Facing Our Fears

Talking Points

“October Surprise” speculation abounds…

· In December 2003, New York Times columnist William Safire predicted a major terrorist attack in the US which would affect the November elections. In November 2003, General Tommy Franks speculated that a major terrorist attack would likely result in suspension of the US Constitution and the installation of a military form of government. Whether its to suspend the election, or affect the election results as many believe was the cause of the Spain attack, many security and terrorism experts speculate that terrorists might see an “October Surprise” attack as an opportunity to create fear and chaos.

· Right Wingers and pundits claim that in the event of an attack, the public will rally around the president or at least the most aggressive anti terrorist party.

· The Left and company are concerned that the right will use another attack as strategy to erode more civil liberties, and exert more governmental controls over individuals.

Election Monitoring Teams

· Invited by the State Department, The Vienna based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is a 55-nation body that encourages all member countries to observe each others elections. The delegation will not have the authority to assess the fairness of the vote, but will be expected to issue a report on any problems or shortcomings. (“Independent Election Observer Team Arrives in US” Jim Lobe)

· The 20 independent democracy experts invited by San Francisco based organization, Global Exchange come from 15 countries and 5 continents. They will research election preparation in five states with some amount of voting controversy (Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Missouri and Georgia) and hope to meet with local and state election authorities as well as civic groups involved in getting out the vote and ensuring fair elections. (“Independent Election Observer Team Arrives in US” Jim Lobe)

Is our fear of terrorism disproportionate to the threat it poses?

· According to the National Safety Council, mile for mile, Americans are more likely 37 times more likely to die in a vehicle crash than on a commercial flight – following 9/11 Americans flew 20% less than before and correspondingly in the three months following the number of vehicle related deaths rose 350 more than the previous average for those months. (“Do we Fear the Right Things?” David Myers 12/01)

· Smoking shortens the lifespan on average of five years – flying (averaged across people) shortens the life by about one day. (“Do we Fear the Right Things?” David Myers 12/01)

· Guns are responsible for about 30,000 deaths a year. Since 9/11 almost 3,000 people have died from terrorism worldwide. (“Do we Fear the Right Things?” David Myers 12/01 and MSNBC article)

Arab and Muslim American Experience since 9/11

· More than half of America’s 7 million Muslims admit to experiencing bias or discrimination since 9\11 – verbal abuse, religious or ethnic profiling and workplace discrimination.

· The same poll indicates that over three quarters of American Muslims also experienced special kindness or support from friends or colleagues of other faiths.

Nothing to fear but fear itself?

· According to psychologists, there are four main contributors to why we fear things that we do. First, we fear what we are evolutionarily disposed to fear, fear of confinement and heights are common contributors to a fear of flying. Second, we fear what we cannot control – driving is something we control, flying is out of our hands, literally. Third, we fear what is immediate – the lack of fear of the consequences of smoking can be due to the fact that they may seem “far off.” Fourth, we fear what is readily available in memory. Images of the planes colliding with the twin towers and their subsequent fall are indelible memories, made more lasting no doubt, by their frequent repetition in the media in the hours and days that followd. (“Do we Fear the Right Things?” David Myers 12/01)

· According to some psychologists, the key to managing fear and anxiety is to accurately assess the risk of the situation in terms of the best and worst case scenarios, realistic assessment of the likelihood of something negative happening and developing an action plan. (“Coping with Terrorism and Fear of Flying,” Dr. Kevin J Kelly)

Shifty Tax Cuts: Passing the Buck?

Talking Points

Effects of Tax Cuts
· According to the Congressional Budget Office, tax cuts will exacerbate income inequality by raising the after tax incomes by a much greater percentage for the top 1% of households than for any other income group.
· Tax cuts are a poorly designed economic stimulus: each $1 of tax cuts has produced only 74 cents of added economic demand the next year because the tax cuts were skewed toward high-income households, who are much less likely than other households to spend their tax cuts quickly.
· An alternative stimulus package of temporary tax cuts aimed at low- and middle-income Americans, a temporary boost in unemployment benefits, and additional temporary aid to states would have generated more short-term demand ($1.20 for each $1 of cost) and thus produced much more economic and job growth. Such a package also would have cost much less than the enacted tax cuts, especially over the long term.
· The Economic Policy Institute reports that 2.7 million fewer jobs have been created since passage of the 2003 tax cut than the Administration had predicted.
· The Office of Management and Budget’s Mid-Session Budget Review, released July 30, shows that the tax cuts have accounted for 57 percent of the cost of all legislation enacted since the Administration took office. In other words, tax cuts have contributed more to the worsening fiscal situation than all other new government policies combined, including all new costs related to Iraq and the war on terrorism and all domestic spending increases.
· A recent report by CBPP and the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center finds the tax cuts ultimately are likely to make most households worse off. The government must cover its bills by raising taxes or cutting spending. Financial markets will not tolerate persistent deficits of the size that are now forecast. The study found that under the two scenarios it considered for paying for the tax cuts, more than three-quarters of households would end up worse off. That is, they would lose more from the tax increases and/or spending cuts instituted to pay for the tax cuts than they would gain from the tax cuts themselves.

The Working Class
· The tax shifts have moved the burden of paying taxes from corporations, inheritance and investment wealth to the payroll tax on wages of hardworking individuals for generations to come.
· Tax cuts during war time is unprecedented: for 3 years tax cuts have been passed for the wealthy while the US soldiers fight, die and find veteran services cut when they return
· Societies investments create opportunities for individual security and success: Polls show that 91% of Americans believe our society should make sure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed and that 75% want the government to create opportunities and keep the economy growing.


African Americans
· Current unemployment for African Americans is twice that of whites – jobs that are currently happening pay less than the ones they replace.
· African Americans make up 20% of the US Armed Forces compared to only 13% of the total population.
· Giving tax cuts to the highest income earners while others are fighting and dying is not only unheard of, but unprecedented.
· Over 30% of minimum wage women are African American and Hispanic – they represent less than 25% of the female workforce.
Latinos
· Weekly earnings for Hispanics dropped between 2003 and 2004 – the median family income has dropped overall by $1,500 since 2000.
· A progressive tax plan repeals tax cuts only for those who earn over $200,000 a year – providing money for job creation and support programs like college tuition aid, small business assistance and new jobs tax credit.
Tax Cuts or Tax Shifts?
· Tax cuts have shifted the burden to states: between 2000 and 2003 the share of the total tax burden born at the state and local level jumped 15%. In turn, states have cut their budgets by 5% -- billions of dollars in reduced services: laid off teachers, reduced library hours, unrepaired roads and bridges, public transportation and increased college tuition, among others.
· Between 2002 and 2004 the newly enacted federal tax cuts delivered over $190 billion dollars – ten times the amount of state aid – in new tax breaks for the top 1% of Americans (households making over $300,000 annually) .
· The tax cuts are doing little to counteract the economic divide: In 2000 the bottom 20% averaged $13,700 in after-tax income and the middle averaged $41,900 while the top 1% averaged $862,700 after taxes. This is the widest income gap since the 1920’s.
· Since 1962 the top corporate tax rate has been cut from 52% to 35% and the top income tax rate has been cut from 91% to 35%. At the same time, the payroll tax has been raised from 6.25% to 15.3%.
· According to one estimate, 75% of Americans pay more in payroll tax than in income taxes.
· Households with incomes over $1million will receive tax cuts averaging $123,000 – causing their after tax income to jump more than 6%.
· Since payroll taxes were raised in the early 80’s, workers have been paying “extra” taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund – this storehouse of public savings now totals $1.7 trillion. In February 2004, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan proposed cutting Social Security benefits in order to deal with federal deficit – essentially taking some of the $1.7 trillion currently in the Social Security Trust Fund to cut the deficit in order to continue financing tax cuts for the wealthy.
· Since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two thirds, while that contributed by individuals and unincorporated small business has risen 17%.
· The burden of tax cuts, 2001 recession, rising health care costs, and tax evasion that decimated the 2001 surplus and boosted the deficit and national debt will fall on future generations.

Investment Tax vs. Income Tax: Who pays more?
· Total federal personal taxes paid on wages and other earnings – including both income taxes and Social Security and Medicare taxes – now average 23%. By contrast, federal personal taxes on investment income averages about 9%.
· Wages and earnings are 71% of total personal income, but taxes on earnings make up 88% of total federal personal taxes. In contrast, investment income is 22% of total personal income, but taxes on investment income are only 11% of total personal taxes.
· Earnings are taxed twice at personal level. Overall, Social Security and Medicare taxes actually take a larger share of earnings than income taxes – 12% vs. 10%. Investment income is exempt from helping to support Social Security and Medicare.
· While almost all earnings are reported on income tax returns (due to wage withholding), a large share of investment income – as much as a quarter of investment income – is not reported.
· The Bush Administration tax cuts on income tax rates, combined with tax breaks for capital gains and dividends have lowered personal taxes on investment income by 22%. In contrast, the Administration has reduced taxes on earning by only 9%

Health Care Costs
· 5 Million people have lost their health care coverage since 2000.
· Last week, Medicare announced a 17% increase in premiums, the largest in the program’s 40 year history.

Defining Victory

Talking Points

Public Opinion:

· 7 out of 10 Americans now say the UN should take the lead in Iraq reconstruction

· 66% say the US should commit itself to a stable democracy in Iraq

· 70% say war has not reduced the threat of terrorism

· Three quarters say pursuit of Osama Bin Ladin and al Qaeda is more important that Iraq

Poll by the PIPKA/Knowledge Networks “The American Public on International Issues” in November (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/press_12_03.pdf)

Iraq and Afghanistan

• According to the Disabled American Veterans, an additional 6,891 troops were medically evacuated between March 19, 2003 and Oct. 30, 2003, for everything from vehicle accidents to attempted suicides. To date, nearly 1000 soldiers have returned from Iraq in caskets.
• By February 2004, neither war (Afghanistan and Iraq) had produced a stable peace in the subject countries, but they had imposed more than 18,000 fatalities including perhaps 6,000 non-combatant deaths.
• More than 300 coalition troops were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq during the period between the end of major combat in those countries and February 1, 2004. Regarding Iraq, the US Central Command has cited a frequency of anti-coalition activity since May 1, 1003 that indicates a total of more than 4,700 attacks -- an average of approximately 17 per day
• There are 9,000 US soldiers stationed in Afghanistan: fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda units, training the new Afghan army and attempting to preserve the new government.
• A 4 or 5 year occupation of Iraq by 65,000 regular and 35,000 reserve soldiers requires a base of 260,000 active soldiers and 315,000 reserves – over half of our current total deployable ground forces.

US Foreign Policy and the Military

· According to Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, the US is “fighting three wars: Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terror. It has to deal with everything from Colombia to Haiti, the Palestinians to North Korea, the WTO. If someone is arguing the administration has a lot on its plate and it is stretched, they’ve got a point.”

· In October, the Department of Defense eliminated its only institute devoted to peacekeeping and peace enforcement: the Peacekeeping Institute at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania. The Peacekeeping Institute was created in July 1993 to guide the Army's strategic thinking on how to conduct peacekeeping and to document lessons-learned. It has operated with a staff of ten and a yearly budget of about $200,000 (out of an $81 billion annual Army budget). Canada has the sole remaining center in North America.

· Compared to the Cold War numbers, the US has 700,000 fewer soldiers on the payroll.

The US at the UN

• The United States cast the lone vote against enacting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Vote 173-1 with 4 abstentions.
• Joining India, the United States opposed the program for “transparent, verified and irreversible reduction and elimination of nuclear forces.” Vote: 164-1 with 14 abstentions.
• A call for negotiations to prevent an arms race in outer space was adopted overwhelmingly in a 174 to 0 vote. The Four abstaining countries were Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Israel and the United States.
• Physicians for Social Responsibility Talking Points

q Chemical Weapons: How to Reduce the Danger http://www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_4/chemfact.pdf

q Biological Weapons: How to Respond to the Threat http://www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_4/biofact.pdf

q Meeting the Nuclear Threat: A new Direction for U.S. Nuclear Policy http://www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_4/SMART_Nuclear_Weapons_Fact_Sheet_Final_1_.pdf