the White House declared a qualified victory.
"The deficit remains at a level that we think is unwelcome,"
said Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
"The good news is that it is much lower than we projected,
and we or any of the other forecasters projected just six months
ago, and we believe that that is a product of the strong economic
policies that the president has put in place, and that the trend
will continue."
Bolten said the government is ahead of pace to fulfill Bush's
pledge that the annual federal deficit will be cut in half over
five years. But he said the target for the reduction will be based
not on an actual deficit, but on the earlier, overstated deficit
forecast for 2004.
Bolten also said the predicted reduction will be based not on
actual dollars, but on the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic
product. The deficit for fiscal 2004, which ends Sept. 30, will
be 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, Bolten said, well below
the modern high of 6 percent in 1983.
The White House projected a deficit of $331 billion for fiscal
year 2005, which begins Oct. 1. But Bolten said declining deficit
projections for the next four years did not include additional
emergency spending, which is expected to reach tens of billions
of dollars. "You need to factor in that we will need additional
spending, at least in the short term, in both Iraq and Afghanistan,"
he said.
Democrats ridiculed the White House's upbeat portrayal of the
statistics.
"The administration announces the largest deficit in the
history of the United States, and they claim things are getting
better. That is a remarkable claim," said Sen. Kent Conrad
of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.
"It's a little like the captain of the Titanic saying there's
good news as the ship goes down, because it's not sinking as fast
as he'd said it would."
Bolten said the deficits come from "an extraordinary confluence
of adversity," including the terrorist attacks and corporate
scandals. He did not list tax cuts as a cause.
The White House did not offer forecasts beyond five years. The
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said "the problems
only get worse" after that, when increasing numbers of Baby
Boomers will retire and become eligible for Social Security and
Medicare.
The White House report Friday raised the projected costs for
both those programs over five years -- Medicare by $67 billion
and Social Security by $59 billion.
THE COST OF WAR
The Iraq war is proving to be far costlier than initial Bush administration
estimates. Adjusting for inflation, the nonpartisan Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimated the cost of major
U.S. wars of the previous half-century:
Korean War, 1950-1953 $418
billion
Vietnam War, 1964-1975 $597
billion
Persian Gulf War*, 1990-1991 $ 84
billion
War in Iraq
(March 2003 projected to Sept. 30, 2004) $100
billion
(March 2003 projected to Sept. 30, 2005) $150
billion
*About 90 percent of
these costs were paid by U.S. allies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHART (2):
NATION'S COSTS FOR WAR AND SECURITY
Since Sept. 11, 2001, appropriations for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, homeland security and other federal anti-terrorism
programs have soared. Here is an estimate by the Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments for the extra costs associated with
those programs:
-- Response to and recovery from 9/11 terrorist attacks
Military operations related to combating terrorism,
including operations in Afghanistan and homeland security $ 83
billion
Reconstruction and related aid to Afghanistan $ 3
billion
Non-Defense Department homeland security
and combating terrorism $ 65
billion
Victim relief and recovery from 9/11 attacks $ 16
billion
Subtotal $167
billion
-- War in Iraq and aftermath
Military operations (Defense Department)
through fiscal 2004* $105
billion
Subtotal $105
billion
-- Other
Reconstruction and related aid to Iraq $ 23
billion
Foreign aid (primarily to states supporting U.S. operations
in Afghanistan and Iraq) $ 7
billion
Aviation industry relief $ 2
billion
Other $ 1
billion
Subtotal $ 33
billion
-- General Department of Defense programs
(activities unrelated to terrorism, homeland security or Iraq)
$101 billion
Subtotal $101
billion
Total $407
billion
* Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
estimate of projected additional costs for Iraq and
Afghanistan, fiscal 2005: approximately $50 billion.
Sources: Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget,
Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office
This is the nail in the Iraq War's coffin for any sane, thinking
individual, regardless of their political stripe. To get some
perspective, here are some real-life comparisons about what $87
billion means:
$87 Billion Is More Than The Combined Total Of All State Budget
Deficits in
the United States.
The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help
states deal
with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove
down state
revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]
$87 Billion is enough to pay The 3.3 million people who have
lost jobs under
George W. Bush $26,363 each!
The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the
beginning
of this year provides zero benefits to "workers who exhausted
their regular,
state unemployment benefits and cannot find work." All told,
two-thirds of
unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits. [Source: Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities]
$87 Billion Is More Than DOUBLE The Total Amount The Government
Spends On Homeland Security.
The U.S. spends about $36 billion on homeland security. Yet,
Sen. Warren
Rudman (R-N.H.) wrote "America will fall approximately $98.4
billion short
of meeting critical emergency responder needs" for homeland
security without
a funding increase. [Source: Council on Foreign Relations]
$87 Billion Is 87 Times The Amount The FederalGovernment Spends
On After School Programs.
George W. Bush proposed a budget that reduces the $1 billion
for
after-school programs to $600 million -- cutting off about 475,000
children
from the program. [Source: The Republican-dominated House Appropriations
Committee]
$87 Billion Is More Than 10 Times What The Government Spends
On All
Environmental Protection.
The Bush administration requested just $7.6 billion for the entire
Environmental Protection Agency. This included a 32 percent cut
to water
quality grants, a 6 percent reduction in enforcement staff, and
a 50 percent
cut to land acquisition and conservation. [Source: Natural Resources
Defense
Council]
There you go. In black and white. A few million of you will receive
this
letter. Please share the above with at least a half-dozen people
today and
tomorrow. I, like you, do not want to see another approval rating
over 50%.
A Personal Appeal from Dennis Kucinich:
Dear Friend,
I'm going to be blunt. My presidential campaign needs your help
more than
ever. There are only a few days left in this fundraising quarter
(ending
Sept. 30) and I need your support. If you saw last night's
nationally-televised debate, you know that I am speaking out for
you...and
for your issues. I spoke out for bringing the troops home from
Iraq, and
against the President's request for $87 billion more. I was alone
in
discussing how the Iraq occupation hurts our economy.I was alone
in
advocating a withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO in favor of bilateral
trade pacts that protect workers' rights and the environment.I
spoke clearly about taking our healthcare system out of the hands
of the insurance and
pharmaceutical companies -- and establishing nonprofit national
health
insurance, Enhanced Medicare for All. I alone called for returning
the
Social Security retirement age to 65. Our wealthy nation can afford
healthcare and retirement security. But we have to rescind the
tax breaks for the wealthy, and as I pointed out in last night's
debate, the wealthiest 1% in our country will get a majority of
the Bush tax cut.To keep bringing these issues to the American
people our campaign needs an infusion of funds. Please donate
at https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php.
Your contribution today will be doubled through federal matching
funds
arriving in a few months.I know many of you have donated as much
as you can, and I thank you. But please reach out to three other
people who share our values -- by forwarding this email to them.If
you watched last night's
debate, you saw me call for a 15% cut in Pentagon spending and
an end to tax breaks for the wealthy in order to fund childcare
and education and job
creation. I spoke of my efforts to end the death penalty and to
establish a
cabinet-level Department of Peace.
"We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence
but the
active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human
awareness,
of respect, trust and integrity."
-- Rep. Dennis Kucinich,
Democratic Presidential Candidate
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY
MoveOn Bulletin
Friday, July 11th, 2003
Co-Editors: Tai Moses and Don Hazen, AlterNet
Subscribe online at: http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/
CONTENTS:
1. Peter Schurman: It's Still the Economy
2. Seth Sandronsky: Bush's Fiscal Policy Not Creating New Jobs
3. Holly Sklar: Poverty Wages are Toxic
4. Molly Ivins: People First
5. Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Poor Pay for States' Woes
6. Stan Cox: Wal-Mart Wages Don't Support Wal-Mart Workers
7. Joe Robinson: Washington to Nation: Drop Dead on the Job
8. William Greider: Rolling Back the 20th Century
9. James Hickey: Waging a Fight
10. Robert Scheer: Blame Bush in State Fiscal Crisis
11. About the Bulletin
------------------------------
IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY
MoveOn Bulletin Op-Ed
by Peter Schurman
Since America's inception, our identity has always been closely
linked to our economy. Among the first writers to define our national
character, Alexis de Tocqueville described Americans as hardworking
and entrepreneurial -- and our country as bustling with economic
activity. America's rise over the past century to global prominence
has been driven not by our arms buildup, but by our economy. When
our politicians assert that the United States is the greatest
country on Earth, it's our economy they're trumpeting.
Today the state of our economy is perilous. Unemployment has
risen to 6.4% and nearly 2.5 million jobs have been lost since
President Bush took office. This summer presents college graduates
with the worst job market in a decade. Many companies are slashing
or eliminating pensions. State and local governments are cutting
vital services to balance their budgets, under pressure from the
economic slump and the cost of President Bush's tax cuts, which
mainly benefit wealthy elites.
The articles in this week's bulletin provide a vivid snapshot
of the American economy in trouble. They cover California's fiscal
crisis, working families trying to get by in Kansas, and a citizens'
group fighting for a living wage in Atlanta.
The 2004 elections may well turn on the strength of our economy,
as they did in 1992. President Bush is concerned enough that he's
announced plans to conduct a massive public relations campaign
this summer, attempting to whitewash the economic picture and
depict himself as a responsible leader. We think the facts argue
otherwise, and we present them here so you can judge for yourself.
------------------------------
BUSH'S FISCAL POLICY NOT CREATING NEW JOBS
Seth Sandronsky, AlterNet
The economy is weakening; the unemployment rate is at 6.4 percent,
or about 9.4 million workers; and state and local governments
are facing unprecedented budget crises. Yet the Bush White House
continues to focus on the economic restructuring of the nation,
cutting taxes for corporations and the rich for the third time.
It's becoming clear that Bush's "jobs and growth" plan
is making working life more precarious for millions of Americans. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16370
------------------------------
POVERTY WAGES ARE TOXIC
Holly Sklar, AlterNet
If your image of the typical minimum wage worker is a teenager,
think again. Think of adult women working at checkout counters
and in childcare, of healthcare aides taking care of your parents
or grandparents -- without employer health benefits, paid sick
days or paid vacation. A $5.15 minimum wage -- $10,712 a year
-- just doesn't add up. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16265
------------------------------
PEOPLE FIRST
Molly Ivins, AlterNet
All this big talk about tax cuts from Washington comes down to
taking away after-school programs and health clinics and firefighters.
But roads, schools, prisons, courthouses, bridges, dams and sewage
systems are all necessary, as are health and education. That's
why we pay taxes. We pay for after-school programs and sports
leagues because kids need them and get into trouble without them. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16152
------------------------------
POOR PAY FOR STATES' WOES
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet
Thirty-seven states slashed their budgets by nearly $15 billion
this year, balancing their budgets by making deep slashes in programs
and services and hefty increases in taxes and fees. Bush claims
that an improved economy and his tax cut will ignite the economic
miracle that will save the states from financial ruin. If the
turnaround comes, and there is much doubt when or even if it will,
the poor will have already paid, and paid dearly for the state's
budget woes. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16285
------------------------------
WAL-MART WAGES DON'T SUPPORT WAL-MART WORKERS
Stan Cox, AlterNet
Wal-Mart is the nation's biggest employer, the low-price champion,
and a seller of just about everything. But can a Kansas family
whose breadwinner works at the superstore afford to supply its
minimum needs by shopping there? Not even close -- even at Wal-Mart
prices, even with the 10 percent employee discount, and even with
employer-assisted health insurance. EITC, food stamps, Medicaid
and state assistance programs are needed because corporations
like Wal-Mart refuse to pay their employees a sufficient wage
for the work they do. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16111
------------------------------
WASHINGTON TO NATION: DROP DEAD ON THE JOB
Joe Robinson, AlterNet
Americans are already working more hours than at any time since
the 1920s. Yet House Republicans have vowed to continue fighting
for a bill, brazenly titled the "Family-Time Flexibility
Act," that has about as much to do with families as a Vegas
strip joint, yanking more parents for longer hours away from the
home. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor has issued a proposal
for new wage and hour regulations that would radically alter the
definition of the term "salaried employee," a move likely
to dramatically increase the ranks of workers who are not paid
for overtime. And don't even think about taking a vacation. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16218
------------------------------
ROLLING BACK THE 20TH CENTURY
William Greider, The Nation
Hard-right conservatives like George W. Bush have been advancing
their ideological agenda step by step, laying the foundations
for their grand transformation of American life. This 'McKinley
vision' requires vast sectors of society to pay dearly, and from
their own pockets. What does it look like? To begin with, slash
hundreds of billions in domestic programs, especially spending
for the poor, even as the Bush tax cuts kick in for the well-to-do;
and hand housing aid, food stamps and other social welfare programs
over to state governments. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030512&c=1&s=greider
------------------------------
WAGING A FIGHT
James Hickey, TomPaine.com
The Living Wage movement is taking hold in communities around
the country. Living Wage is founded on two basic principles: that
people who work fulltime should be able to support a family of
three and live above the poverty level; and that employers who
benefit from tax dollars should be willing to be good citizens
and pay a living wage. Take a look inside the Atlanta Living Wage
Coalition, a grassroots movement where the voices of working Americans
are prominent and irresistibly compelling. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8162
------------------------------
BLAME BUSH IN STATE FISCAL CRISIS
Robert Scheer, AlterNet
It is absurd to blame current difficulties on any state's governor,
Republican or Democrat. It is the Bush administration that has
mismanaged a successful economy inherited from Bill Clinton. It
is the Bush administration that should bear responsibility for
the difficulties being experienced by state governments -- and
it should at least help California as much as it is helping our
newest state, Iraq. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16312
------------------------------
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues.
The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/;
you can subscribe to it at that address. The MoveOn Bulletin is
a project of MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their
lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the
Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising
public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots
advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can
help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the
discussion forum at: http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
WHAT A WAR CAN BUY
....compiled by Jeremy Ross
The cost of a war in Iraq has been estimated by the Bush administration
at:
$75,000,000,000.00. But what does this figure really mean? I've
investigated what $75B could buy in 2003.
Here is a short list:
(1) Free health care for 50,000,000 people in the developed nations
(based on current per-capita expenditures in Canada)
(2) Adequate basic health care for 5,122,950,820 people in developing
nations. (based on estimates by Dr Lieve Fransen in 1997 and with
2% inflation incorporated)
(3) All undergraduate expenses (tuition and living) in America
for:
- 2,709,831 private university students (4,104,416 tuition only)
- 5,840,667 4-year public university students (18,377,849 tuition
only)
- 7,171,543 community college students (43,227,666 tuition only)
[source]
(4) 375,000,000 "Simputers" (cost-effective computers
for developing nations)
[source]
(5) At least a 17% rise in income for each of the 1.2 billion
people estimated to be living on less than one dollar a day.
(6) Habitat for Humanity homes for:
1,875,000 families in America
2,939,332 families in Hungary
3,018,959 families in Romania
29,469,548 families in the Democratic Republic of Congo
30,788,177 families in Sri Lanka
32,552,083 families in Papua New Guinea
35,714,286 families in Guatamala
41,829,336 families in India
[source]
(7) 112,570,356,500 cans of Budweiser beer
(8) 441,176,470,600 handgun bullets ($0.17/each)
(9) 75,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles
(10) 37 B-2 Sprit stealth bombers (plus change for 22 F-117 Nighthawk
stealth fighters and 10 Joe Millionaires)
(11) 46,875,000,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline (Ohio, March
2003, USA)
(12) 2,616,887,648 barrels of crude oil (March 24, 2003)
(13) Hiring 688,206 top-notch U.N. weapons inspectors for a year.
[source]
SOME OTHER CALCULATIONS FROM CLAMOR READERS:
Drop us a line with your calculation and sources.
(14) The average grocery bill (year 2000 data) for 14,540,520
US families.
(15 ) 40,816,326,530 free school lunches under the national school
lunch program
[source]
(16) 937,500,000 pairs of white doves [source],
625,104,184 dozen white roses [source]
or 2,142,857,142 pieces of dog shit, with shipping to Iraq [source]
(17) If everyone on earth were to have access to safe drinking
water and sanitation facilities by 2025, it would cost an additional
$75 billion a year. [source]
(18) You could use that $75 Billion to pay Enron's top 200 execs'
salary for 5 years! [source]
(19) 750,000,000 Tantric Sex classes yielding the unquantifiable
SHOCK and AWE of multiple orgasm. [source]
(20) 3,759,398,496 fifths of wild turkey (washington state, march
2003) or 2,145,923,000 pairs of black carhartts (swain's mercantile,
port townsend, washington).
President
Bush has sent Congress a budget with a conspicuous omission. He
declined to count the staggering costs of his war with Iraq and
the occupation -- possibly a decade long -- that will follow.
It's not surprising, really, that Bush
is reluctant to face up to the costs of his nation-building project
in Iraq. That yawning abyss could easily suck up the hopes and
dreams Americans hold for the future. By the time the United States
finishes paying for the president's imperial ambitions in the
Middle East, there will be little money left for schools or health
care or prescription drugs for the elderly or even homeland security.
No wonder France and Germany have snubbed
this war. While the United States pays the costs of invasion and
nation-building, those countries will have more money for their
domestic needs: schools, health care, parks and recreation and
environmental cleanup. The European Union could outpace the United
States because they will have had the resources to revitalize
their most important infrastructure -- their citizens.
Even without counting the invasion of Iraq,
the Bush budget proposes to shackle the next generation to an
unconscionable burden of debt. With war and occupation, which
could run into the hundreds of billions, your children's grandchildren
will be paying the costs.
Some supporters of invasion argue that
Iraq's oil reserves can be used to pay the costs of occupation.
But funneling Iraq's oil profits into the U.S. treasury would
throw another match on the Mideast tinderbox. The Arab world already
believes the United States is using Saddam Hussein's tyranny as
an excuse to confiscate Iraq's oil; shall we be so foolish as
to prove them right?
Does it matter that this war could be quite
costly? Shouldn't the nation spend generously on defense? Indeed,
it should. There would be less controversy over costs if this
war were likely to make the nation more secure.
Unfortunately, an invasion of Iraq could
have the opposite effect, as Arab children grow up watching a
Muslim nation under U.S. occupation. Even if the United States
installs a friendly government, as we did in Afghanistan, it'll
be clear the White House is pulling the strings. The resentment
of the United States could easily breed another generation of
suicide bombers.
Nor will the invasion of Iraq end the threats
posed by North Korea or al-Qaida. The Central Intelligence Agency
believes North Korea could produce six to ten nuclear bombs in
months and offer them to the highest bidder. (Iraq, by contrast,
does not currently have nuclear weapons.) Al-Qaida, meanwhile,
is rebuilding in Pakistan, whose nuclear weapons program is controlled
by an intelligence apparatus choked with al-Qaida sympathizers.
Meanwhile, Tom Ridge's new Department of
Homeland Security gets short shrift in the Bush budget. Not only
does Ridge expect to cut back on funds for airport security, but
there is little money for expanding security at ports and rail
stations. Currently, only about 2 percent of the cargo coming
into the nation's ports is inspected. How many suitcase-sized
nuclear weapons could a terrorist slip through that huge hole
in homeland security? How many containers of anthrax?
The agencies that lead research into antidotes
for chemical and biological threats won't see much extra money,
either. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will have
to delay replacement of dilapidated facilities. "First responders"
-- local police, firefighters and paramedics -- won't get significant
federal funding to prepare for another catastrophic attack. Without
a large infusion of cash, they, too, may be unprepared for a crisis.
That doesn't even take into account the
routine concerns that will get short shrift: the research into
diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes that will
be delayed; the schools in poor neighborhoods that won't get remedial
programs or building repairs; the struggling families who won't
get health care.
Ultimately, the costs of this war -- political
and financial -- may prove to be more than we can bear.
1) Introduction:
"Double-Dip" Recession or "Soft Patch"?
2) One Link: The Roaring Nineties
3) The Economy Now and in 2003
4) State Economies
5) Unemployment
6) Some Recent Good News
7) The Military Budget and the Threat of War
8) Tax Cuts
9) Book Recommendation
10) Call for Submissions
11) Credits
12) About the MoveOn Bulletin and MoveOn.org
1) INTRODUCTION: "DOUBLE-DIP RECESSION" OR "SOFT
PATCH"?
The US endured a recession in 2001, but
this year it seemed that the economy was slowly and steadily recovering
from it. Unfortunately, this economic rebound has lost much of
its momentum, and some economists and businesspeople fear that
the US could slide into a "double-dip" recession, or
one recession closely following another. Alan Greenspan has testified
before Congress that the current downturn in the economy is only
a "soft patch" that will be corrected by such actions
as the cut in the Federal Reserve's main interest rate. However,
it remains uncertain how much this cut will help.
There has been some recent good news. Productivity
remains high, and is actually exceeding growth estimates. Americans
are still buying and refinancing homes due to record-low interest
rates. The stock market has appeared to recover in the past few
weeks, and consumer confidence has also risen after falling to
a nine-year low. These recent events have helped quell fears that
a new recession is coming.
Still, there are many factors that are
tempering feelings of optimism. It is uncertain how long high
productivity rates and the strong numbers in housing will last.
Unemployment rates are remaining stubbornly high. The states face
a combined $60 billion deficit in 2003, which they will have to
deal with through layoffs, tax increases, and decreased spending
on everything from building roads to healthcare and education.
Then there is the threat of war with Iraq.
Of all the factors that will determine the economic outlook for
2003, this is one of the most important and unpredictable. Analysts
and government officials offer conflicting predictions about whether
the war will help or harm the economy. The fear of an interruption
in oil supply has already pushed oil prices high, and even though
a US-controlled Iraq would ensure greater access to oil, an actual
attack on Iraq may just force oil prices higher. The threat of
war has also been blamed by some for the poor performance of the
stock market, while the recent market rally has been attributed
to the possibility of a diplomatic solution as a result of the
return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. If an attack does happen,
the new instability could once again send the stock market plunging.
It's also difficult to predict how long war on Iraq would last.
A short war on Iraq, which is what the Bush administration is
predicting, would have a much different impact than a protracted
one. If the war is not won quickly, and costs continue to rise,
it may be difficult for the US economy to cope. An extended occupation
could also put an unreasonable amount of strain on the nation's
monetary resources.
So, while economic gurus continue to repeat
the mantra that the US economy is recovering, there are probably
too many variables at play to make a call one way or the other--yet.
That may be cold comfort for all of the people who have recently
lost their jobs and are facing cuts to essential infrastructure
and services. One thing is certain--the state of the economy has
become too important to ignore, even with the intense focus on
Iraq.
2) ONE LINK: THE ROARING NINETIES
Joseph Stiglitz was chairman of President
Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, and later, chief economist
of the World Bank. After he began to question the globalization
policies of the World Bank, Stiglitz was fired, but went on to
win the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001. In his "revised
history" of the nineties, Stiglitz examines the economic
forces at play in the world and how they have led to the current
situation in the US. He critiques globalization as it has been
managed so far, and contends that many of the widely accepted
accounts of why the economy did what it did in the nineties are
simply not true. His main point throughout is that better economic
policies on the part of the US could minimize or prevent many
problems, including the negative perceptions of the US prevalent
throughout much of the world.
"In explaining our success in the
nineties to ourselves and the world we have largely drawn on a
set of myths that desperately need debunking: that deficit reduction
by itself led to the economic recovery of the 1990s; that the
brilliance of our economic leaders created our newfound prosperity;
that deregulation and self-regulated markets are the key to sustaining
that prosperity, and should thus be exported to the rest of the
world; and that American-style globalization is based on high-minded
principles of equality and social justice and will inevitably
lead to global prosperity, benefiting not only financial markets
in America but also the poor in the developing world." http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/stiglitz.htm
3) THE ECONOMY NOW AND IN 2003
Is the recession of 2001 over? The National
Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the official US body which
is "the generally acknowledged arbiter of the business cycle,"
has yet to declare that it is. The reason may be low employment
figures, since employment is generally the main variable used
to determine the state of the economy. However, industrial production,
wholesale retail sales and personal income have all been doing
better; the author of this article argues that this should be
enough to indicate that, yes, the recession is over. http://www.economy.com/home/article.asp?aid=1967
The most common current fear about the
US economy is that it will slip into another recession. If it
did, since it would follow so closely after the 2001 recession,
it would be called a "double-dip recession." This article
provides a very clear overview of why the Federal Reserve, America's
central bank, was originally so confident that the economy was
recovering from the 2001 recession, and why that confidence has
begun to erode. The author also explains that the US may now be
caught in a "liquidity trap," or "a situation in
which the short-term nominal interest rates the central bank controls
are so low and so loosely connected to the level of aggregate
demand that further reductions in interest rates are not effective
ways of fighting recession"--in other words, a situation
in which the government is unable to create policies that will
prevent the economic situation from getting worse. http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000770.html
The Monetary Policy Report was released
on July 16. In his testimony to Congress on the report, Alan Greenspan
asserted that "while the economy has held up remarkably well,"
the US is still facing "[c]onsiderable uncertainties." http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2002/july/testimony.htm
Greenspan's testimony to Congress on November
13 still focuses on the resilience of the US economy. However,
this time around, Greenspan admits that "the lengthy adjustment
of capital spending, the fallout from the revelations of corporate
malfeasance, the further decline in equity values, and heightened
geopolitical risks" have all "taken their toll on activity."
Among the many variables he examines are consumer spending, tax
cuts, mortgage markets, and productivity. Greenspan concludes
that the US economy has hit a "soft patch," while remaining
optimistic that the measures being taken will help counteract
it. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2002/20021113/
default.htm
Several surveys and studies indicate that
members of the business community are predicting a poor economy
for 2003.
According to a survey by American Express,
more than two-thirds of middle-market chief financial officers
(CFOs) believe that in 2003, the economy "will either will
stay flat, act erratically, or decline further." In order
to deal with the "cautious to negative" economic outlook
for 2003, the CFOs are largely going to rely on cutting costs.
The Business Roundtable surveyed CEOs and
found that most CEOs "expect weak gross domestic product
(GDP) growth, declining employment, and flat capital spending
in 2003."
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
recently predicted that the US economy would not pick up until
2004. http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,8256,00.html
Since the Republicans now control both
House and Senate, it is almost certain that a number of Republican
economic projects based on tax cuts and continued spending will
now pass. This "virtually guarantees a return to the era
of structural budget deficits," and eliminates any hope for
a balanced budget, according to this commentator. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073577
In a report characterized as "gloomy"
by the Guardian, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has scaled
back its predictions about world economic growth and is predicting
only a very slight increase over last year's growth, which was
the lowest in a decade. IMF experts caution that if oil prices
continue to rise, even their new predictions may prove overly
optimistic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/recession/story/0,7369,798949,00.html
4) STATE ECONOMIES
New York City and State currently face
a combined $15 billion deficit, and most of the other states face
a similar problem (the exceptions are Hawaii and Idaho). According
to Chris Hoene, research manager at the National League of Cities,
"For the first time in 10 years, you have to talk about cities
facing a genuine recessionary economy." As a result, after
hardly mentioning the topic in recent elections, officials are
now being forced to find solutions to their deficit problems,
including unpopular new policies like cuts, layoffs, and tax increases.
Harvey Robins, a top-ranking aide to two former New York City
mayors, recently stated, "If we continued to cut taxes, we
might as well turn off the lights in American cities." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31210-2002Nov23.html
State revenues dropped by 6 percent last
year, the first collective decrease since World War II. In 2003,
large budget shortfalls are being predicted; and while there is
no total estimate as yet, the current prediction is a collective
shortfall of $40 billion. In an effort to respond to this problem,
the states have instituted the largest tax increases in a decade.
Yet costs, such as healthcare, are continuing to outgrow tax revenue. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021126/
ap_on_re_us/states_money_woes_4
The most recent figures are now projecting
that the states face a combined budget shortfall of $60 billion
in 2003. This is especially bad news since most of the states
have already exhausted their available financial resources, including
rainy day funds, tobacco settlement money, and borrowed money,
and will thus have to rely on cuts to infrastructure and tax increases
to make up for the shortfall. The main problem is that state tax
revenues have dropped severely. Nor are they expected to grow
in 2003. At best, if the US economy manages to avoid sliding into
a double-dip recession, if consumers continue to spend, if stock
prices don't drop again, if war with Iraq is avoided or concluded
quickly, and if no new terrorist attacks occur on US soil, then
tax revenues will remain the same in the 2003 fiscal year with
some possible growth in 2004/2005. But the outlook is much gloomier
if one or more of these variables don't fulfill current hopes. http://www.economy.com/home/article.asp?aid=1983
5) UNEMPLOYMENT
Unemployment rates reported by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics have stayed almost the same, rising only a
tiny percentage, from 5.6% in September to 5.7% in October. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Unemployment rates are also likely to remain
high in 2003. There were more layoffs in October than in any other
month this year except January. The states are also facing budget
deficits (for more on this see the next section on state economies),
and are likely to lay more people off in order to cut costs. http://www.workingforamerica.org/econupdateNov.htm
The Washington Post reports that "nearly
1 million jobless workers will almost certainly lose their federal
unemployment benefits during the Christmas season." This
article provides the basic facts about unemploment benefits and
why they will be discontinued (since this article was published,
the deadline to extend unemployment benefits to some workers did
in fact pass without action.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23624-2002Nov21.html
6) SOME RECENT GOOD NEWS
Investors have been cheered by the fact
that consumer spending and durable goods orders both rose in October.
Weekly jobless claims also fell to their lowest in 21 months.
Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Index has appeared to be on
the road to its eighth straight week of gains, as it "scored
its fattest gain on the day before Thanksgiving ever." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47531-2002Nov27.html
Consumer confidence, which had been sliding
lower and lower for the past five months, rebounded in November.
It now stands at 84.1, up from a nine-year low of 79.6 in October. http://www.crc-conquest.org/consumer_confidence/
Productivity has remained high, which has
been "keeping a lid on inflation," according to the
New York Times. The US Department of Labor recently reported that
productivity grew at a rate of 5.1% in the third quarter of this
year, which is higher than the 4% growth rate that experts predicted.
"The reports show that the economy by no means will go into
a double dip recession," according to economist Clifford
Waldman of Waldman Associates. (Note: You may need to complete
the free registration on the New York Times site to access this
article). http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Economy.html
This is an excellent short introduction
to productivity, which explains what productivity refers to in
the context of economics, how it is related to standard of living,
and why there has been a recent surge in productivity. http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0003growth.html
Housing has also been considered a "bright
spot" in the economy, with loan applications for the purchase
of homes increasing over the summer. According to this very short
article, "Without a doubt, the housing market is very strong
and is helping to push the U.S. economy toward recovery. Consumers
and mortgage markets are receiving a boost as the bond market
benefits from the present investor uncertainty in the stock market." http://www.rismedia.com/index.php/article/articleview/1566/1/276/
Unfortunately, experts are worried that
housing "bubbles" in major cities of the US could pop,
especially if the economy slows any further. If these housing
bubbles do pop, it could have an extremely negative impact. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2098468a6026,00.html
7) THE MILITARY BUDGET AND WAR
Most of the states may be facing a deficit,
but President Bush still got a $396 billion defense (military)
budget for 2003. That's more than the combined military budgets
of Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Sudan
and Syria. http://www.thenation.com/failsafe/index.mhtml?bid=2&pid=163
The threat of war is arguably one of the
most important variables in determining what the US and world
economies will be like in 2003. Many economists have blamed the
US push for war on Iraq for the slow recovery of the economy after
the 2001 recession. Fears of an interruption in the supply of
oil due to an attack on Iraq have driven oil prices up.
Yet US stock markets have appeared to rally
in the last few weeks. Some economists regard this as a result
of the possibility of a diplomatic solution to the problem of
Iraq now that weapons inspectors are in the country. "The
stock market was relieved that we might not go to war," stated
William Quan, chief economist of Wall Street's Mizuho Securities
USA.
And if US does go to war with Iraq? This
improvement could falter, especially due to the high price tag
on such an effort and the occupation that may follow. Peace, on
the other hand, could benefit the economy by keeping oil prices
stable and keeping the federal budget deficit (and therefore interest
rates) down. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1125/p03s01-usec.html
This is an excellent article about the
effect that a war on Iraq would have on the economy, as much for
the realistic predictions it makes as for its clear, cogent, and
compelling summary of the contradictory arguments being used to
push for war.
Analyst Alan Reynolds points out the obvious
yet often overlooked fact that "...assurances that Iraq is
a feeble military power contradict the rationale for war —
namely, the assertion that Iraq is in possession of terrifying
weapons. Iraq may be a dangerous predator or an easy prey, but
it cannot be both."
As a result, he predicts that the Iraq
war is going to be a costly one, and longer than we're being told:
"My best guess is that war and its aftermath would be more
costly and difficult than the optimists admit. The fact presidential
adviser Larry Lindsey publicly estimates it would cost $100 billion
to $200 billion implies the administration expects a second Iraq
war to be 2 or 3 times more difficult than the first one."
As far as oil prices are concerned, Reynolds
notes that the situation is much different now than during the
first Gulf War. "Unlike 1990, oil is already fairly pricey
today because (1) substantial risk of war has already been priced
into the oil markets, and (2) the post-1991 'sanctions' have reduced
world oil supplies while making the Iraqis more dependent on Saddam.
In 1991, oil prices fell and stocks rallied when the United States
attacked Iraq. But that was because pushing Iraq out of Kuwait
reduced risks to world oil supplies. An attack on Iraq today would
have the opposite effect."
Reynolds also notes that by focusing energy
on Iraq, the US must move its attention away from Al Qaeda, thus
leaving an opening for another domestic terrorist attack which
could have negative effects on the economy. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-11-2002_pg4_8
Senior officials in the Bush administration
are still touting war with Iraq as a solution to recent economic
woes, though. Undersecretary Grant Aldonas, a senior U.S. Commerce
Department official, recently stated that a war on Iraq would
be good for the economy. "The combined effect may actually
be positive economically because it would eliminate one of the
real sources of terror and one of the real clouds hanging over
the world's economy," he said. "At the same time it
will open up the spigot on Iraqi oil, which would certainly have
a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy
for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers."
Aldonas was quick to add that this was not the main reason for
attacking Iraq. http://asia.news.yahoo.com/021003/reuters/asia-128017.html
8) TAX CUTS
The underlying assumption of President
Bush's economic policies seems to be that tax cuts are a good
way to stimulate the economy. In this op-ed, two experts in economics
argue that government spending is a much better economic stimulus
than tax cuts. http://www.brookings.org/views/op-ed/orszag/20011130.htm
President Bush has been pushing for a vote
that would make last year's tax cut, set to expire in 2010, permanent.
According to the President, making the tax cut permanent will
help the economy. However, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
recently advised against a vote to make last year's tax cut permanent,
saying, "I know there's a presumption that if you make those
tax cuts permanent it will add stimulus to the economy. I doubt
it." However, while Greenspan has expressed praise for "sunset"
clauses and provisions that force periodic reassessment of tax
cuts and other legislation, he has not recommended that tax cuts
already enacted by the Bush administration be frozen or rolled
back. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51334-2002Nov13.html
One of our dedicated research volunteers,
Lita Epstein, has coauthored a book called The Complete Idiot's
Guide to the Federal Reserve. It is due to be published in January.
If you are involved in peace or social
justice efforts, we would like to hear from you. Just write a
short essay of 500 words or less about your experiences, and what
gives you hope. Please submit your essay to Susan Thompson, MoveOn
Bulletin Editor, at susan.thompson@moveon.org, by December 15th.
The best essays will be published in an inspirational bulletin
on hope, which will come out on December 18th.
11) CREDITS
Research team:
Susan Bunyan, Lita Epstein, Terry Hackett, Sharon Hametz, Matthew
Jones, Linda Langness, Cameron McLaughlin, Janelle Miau, Vicki
Nikolaidis, Sarah Jane Parady, Kim Plofker, Jesse Rhodes, Ora
Szekely, Bland Whitley, and Mary Williams.
Proofreading team:
Madlyn Bynum, Eileen Gillan, Mary Anne Henry, Kendra Lanning,
Mercedes Newman, Dawn Phelps, Rebecca M. Sulock and Rita Weinstein.
12) ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free, biweekly
email bulletin providing information, resources, and news related
to important political issues. The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin
is online at: http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/
MoveOn.org does not necessarily endorse
all of the views espoused on the pages that we link to, nor do
we vouch for their accuracy. Read them at your own risk.
The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect our
lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the
Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising
public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots
advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public policies.
To be kept informed about actions and campaigns,
many of which are related to bulletin topics, you can sign up
for MoveOn's action updates, at:
http://www.moveon.org/keepmeposted/
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
THE ECONOMIC PRICE OF
WAR
Jeffrey E. Garten
Interviewed by Jonathan
Curiel
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
With debate now before the U.N. Security Council about a possible
U.S. war with Iraq, many in the Bay Area continue to voice concern
over what they perceive as a lack of adequate public discussion
on the ubject. The Chronicle is featuring voices from a variety
of perspectives, seeking to highlight some of the key questions
and issues involved.
Jeffrey
E. Garten is dean of the Yale School of Management.
He is a columnist on global management for Business Week and
author of several books, including "The Big Ten: The
Big Emerging Markets and How They Will Change Our Lives,"
"A Cold Peace: America, Japan, Germany and the Struggle
for Supremacy, " and his latest, "The Politics of
Fortune: A New Agenda For Business Leaders. " Garten
was undersecretary of commerce for international trade from
1993-1995, and was on
the staffs of Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Cyrus
Vance.
No one in
the Bush administration seems to have quantified the cost of what
would inevitably be a long occupation of Iraq and an effort to
rebuild the country --not just financial but in terms of dissipating
the prospects for international cooperation.
Foreign policy is not just about terrorism.
And it's not just about weapons of mass destruction. It's also
about the need for our country to have economic growth and to
be able to create good-paying jobs.
All of those things are global in scope.
All of the issues that are important to the U.S. economy have
an international dimension. And virtually all of these issues
require extensive cooperation from other countries. Our financial
system is deeply enmeshed in the global financial system. About
25 percent of our gross domestic product is related to trade.
About 25 percent of all U.S. dollars are held abroad.
There is an extensive network of cooperation
when it comes to international currencies. The foreign exchange
transactions -- dollars changed into other countries' currencies
and vice versa -- amount to $1.5 trillion a day. In order for
us to have a reasonable amount of financial stability, we have
to maintain the financial cooperation among countries that now
exists. We need other countries not only to open their markets
but to play by the rules.
But the administration's approach to Iraq
is so unilateral that, if continued, other countries are not going
to cooperate with us on the things we want or that absolutely
require their cooperation. We need multilateral agreements that
are essential to create a viable global economy. For example,
there are no agreed rules around the world for cooperation in
cyberspace, like issues of privacy.
U.S. firms are being shut out of the European
market now in trying to export genetically engineered foods. This
is a huge blow to U.S. farmers. So there have got to be some multilateral
rules on food safety.
The administration has this very self-centered
and arrogant view that the United States doesn't need the cooperation
of other nations to invade Iraq or topple Saddam Hussein, but
when we need something else, these other countries have to be
there.
Also, to promulgate pre-emption and unilateralism
as the centerpiece of U.S.
defense policies is basically to say that
we don't care about international law. We've signed the U.N. charter.
It's very specific about what constitutes self-defense, and there
is no right of pre-emption. The WTO (World Trade Organization)
is a legal agreement. Our membership in the International Monetary
Fund is a legal agreement. Ignoring international law in one area
will make it much easier for other countries to do exactly the
same when they're under pressure in other areas.
The oil factor. If prices go through the
roof, that would increase prices across the board because oil
is an ingredient in our whole industrial structure. Prices, though,
could go through the floor, because with Iraqi oil flowing more
freely there might be a lot more oil on the global market. That
may be good for the United States in the short run, but many of
our trading partners are oil exporters, and if oil prices go down
so does their income.
For most of the oil exporters, that's all
they have. Russia, which is just coming out of the woods and is
a prospect for joining the WTO -- and this is a major goal of
the United States -- all it has is oil exports. Indonesia could
descend into chaos.
I'm not arguing against the importance
of fighting terrorism or of containing Iraq. But I'm saying that
the world is a lot more complicated than that. It is a world that
requires extensive international cooperation. It's one where international
law plays a huge role. And it's one where economic priorities
have to be taken into account. The Bush administration's foreign
policy seems much more appropriate for a bygone era.
The Japanese save a lot. They
do not spend much. Also Japan exports far more than it imports.
It has an annual trade surplus of over $100 billion. Yet the Japanese
economy is considered weak, even collapsing.
Americans spend, save little. Also the
US imports more than it exports. It has an annual trade deficit
of over $400 billion. Yet, the American economy is considered
strong and trusted to get stronger. Indeed a contrast. But from
where do Americans get money to spend? They borrow from Japan,
China and even India. Virtually, others save for the US to spend.
Global savings are mostly invested in US, in dollars. India itself
keeps its foreign currency assets of over $50 billion in US securities.
China has sunk over $160 billion in US securities. Japan's stake
in US securities is in trillions. Result: The US has taken over
$5 trillion from the world. So, as the world saves for US, Americans
spend freely.
Today, to keep the US consumption going,
that is, for the US economy to work, other countries have to preremit
$180 billion every quarter, that is $2 billion a day, to the US!
Otherwise the US economy would go for a six. So will the global
economy. The result will be no different if US consumers begin
consuming less. A Chinese economist asked a neat question. Who
has invested more, US in China, or China in US? The US has invested
in China less than half of what China has invested In US. The
same is the case with us. We have invested in US over $50 billion.
But the US has invested less than $20 billion in India.
Why is the world after US? The secret lies
in American's spending, in that they hardly save. In fact they
use their credit cards to spend their future income. That the
US spends is what makes it attractive to export to the US. So,
the US imports more than what it exports year after year. The
result? The world is dependent on US consumption for its growth.
By its deepening culture of consumption, the US has habituated
the world to feed on US consumption. But as the US needs money
to finance its consumption, the world provides the money. It's
like a shopkeeper providing the money to a customer so that the
customer keeps buying from the shop. The customer will not buy,
the shop won't have business, unless the shopkeeper funds him.
The US is like the lucky customer. And the world is like the helpless
shopkeeper financier. Who is America's biggest shopkeeper financier?
Japan. Yet it is Japan which is regarded as weak. Modern economists
complain that Japanese do not spend, so they do not grow. To force
the Japanese to spend, he Japanese government exerted itself.
Reduced the savings rates, even charged the savers. Even then
the Japanese did not spend. Their traditional postal savings alone
is over $1.2 billion. That is about three times the GDP of India.
Thus, savings, far from being the strength of Japan, has become
its pain. What is the lesson? That is, a nation cannot grow unless
the people spend, not save. Not just spend, but borrow and spend.
Dr. Jagdish Bhagwati, the famous Indian-born
economist in the US, told Dr. Manmohan Singh that Indians wastefully
save. Ask them to spend, he said. On imported cars and, seriously,
even on cosmetics! This, he counseled, will put India on a growth
curve. But like the Japanese we too are not obliging. Modernists
may not, but one who has read the Mahabharatha will know. A Rishi
by the name of Charuvaka gave the same advice, when the Pandavas
were around, which modern economists are giving today. He told
the people to spend and be happy, if need be by borrowing. No
need to repay, if you cannot, he counseled. No sin would attach,
he assured. Fortunately his advice was rejected by us thousands
of years back. That is why perhaps we are alive as a nation. Our
old companions are in archives today. Now we have the very same
advice. That is saving as sin, and spending as virtue. This is
central to neo-economics.
Caution. Before you follow these neo-Charuvakas,
get some fools to save so hat you can borrow from them and spend,
after you exhaust your savings. This is what the US has successfully
done in last two decades.
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Lysistrata Project posts
this material without profit for research and educational purposes.
We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted
material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair
use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
