NY Times Clinton Debacle

This post is almost an addendum to my July 25, 2015 post entitled “Right Wing Dirty Tricks.” In that post I quoted from Dylan Byer's July 24, 2015 Politico article about the NY Times changing a story in which it had reported that two inspectors general asked “...the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation 'into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.'” This New York Times story obviously put Hillary Clinton in a bad light, and it was inaccurate. The facts that have now come to light and the outcry over the inaccuracy of a story that could influence a Presidential election has now forced the NY Times to back even farther away from its original story. The Times had to admit that Hillary was not the subject of a criminal investigation, and they even had to say there was a “security referral” rather than a criminal investigation of anyone. Furthermore the Times had to admit that in regard to the classified information found in Hillary's E-mail account “it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails.”

In The New York Times, July 28, 2015 “Public Editors Journal Page” there is an article entitled “A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?” By Margaret Sullivan.

Ms. Sullivan acknowledges the errors in the original story, adding that “[e]ventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.”  In saying this she all but explicitly admits that the handling of the corrections was inadequate given the magnitude of the errors and the potential consequences.

Ms. Sullivan blames the inaccuracies on the incorrect (read unreliable) statements anonymous sources made to Times reporters, Matt Apuzo and Michael Schmidt. She quotes editor Matt Purdy as saying: “The reporters and editors were not able to see the referral itself .. and that’s the norm in such cases; anything else would be highly unusual, he said. So they were relying on their sources’ interpretation of it.”

And why would the reporters and their editors do this highly unusual thing? Ms Sullivan says it was because the reporters were in too much of a rush to get the story in print and scoop the competition. I find that troubling. What I find even more troubling is the self serving statement that follows:

“None of this should be used to deny the importance of The Times’s reporting on the subject of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices at the State Department, a story Mr. Schmidt broke in March. Although her partisans want the focus shifted to these errors, the fact remains that her secret email system hamstrung possible inquiries into her conduct while secretary of state both by the news media and the public under the Freedom of Information Act and by Congress. And her awarding to herself the first cull of those emails will make suspicion about what they contained a permanent part of the current campaign.”

Let me remind Ms. Sullivan that The Freedom of Information Act would not make available to her or the New York Times any classified documents or E-mails containing classified documents. Furthermore, Hillary's predecessors used their private E-mail accounts in much the same manner, and no one questioned them about culling those accounts. So why has this become such a big thing? Is it because of other phony issues such as Benghazi?

It is this sort of crap that made me look up Eric Boehlert's article “Can The New York Times Salvage Its Clinton Coverage?" on Media Matters. More specifically it was that article's sub-title: “Email Blunder Fits Disturbing Pattern Of Misinformation” that drew my attention.

Until now I did not think misinformation regarding Hillary Clinton was specifically a New York Times problem. What I mean by that is that the right wing has an absolute hatred of Hillary Clinton, and most news outlets have been quoting outlandish accusations about her without making any attempt to verify or debunk the claims made. What the times has done in this instance, however, goes way beyond hiding behind a quote or lazy reporting, and this is not the first time the Times reporting has been questionable in regard to the Clintons!
 
As Mr. Boehlert wrote: “If you were surprised by the Times' face-plant, then you haven't been paying attention. Media Matters has been chronicling the Times' problematic Clinton coverage in recent months. (And for years.) Yet it wasn't until the email fiasco that the paper's ongoing Clinton troubles exploded into full view, prompting condemnations as journalists and commentators not only questioned the Times' competence, but also its fairness.”

Robert Borosage Nails It

For decades now I have been saying that the ratio between short term and long term investors is way out of balance. Long term investors have traditionally looked at the stability of a company, its book value, and its potential. The research and development that allowed companies to get ahead of the competition or at least keep pace with the competition was considered essential by long term investors who wanted steady growth and a steady appreciation of the value of the stocks they purchased. Short term investors, on the other hand, have always been risk takers who are looking for quick rewards. They do not think much about long term growth. If the system is not rigged “betting the spread” is a more a accurate description than "playing the spread" because short term investors are gambling.

In short, it was my opinion that the number of short term investors and their economic power exposed the long term investors to much more risk than was desirable. I must admit that my view was the view of an informed layman. As such it was simplistic. What is actually happening is far more complex and far worse than I realized!

Check out Rober Borosage's July 17, 2015 article, “Hillary on Quarterly Capitalism: Big Challenge, Timid Reform,” on Campaign for America's Future. In this article, Mr. Borosage uses Hillary Clinton's comments to show us how bad it really is. He begins his article by saying:

“Last week, Hillary Clinton opened an important 'conversation' about what she calls 'quarterly capitalism' or excessive 'short-termism.' She noted how the rules have been rigged to pressure executives to focus on the next quarter’s stock return rather than the long-term health of the company. The result, reaching new extremes in recent years, is that large public corporations are using 'eight or nine of every 10 dollars they earn' to pay out dividends or purchase stock buybacks. CEOs suggest that they would hold off making significant long-term investments if that meant missing the next quarter’s targeted return.

This 'culture of short-term speculation' is 'out of balance,' and fixing it, Clinton argues, is vital to 'save capitalism for the 21st century.'

In stark contrast with Republicans presidential candidates who want to cut or eliminate capital gains taxes, Clinton calls for reforms that will reward longer-term horizons. She suggests she wants to revive what used to be called stakeholder capitalism, with corporations focused not simply on shareholder return but on insuring that workers, consumers, communities, the country and the globe share in the rewards of long-term growth.

But in what is becoming a signature of the Clinton campaign, the fundamental problem is addressed with underwhelming reforms. To abandon the culture of short-term speculation, Clinton does not call for a financial speculation tax that might slow computer-driven, nanosecond trading programs. She does not endorse taxing the income of investors at the same rate as the salaries of workers. She doesn’t mention breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions or reducing the bloated size of our financial community that helps drive risky financial transactions. She doesn’t penalize companies for excessive CEO compensation packages.

Instead, she offers five areas for reform – four essentially exhortations and one of substance. This gives her scope for rhetoric that echoes Sen. Elizabeth Warren while offering policies that won’t offend Silicon Valley or Wall Street donors.”

Mr. Borosage goes on from there to accurately describe in detail the problems Hillary identifies and the timid reforms she advocates. Believe me his discussion is well worth the effort to read it!

I want to add here that Hillary's rhetoric goes beyond trying to appease the left. It is not just a sop to the much vaunted Elizabeth Warren wing of the party or to the people supporting Bernie Sanders. It is rather a recognition that the party of Roosevelt has awakened and is now demanding that we do something about the threat posed by the unbridled greed of the plutocrats. Hillary's inability to propose effective reforms to meet this crises is also indicative of the problem posed by the influence of money on our political system. Sadly, I have to say that even her anemic response to the problems caused by such a rigged system is more desirable than the Republican Party's Hooveresque denial that there is a problem or, in the alternative, their denial that the problem is caused by a lack of regulations and a rigged system that enriches the rich at the expense of everyone else. Those GOP morons actually want to double down on their failed trickle down policies!

Bless Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. They have changed the rhetoric, and that is a first step. Unfortunately it will take someone who is not beholding to Silicon Valley and/or Wall Street to do what we so desperately need done.  Could Bernie be the answer?

Right Wing Dirty Tricks

How can they smear you, let me count the ways. We have the false accusations by Andrew Breitbart against Van Jones and the highly selective and deceptively edited videos Fox and Breitbart used to attack Shirley Sherrod and Acorn. Then there was “Fast And Furious,” and the phony scandal in which Republicans accused the IRS of targeting right wing groups for harassment.

The problem is that the news media, like side show barkers, shouted out all of those accusations as if they had some merit. And the right wing was rewarded by the damage their smear campaign caused to Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, and Acorn. But their attempts to undermine Attorney General Holder by using Fast and Furious, and their attempts to discredit the IRS fell flat in spite of or perhaps because of the zeal of Grand Inquisitor Issa. The Republicans are not getting much traction out of the phony issue of Benghazi either. Ah, but hope and scandal spring eternal. Surely something can be made out of Hillary's use of her personal e-mail account to conduct State Department business! How much classified information went to or from this unsecured account, eh?

Oh goody, goody! This could be hot stuff if someone makes the right accusations! The New York Times jumped at the bait and presented a story with a headline and innuendos that were sensational enough to draw readers but were also inaccurate. As Dylan Byers wrote in his July 24 , 2015 Politico article:

“The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.

The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation 'into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.'

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry 'into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.'

The Times also changed the headline of the story, from 'Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email' to 'Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account,' reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton's possible role. The article's URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.”

This smear in addition to the absurd attempts of Grand inquisitor Gowdy to bundle the supposed e-mail scandal and the ginned up Benghazi scandal into a highly damaging Hillary scandal really made me angry. It combined with the outrageously deceptive videos used to attack Planned Parenthood (see my previous post) soon had me Googling. I wanted a catalog of false accusations and dirty tricks.

What I found was entitled “Republican Dirty Tricks.” This post, by Todd Smyth, discusses many of the right wing myths about our founding fathers, and it documents many of the dirty political tricks committed during our history. Although I do not agree with all of Mr. Smyth's conclusions, I highly recommend this blog. I really enjoyed many of the quotations and the examples he included. The quotation below is almost eerily prophetic:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 1864

The gilded age of outrageous corruption followed shortly thereafter, and Mr. Lincoln's warning is even more relevant today. Sadly, Corporations now own the Republican Party, far too many Democrats, and our courts.  As the dirty tricks committed by the Republicans and their attempts to assassinate the character of anyone who might oppose them indicates, the Greedy Old Plutocrats are indeed working upon the prejudices of the people!

Immoral Moralists

I know, the title sounds like an oxymoron, but bear with me. Merriam Webster defines Moralist as: “a person who has strong feelings and opinions about what is right and who tries to control the moral behavior of other people.”

What if the moralist is wrong about what is right? What if the moralist uses immoral or unethical tactics to control the “moral” behavior of other people? These are not merely hypothetical questions; history is rife with examples of heinous crimes committed in the name of God or morality. In fact, some of those crimes were committed by the pro-life fanatics who oppose on religious grounds all abortions and many forms of birth control. I guess the fanatics feel that since God can never be wrong they are justified in using any means necessary to prevent access to abortions and the most effective forms of birth control. And when I say any means I am including dishonesty, character assassinations, and even murder!

The latest example of this is the surreptitious filming of Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s senior director of medical services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola in conversation with a pair posing as executives from an imaginary Irvine human biologics company seeking sources of fetal tissue for medical research. As David Cohen and Krysten Cannon wrote in their July 21, 2015 RH Reality Check article entitled "Attacks On Planned Parenthood Part of a Campaign to Harass Legal Abortion Providers:" 

“...these videos [filmed and released by An anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress] are part of a highly orchestrated campaign to discredit Planned Parenthood and ultimately undermine legal and safe abortion, they are also part of an ongoing campaign to target and harass individual abortion providers and others connected with the safe and legal provision of abortion care.

And these strikes are hardly an isolated strategy. As our new book, Living in the Crosshairs: The Untold Stories of Anti-Abortion Terrorism, covers in detail, abortion providers and clinic staff around the country can be the subject of unrelenting personal attacks by anti-abortion extremists. These personal attacks can have serious effects on abortion providers’ lives.

This kind of individual targeting takes on a variety of forms—from hate mail and death threats, to regular large-scale demonstrations in front of people’s homes and stalking providers outside of work. At its most extreme, this kind of targeting has resulted in eight abortion providers murdered since 1993, the most recent being Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of his Wichita, Kansas church in May 2009.

One form of individualized targeting that is less commonly discussed is professional harassment, a type of abuse that seeks to destroy a provider’s professional standing or that occurs within the provider’s professional environment. The video released by the extremist-backed Center for Medical Progress is exactly this, as it attempts to suggest that Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, and Gatter, the medical director of Planned Parenthood Pasadena, were acting callously, unethically, and possibly illegally. Anti-abortion forces aren’t just trying to paint Planned Parenthood in a bad despite the fact that they are trusted, caring, and light; they are also trying to ruin Nucatola and Gatter’s individual professional identities, despite the fact that they did nothing wrong and committed reproductive health-care professionals."

In her July 16, 2015 Los Angeles Time article entitled "Undercover Video Sting of Planned Parenthood Is Off-Base, As Usual" Robin Abcarian tells us about the Center for Medical Progress [“Regress” would be more accurate]. The groups founder is David Daleiden. According to his biography, Daleiden is a longtime associate of [Lila] Rose, who collaborated with conservative activist James O’Keefe on earlier anti-abortion projects.” You might also remember O' Keefe as the scummy, reactionary who produced highly edited and deceptive videos of Acorn's employees allegedly helping a pimp commit crimes, or as the asshole who posed as a telephone repairman to gain access to Senator Mary Landrieu's headquarters. In fact, deceptive videos have become a favorite tactic of reactionary shit bags such as Andrew Dimbart, James O'Keefe and now David Daleiden.

Ms. Abcarian urges us to judge these videos for ourselves by reading the 60 page transcript of the meeting that was filmed. She wrote:

“I find nothing in it [the transcript] that smacks of wrongdoing. The worst that can be said is that Nucatola appeared to speak about aborted fetuses in a manner that might be regarded as callous by some. Her offense, if such a thing can be be said to exist, is one of tone, not substance.

Nucatola repeatedly told her lunch companion phonies that Planned Parenthood collects fetal tissue for medical research because patients undergoing abortions have asked for the service.

'I think every one of them is happy to know that there’s a possibility for them to do this extra bit of good,' she said.”

Unfortunately it does not matter that Planned Parenthood did not make a profit from selling tissue from aborted fetuses or that planned Planned Parenthood did not do anything illegal. This phony issue will be treated as if it has merit regardless of the facts. As Ms. Abcarian points out:

“[t]his story is tailor-made for the anti-abortion histrionics of conservative outlets like Fox News. And it’s a gift to anti-choice politicians, who have long sought to defund Planned Parenthood, which performs more than a quarter of all abortions in this country.

House Speaker John Boehner has vowed to investigate. And members of the crowded GOP presidential field have tripped over themselves to condemn Planned Parenthood, always a handy punching bag for them. Officials in Ohio, Indiana and Georgia have ordered investigations into whether Planned Parenthood sold organs from aborted fetuses.

Their misplaced fervor ignores the fact that fetal tissue has been critical to many medical advances -- perhaps even some from which they have benefited.” 

Grand inquisitor Issa and grand inquisitor Gowdy are licking their chops over the prospect of being selected to conduct the persecution of Planned Parenthood. All of the other alleged scandals, such as Benghazi, have the combustibility of a wet diaper! But this... this is hot stuff! Using fetal tissue for research is so ripe for hot, righteous outrage. Falsehoods be damned... truth has never been a criteria for right wing anger. It does not matter how much good it may do or whether it is legal, the right wing will say it should be illegal and Planned Parenthood should be defunded!

Have we learned nothing from the damages caused by the false accusations against Acorn, Shirley Sherrod and Van Jones? It is time for reasonable people to fight back! The real investigation should revolve around the illegality of taping the meeting without the knowledge of Dr. Nucatola and around the scandalous accusations falsely made by Daleiden and his bogus and misnamed group.

War Is The Failure Of Diplomacy

Mr. Netanyahu has said it all before, and his only alternative to an agreement with Iran is still “lets you and Iran fight!” Mr. Netanyahu favors Republicans because he believes they'll get you and Iran into a fight! He will assure you it's for a good cause.  It's for the holey land, he'll say (not the holy land, and certainly not your land).  Only a medieval idiot would see this as a matter of faith.  Supporting Israel does not mean we have to join Netanyahu in an apocalyptic dance of spiraling tensions and escalating threats.  Stuff that!  Why should we reject success?  Sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table for a limited but important purpose.  Only a fool would think we can instantly resolve all of our differences with Iran and turn it into the model state we would like it to be.  Our goal is simply to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and thereby limit the threat nuclear weapons pose to the entire world.  This is not just geopolitics it is also survival politics, and it is where our focus must be!

I hear a pfft! Oh, there it is! It's emanating from an orifice attached to the Trumpster's ego. Donald Trump does not care whether he knows anything about Iran, he still wants to dominate the discussion. He is still the bloviating ignoramus George Will so aptly described. Which means we might get our clown show after all.

Unfortunately, the disingenuous criticism of the treaty by the feckless John Boehner and the bombastic howls coming from him are no laughing matter. Even doing nothing is powerful and consequential when you are Speaker of the House. What I find so frightening is that Mr. Boehner is giving the impression that he is trying to herd his truculent dumb asses in the wrong direction. God knows he can't lead them to reason. You can tell when he has tried that by the tread marks on his back. Still, the Congressional chamber must contain enough smart people to act in a responsible manner on special occasions. This is such an occasion and doing the responsible thing means following the traditional policy of leaving partisanship at the water's edge. So far the only thing Republicans have indicated a willingness to leave at the water's edge is the water they are trying to keep from landing on their shoes.

I know there will be people who will say I am offering a false choice, but I am not. Doing nothing means Iran will continue to develop a nuclear weapon. It is time get real, folks. There is no such thing as a perfect agreement. While no agreement may be better than a bad agreement, a workable agreement is a lot better than a bad war.  

Wealth Gap 101

Fox News and Republicans (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, et al.) are trying to re-brand the GOP as the Party of the middle class.  They are desperately blaming the policies of Barack Obama for the great disparity in wealth between the top 2 or 3 percent of our population and everyone else.  Blink twice, click your heels or click on Bushed, and return to... ah, how about reality!

Let me remind you that President Obama was first elected President on Nov. 3, 2008 and assumed office on January 20, 2009. As you can see from the Vulture Chart the wealth gap was huge well before President Obama was even elected.

So how do you create a wealth gap?

1. Starve the beast:

• In a 11/20/2012 New York Times article entitled “The New Republican Tax Policy” Bruce Bartlett wrote: “Although it is commonly believed that the Laffer curve – the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves – is the core Republican idea about tax policy, this is wrong. The true core idea is something called starve-the-beast – the idea that tax cuts will force cuts in spending precisely because they reduce revenue. But there are slight indications that some conservatives have awakened to the reality that not only does starve-the-beast not work, but it also leads to higher spending.” I presume that by “some conservatives” Mr. Bartlett was referring to real conservatives as opposed to the mindless reactionaries that are driving so much of the Republican Party's agenda.

• The problem is that the Republicans are very selective in the government spending they want to limit. Their real goal is to cut spending on the safety nets and earned benefits programs while increasing spending on the things they favor.  In a Feb 22, 2011 article entitled Infographic: Tax Breaks vs. Budget Cuts, Donna Cooper at The Center For American Progress showed who benefits from the things Republicans favor. Her analysis and chart of the cost of the Republicans' proposed tax breaks for the wealthy vs. the Republicans' proposed cuts in safety-net programs is a real eye opener. (See DailyKos Comparison)

• I know some of you are saying “yes, but that chart reflects what was happening clear back in 2011.” All right, so lets look at the Republicans' most recent budget proposals. Here is what Paul Krugman said about them in his March 20, 2015 New York Times article entitled : Trillion Dollar Fraudster.

“… the just-released budgets from the House and Senate majorities break new ground. Each contains not one but two trillion-dollar magic asterisks: one on spending, one on revenue. And that’s actually an understatement. If either budget were to become law, it would leave the federal government several trillion dollars deeper in debt than claimed, and that’s just in the first decade.

… Some of those spending reductions are specified: There would be savage cuts in food stamps, similarly savage cuts in Medicaid over and above reversing the recent expansion, and an end to Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies. Rough estimates suggest that either plan would roughly double the number of Americans without health insurance. But both also claim more than a trillion dollars in further cuts to mandatory spending, which would almost surely have to come out of Medicare or Social Security. What form would these further cuts take? 

… Think about what these budgets would do if you ignore the mysterious trillions in unspecified spending cuts and revenue enhancements.  What you’re left with is huge transfers of income  from the poor and the working class, who would see severe benefit cuts, to the rich, who would see big tax cuts. And the simplest way to understand these budgets is surely to suppose that they are intended to do what they would, in fact, actually do: make the rich richer and ordinary families poorer.”

• In a post entitled “Why do Republicans Really Oppose Infrastructure Spending?” Daily Kos shows us just how greedy and destructive the Republican Party has become in its quest to enrich the rich.

“While Republicans continue to refuse to raise revenue necessary to fund infrastructure spending (traditional Starve the Beast), the latest application - Starve the Beast 2.0 - looks to hold hostage any and all necessary spending for cuts to other, unfavored, government spending.  In that sense, you have to understand the crucial (even threatening) need for infrastructure spending as identical to the "debt ceiling."  For Republicans, the hundreds of billions to trillions of unmet infrastructure spending represents a massive, annualgolden opportunity to extort draconian cuts to social, regulatory, non-defense spending.  That is why Republicans also reject deficit-financing for infrastructure spending (at historically low interest rates) or alternative proposals like a private-public infrastructure bank.  The goal here is not to invest in the country, but to seize upon any vulnerability to "drown the government in a bathtub."

…In sum, the question of why we cannot enact needed, common-sense infrastructure spending is truly mystifying . . . so long as we ignore that the Republican party is hyper-partisan, engaged in a destructive Starve the Beast agenda, wants to privatize public infrastructure, promotes an increasing "financialization" of the economy, and is ideologically opposed to labor and environmental laws...”

* It is not a great secret: the few examples I have just given tell you that when Republicans say they will “fix or reform entitlements” they mean they will deprive you of the benefits you have earned so they can make the rich richer. The Republican Party also opposes raising the minimum wage and actually brags about busting unions. They do this even though they know the minimum wage and labor unions have a positive impact on real wages and job creation. (See Minimum Wage Mythbuster and Unions and Wealth)

So how do the Republicans justify enriching the rich at your expense? With the trickle down theory hypothesis of economics, of course.

2. Does Trickle Down Work?

• From 1954 to 1963 the top marginal tax rate was 91% with an effective rate of 86% (See Top Marginal Tax Rate ). If the Republicans were right about all the horrible things that happen when you tax the “job creators,” the jobless rate should have gone through the roof and the economy should have spent the entire decade spinning in the toilet. But that did not happen! In only three of those nine years ( 1958, 1961, and 1963) did the unemployment rate rise higher than 5.5%, and it did not reach 7% in any of those years (See Employment Statistics).

• Even the International Monetary Fund has concluded that Trickle Down Does Not Work, and the IMF is just one of many organizations and/or individuals who say the data does not support the Trickle Down hypothesis.

See the page entitled “About Important Links” on this blog to discover links to other sites containing information about economic myths such as Trickle Down.

* The Bottom line is that the Republican Party is distributing the wealth upwards! Justifying this enrichment of the rich at your expense by citing the fallacious trickle down hypothesis is analogous to pissing on your head and telling you it's raining!

3. What about trade agreements?

• Trade agreements are a cause of the wealth gap that both major political parties would rather not discuss because they are both to blame for those agreements. Bad trade agreements are destroying our industries and depressing our wages! Those agreements are also causing deficits that are far more dangerous than our federal budget deficits. It is only a matter time before the trade imbalances or trade deficits undermine confidence in our ability to meet our obligations and cause large increases in the amount of interest we are paying for the money we are borrowing! (See Trade deficits Widen)
  
  Some have said we are entering into bad trade agreements for military reasons. If this is true we are fools. Military power without economic power cannot be sustained. The collapse of the Soviet Union was just the most recent and spectacular example of this. Did we learn nothing from it?