NATO: A Closer Look at Mitt Romney’s Two Percent Solution

by Nomad

A

s any businessman or lawyer will confirm, the art of deception often involves things are not said, rather than the things that are actually specified. Mitt Romney's recent foreign policy speech the other day, entitled "The Mantle of Leadership, delivered at  Virginia Military Institute, definitely fits this profile. 

Here's an interesting statement from that speech.

And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.

Compared to both the United Kingdom and the United States, the rest of the NATO-member countries spend noticeably less of their GDP on defense. Therein lies the Republican complaint. According to a journalist for CQ Press:

European NATO members also spend a smaller percentage of their income on defense than the United States. Although under NATO rules all members vow to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, most European members now treat the 2 percent minimum as a ceiling instead, spending about 1.4 percent of their GDPs on defense. The United States spends about 4 percent of its GDP on defense.

American critics of NATO say that with a productive population of 445 million and a combined GDP of about $11 trillion, Europeans can afford to look after themselves militarily. But by spending less on defense — and refusing to pool their resources on most joint projects — the Europeans create resentment across the Atlantic about the unfair financial burden borne by the United States. The situation also undermines efforts to create a common defense policy within the military organization.

This has been an ongoing gripe by the Republican warhawks since the Bush administration. Certainly they have a point. Michael Cohen, writing for The Century Foundation, a progressive non-partisan think tank, points out:

Why should the United States be responsible for underwriting European security (and in turn the European welfare state), especially when European countries face not a single legitimate military threat to their well-being? Moreover, if Europeans don't think it's important enough to spend their own money on their own security, why should America? Now granted, the Europeans are a little short on cash these days, but then so is the United States. But of course as the House of Representatives reminded us recently—as they eviscerated key social safety net programs to restore cuts made to the defense budget—you can't put a price tag on a huge American military that does little to keep America safe and underwrites the security of other countries.

As unfair as the situation appears to be to some Americans, it cannot be overstated that NATO is not an American organization. Although the United States comprises the largest military force within the organization, NATO is voluntary organization, a working alliance of many nations, all with shared interests, all of them treaty-bound for mutual defense. It's not a company. If you own 51% of the hardware, you still don't have controlling shares or anything like that. 

Presidentially-Unfit Mitt Romney’s Loose Talk about Syria

by Nomad

W

hen it comes to foreign policy, Republican nominee Mitt Romney gives every indication that, as a leader of the nation, he would prove to be a full-scale ("un-mitt-agated"?) diplomatic disaster.
All of the warnings signs are already apparent.

Take this example. In July of this year, The Washington Post reported:

Appearing via video at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s annual meeting Saturday morning, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) delivered a speech that hinged on social issues but also focused in on what remains the top issue in the presidential election — the economy.

However, that subject seems to have been a little too boring for the members of the Christian Right organization.

And to the third question — “How would Romney strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship?” — Romney had a quip at the ready.

“Basically, I think you could just look at the things the president has done and do the opposite,” he said to laughter.

Nothing striking about that remark; it is pure Romney- an appeal to the sense of Christian Right’s disgust that Obama is actually their president. However, in ad-libbing, the candidate also stated this:

He added that he would “be leading in Syria by encouraging our friends there like the Turks and the Saudis to provide weapons to the insurgents.”

This casual, (some would call it reckless) remark says a lot about the manner in which Romney as president would conduct foreign policy. 

Political Poisons: Voter Fraud and The GOP Platform

by Nomad

Voter fraud is political poison. It strikes at the heart of representative government. We call on every citizen, elected official, and member of the judiciary to preserve the integrity of the vote. We call for vigorous prosecution of voter fraud at the State and federal level. To do less disenfranchises present and future generations. We recognize that having a physical verification of the vote is the best way to ensure a fair election. “Let ambition counter ambition,” as James Madison said. When all parties have representatives observing the counting of ballots in a transparent process, integrity is assured. We strongly support the policy that all electronic voting systems have a voter verified paper audit trail.

- from the 2012 Republican Party Platform

Like a lot of political proclamations, this party platform sounds pretty sensible, even noble. It’s a platform that few could argue with. However, when it comes to putting it into practice, or even standing by the statement, it’s not so easy. Especially if you are the Republican party.

The Realities of Zero Tolerance

Last week, a consulting firm contracted by the Republican Party of Florida to register GOP voters was being investigated by state and local officials on charges of election fraud, Romney as leader of his party, gave no public statement, condemning any possible wrongdoing.

The Incredible Hoax of Reaganomics- The General Electrifying of the President 3/3

by Nomad

PART ONE- David Stockman
PART TWO- Trickle Down

In this post, we will look at who actually benefited from  the con known as Reaganomics. The answer might surprise you.

Between Words and Deeds

If Ronald Reagan hadn’t existed, then the neo-conservatives would have had to invent him. In some respects, that’s exactly what they did. It seems sadly ironic that Reagan is more valuable as a myth to the Republican party than when he was a living president. He has allowed them to hold on to a very useful fantasy. 

Moreover, he has been used time and time again to justify inexcusably outrageous tax cuts for the minority of the population that clearly needs them the least. Besides, it would highly be embarrassing to have the real Reagan contradicting his own myth-makers and exposing them as hypocrites and frauds.

Still, for anybody who actually lived during the Reagan years and paid any attention whatsoever, the repeated make-overs, the erasures and exaggerations can be irritating, astounding and, at times, just plain amusing.

The Incredible Hoax of Reaganomics- Trickle-Down 2/3

by Nomad

In Part One of this series, we looked at David Stockman, Reagan's budget adviser and his candid assessment back of Reagan's application of supply-side economics, better known as the trickle-down theory. Now let's take a look at the intellectual origins of the idea.

Plutocracy is abhorrent to a republic; it is more despotic than monarchy, more heartless than aristocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in the hour of its calamity.

Horse and Sparrow Theory

History is sometimes a fickle thing. Often it remembers those who should probably be forgotten while forgetting those who, for one reason or another, deserve our lasting appreciation.

William Jennings Bryan is one of those people who was quite popular in his time but has now been largely consigned to unread records. However, not unlike his contemporary, Teddy Roosevelt, Bryan’s words and thoughts, once considered fixed to a particular time and particular circumstance of American history, seem to be suddenly just as apt in our own times.

Born in 1860 in Salem, Illinois, Bryan was a gifted orator of his day and as an American political figure,, ran three times for president in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Bryan never won the presidency but eventually became Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State in 1913. 

His name is familiar in some circles because of his role in the famous Scope’s “Monkey Trial” in which he argued against the teaching of evolution in public school. Although he was left humiliated after being called to the stand himself to defend religion against science, Bryan, in fact, he won the case; the teacher was found guilty of breaking the law but the verdict was later overturned on a technicality. For that to be his only claim to fame is a pity. He appears to have much to say to our present age.