News Release Archive - 1998

What Should Be Done With the Budget Surplus?

Share

WASHINGTON — For the first time in decades, government officials and policy wonks in the nation’s capital are talking about what to do with a federal budget surplus. The Congressional Budget Office predicts a surplus of between $43 billion and $63 billion this year.

While many in Washington are pushing for tax cuts, some policy analysts far from the centers of power are urging different approaches. Among those available for interviews are:

ELLEN FRANK
A member of the editorial board of Dollars and Sense magazine, Frank said: “The surplus should be returned to the public in the form of services which we badly need. We could start by investing in education for our children, something that would go a long way to making sure the elderly are provided for in the future. For the past 15 years or so, Americans have been told that there’s no money to provide basic government services. Now we have the money, so let’s provide them.”

TERESA GHILARDUCCI
An associate professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame, Ghilarducci commented: “If the federal budget were divided between capital and consumption accounts like businesses do, we would have shown an ongoing surplus during much of the 1990s. Nevertheless, whether to spend it or give it back to individuals in the form of tax reductions is a real issue. We as a nation have urgent needs to provide income security and to improve education.”

ROBERT GINSBURG
Research director at the Midwest Center for Labor Research, Ginsburg said: “One of the consequences of the current economic growth is the increasing income inequality. This is most starkly seen in urban areas where years of disinvestment have created extremes of poverty which may be separated from affluence by only a street. The budget surplus offers an opportunity to begin rebuilding our urban centers. Investing in mass transit and trains, in schools and housing, will provide a foundation for other development. We also need to invest in living wage jobs in industries that are still in the cities or that can benefit from the city’s advantages of skilled labor, transportation and markets. These kinds of investments will produce long-term benefits.”

ROBERT S. McINTYRE
McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, said: “We might finally start paying down the huge national debt built up in the Reagan and Bush administrations. The heck with that, say Gingrich and his compatriots. Instead, they insist we need more big tax cuts for the wealthy.”

For more information, contact Theresa Caldwell or Sam Husseini at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.

While Clinton Offers Reassurances in Hong Kong, Some Critics Dispute His Economic Assumptions

Share

WASHINGTON — President Clinton hopes that his public statements in Hong Kong on Friday will help to soothe jitters about economic turmoil in Asia. But some policy analysts in the United States are raising fundamental questions about the recent upheaval that has roiled the economies of many Asian nations.

Despite assurances from U.S. officials, critics are calling for a re-examination of assumptions about economic globalization. Among those available for comment are:

KEVIN DANAHER
Mr. Danaher, the editor of 50 Years Is Enough: The Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, contends that this year’s massive economic turbulence in Asia is largely the result of policies still in effect. “In all of the criticism of what caused this Asian economic meltdown,” Mr. Danaher says, “we hear nothing about systemic causes — about how the root of the crisis lies in the neo-liberal model itself. If small countries open their financial markets to global market forces capable of overwhelming their economies, it is only a matter of time before this kind of disaster will occur. South Korea is a good example. During the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, South Korea had tight capital controls and did not experience financial crisis. But in the 1990s, when they liberalized their financial markets – – under pressure from Washington — that’s when the financial crisis struck.”

NJOKI NJOROGE NJEHU
Ms. Njehu, outreach coordinator for the 50 Years Is Enough Network, comments: “The IMF’s image as the fire department of the global economy has been discredited by the Mexican peso crash, the East Asian crash and 18 years of structural adjustment programs in 80 countries where — by the IMF’s own admission — per capita income stagnated during the adjustment period. The IMF is revealed, instead, to be the pyromaniac of the global economy. In addition to cuddling dictators from Indonesia to Zaire and the Philippines, the IMF’s trickle-down economic policies invariably favor multinational corporations and rich foreign investors over the working poor and middle-class people in poor countries. In many countries, legislators and civil society organizations continue to demand accountability and transparency from the IMF, an incredibly secretive organization.”

For more information, contact Sam Husseini or Theresa Caldwell at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.

Critics Question Human Rights Standards

Share

WASHINGTON — While many applaud statements by President Clinton in China specifically citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, analysts associated with the Institute for Public Accuracy are raising questions about selective adherence to the Declaration’s provisions.

Among those available for comment are:

ANURADHA MITTAL
Mittal, policy director at the Institute for Food and Development Policy – Food First, noted that Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for [their] health and well-being” — including “food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.” Mittal commented: “Today, as the U.S. integrates the language of ‘human rights’ into international diplomacy and politics, the focus is narrowly on political and civil rights. It continues to spurn half of the rights guaranteed by the Declaration — social and economic human rights. In 1996 at the Habitat Conference in Istanbul, the U.S. was alone in rejecting the right to housing, and the same year at the World Food Summit in Rome, in refusing the right to food.”

JOY BUTTS
Coordinator of the Economic Human Rights Campaign Documentation Project, which is organizing a rally outside the U.N. today, Butts said: “On the 50th Anniversary Year of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, we took a New Freedom Bus to over 40 poor communities across the country in June, and participated in locally organized human rights tribunals. We are witnessing a rising tide of domestic human rights abuses in the wake of welfare reform’ … While this nation’s leadership criticizes human rights violations abroad, we have collected documentation from throughout this country — story after horrifying story — that demands that human rights be addressed right in our own backyard.”

FRANCIS BOYLE
A professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law who has worked extensively on human rights cases in the U.S., Boyle said: “Clinton has urged China to sign the international covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and on Civil and Political Rights. The U.S. signed the ESC, but did not ratify it. As for the Civil and Political covenant, the U.S. Senate attached many conditions to our ratification for the express purpose of rendering that ratification meaningless.”

LEONARD WEINGLASS
An attorney on various political and death penalty cases, Weinglass said: “It’s kind of ironic that the man who signed a law speeding up death penalty cases and undermining habeas corpus goes lecturing anyone on human rights. This former professor of constitutional law has signed into law more violations of human rights than any recent president. There’s a contempt for the First Amendment: Clinton signed the communications ‘decency’ act — which was struck down 9-0 by a conservative Supreme Court — warrant-less searches for welfare recipients, and roving government wiretaps … We actually have a higher incarceration rate than China.”

For more information, contact Theresa Caldwell or Sam Husseini at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.

Clinton in China: Balancing Business and Rights?

Share

WASHINGTON — Reports of a “large-scale” signing and major business deals on tap during the U.S.-China summit are intensifying the concerns of some analysts. Many support dialogue with the world’s most populous nation, but they remain troubled by President Clinton’s handling of economic, military and human rights issues.

Among those available for comment are:

JAMES NOLT
A Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute, Mr. Nolt specializes in U.S.-East Asia relations and dismisses the notion that China poses a threat. He said: “China remains militarily weak, despite rapid economic growth. China’s pattern of economic growth is actually undermining the old military-industrial state. U.S. criticism and fear of China have mounted in recent years, more because of shifts in U.S. policy than because of any increased assertiveness by China. Arms control efforts vis-a-vis China have been one-sided, and offer no reciprocal concessions. I’d be encouraged if the summit produces more effort to incorporate China into multilateral security discussions, along the lines of the four-power talks on Korea.”

BAMA ATHREYA
A Program Associate at the International Labor Rights Fund and director of its China program, Ms. Athreya said: “Clinton and the Chinese leadership will certainly discuss China’s bid for membership in the World Trade Organization. WTO membership is something the Chinese government would dearly like to have, and something the U.S. government has the power to facilitate or impede. However, China’s harsh repression of labor activists should be on the summit agenda, and Clinton should make progress on labor rights a precondition for China’s inclusion in the WTO.”

RADHIKA BALAKRISHNAN
An economics professor at Marymount Manhattan College who specializes in trade and Third World development.

JANE D’ARISTA
A lecturer in the International Banking and Financial Law Studies Program at Boston University School of Law.

ROBERT WEIL
Author of Red Cat, White Cat: China and the Contradictions of `Market Socialism.’

For more information, contact Theresa Caldwell or Sam Husseini at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.

Critics Dub “Cost of Government Day” Cost of Disinformation Day

Share

WASHINGTON — As the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation promotes “Cost of Government Day,” claiming that it takes until June 25 for Americans to pay for “the burdensome cost of government,” economists associated with the Institute for Public Accuracy ridiculed the group for purveying dubious assertions.

Among those available for comment are:

RANDY ALBELDA
Ms. Albelda, an economist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, said: “By their own misguided calculations, the cost of government is unchanged from what it was 20 years ago. (June 25 is actually the earliest date they cite.) The real issue is who pays and what we get for our tax dollars. The tax burden of middle-class families has not changed much, but their incomes have fallen, while the tax burden on the richest 1 percent has fallen as their incomes have skyrocketed. The services the government provides — health care and income security for elders, education for children and public safety for all — are what people need and in fact want. Isn’t the cost of not having clean air higher than the cost of regulating?”

DOUG HENWOOD
Mr. Henwood, editor of Left Business Observer, said: “First off, their math is a bit funny. By my count (dividing expenditures by GDP), people are relieved of the so-called `burden’ of being spent on by April 27. They’re on even shakier political ground here than are the [Tax Foundation] folks who create the preposterously exaggerated Tax Freedom Day. No one likes paying taxes, but who doesn’t like Social Security checks, highway spending, flood insurance, bond interest and the rest. Their estimates of the costs of regulation seem to be compiled from a three-year-old Nexis search that netted every manic right-wing invention. Sources seem to be as rigorous and as objective as the Heritage Foundation and Sen. Thad Cochran.”

DAVID E. KAUN
Economics professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, Mr. Kaun said: “Federal, state and local taxes represent about 32 percent of Gross Domestic Product, far from the 48 percent implied. The vast majority of American wage earners pay substantially less than these average rates. Thus, even if the calculation were honest, the number itself would remain meaningless for most taxpayers. It is worth noting that the tax share of income in the United States is far below many of the world’s industrialized nations. Using their logic, most Americans wind up working not only for the government, but for Safeway, General Motors, Blue Cross, Universal Studios … as they pay for their groceries and buy their cars, health insurance and movie tickets.”

For more information, contact Theresa Caldwell or Sam Husseini at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.

Social Security: “Shortfall” Warnings Distort Reality, Critics Charge

Share

WASHINGTON — Hours after an influential think tank released a report Monday warning of a multi-trillion-dollar “shortfall” for Social Security, several economists and policy analysts denounced the report as a misleading effort to promote privatization of the federal program.

The report, issued by the Heritage Foundation, claims that Social Security “is a very bad deal for younger workers” and that “the Social Security system is bankrupt.” But specialists associated with the Institute for Public Accuracy, a national consortium of policy researchers, blasted the report as a “misleading analysis” based on “inaccuracies” and “half-truths.”

Among those available for comment are:

ROGER HICKEY
Co-director of the Institute for America’s Future and director of the Institute’s Social Security Information Project, Hickey commented that the Heritage report “is typical of the kind of misleading analysis that opponents of Social Security have been getting away with for the past two years. But they’re not going to get away with it anymore. They are playing with numbers and they are misleading the American public, downplaying the risk that privatization would wipe out people’s retirement savings. And I’m talking about the baby boomers and younger workers who would be affected, not today’s retirees.”

EDIE RASELL
Rasell, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, said: “The Heritage report is inaccurate and misleading. The Social Security system is fully sound for the next 34 years, until 2032; then revenue from payroll taxes (at their current level) will enable the system to pay 65-75 percent of benefits indefinitely into the future. Minor changes in the program would ensure full benefit payments for the next 75 years. Social Security is much more than a retirement savings plan. It also provides income support for disabled workers and their families and survivors of deceased workers who jointly make up about one-third of all beneficiaries. Standard private investment accounts do not provide these benefits. Social Security is crucially important to most retirees, providing about three-quarters of the typical senior’s income. The program can and must be preserved as a reliable and risk-free source of retirement income.”

HANS RIEMER
Riemer, director of the 2030 Center, which works to ensure that Social Security will still be around for Gen Xers, said: “Why single out Social Security for its ‘unfunded liability’? The long-term unfunded liability of the Pentagon is many trillions of dollars. Nothing Heritage is proposing would really reduce the economic costs associated with aging. More importantly, the Heritage approach to handling the economy will push working families’ incomes right into the ground. Income growth is the only thing that will really help.”

CHRISTIAN WELLER
Weller, a staff economist with the Center for Popular Economics, said the Heritage report “is littered with inaccuracies, half-truths and outright omissions, and certainly does not add anything to the debate.” Weller continued: “Once a cash deficit occurs, Social Security will have plenty of interest income to more than cover its obligations, and fund holdings will subsequently continue to grow. However, while Heritage views bond interest income earned by Wall Street as income, it discounts the same interest income earned by Social Security trust funds as ‘meaningless.’ Social Security has always been a good deal and the bedrock of economic security in retirement, and it remains so.”

DIANA ZUCKERMAN
Zuckerman, director of research for the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, said: “Proposals to privatize Social Security ignore the ways that the current system protects many Americans from poverty, including widows and women who spend many of their adult years caring for their children as homemakers or part-time employees. Changes to the Social Security system are essential, but these changes can’t ignore the fact that women tend to earn substantially less than men. The report is based on a false premise. The Social Security trust fund is not bankrupt, and the system can be strengthened without the kind of radical changes that would have tragic repercussions for many women.”

For more information, contact Theresa Caldwell or Sam Husseini at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.

Context for Clinton Trip to China

Share

WASHINGTON — As President Clinton prepares for the summit in China, think tanks in the United States are churning out media releases on U.S.-China relations. But some scholars associated with the Institute for Public Accuracy, a nationwide consortium of policy researchers, contend that key aspects of the summit’s economic context are being overlooked.

Among those available for interviews on underlying economic issues of the upcoming China summit are:

RADHIKA BALAKRISHNAN
An economics professor at Marymount Manhattan College who specializes in trade and Third World development, Balakrishnan says: “It’s a good thing that President Clinton is going to China. Opening up dialogue is always good. But Clinton, in his zeal to help the interests of multinational corporations, should not forget the very real concerns about human rights — including workers’ rights. A big part of Clinton’s agenda is promoting U.S. commercial interests globally, which are not necessarily the interests of labor, either in the United States or China.”

JANE D’ARISTA
A lecturer in the International Banking and Financial Law Studies Program at Boston University School of Law, D’Arista said: “We should not make the mistake, as we did in other parts of Southeast Asia, of forcing too rapid liberalization of financial markets. This is the problem we’re facing with Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia. Their financial markets were opened without sufficient legal and institutional frameworks for supervision and regulation. They are not present in China either.”

ROBERT WEIL
Weil, the author of Red Cat, White Cat: China and the Contradictions of ‘Market Socialism,’ says that the upcoming trip to China by President Clinton has a little-noted subtext: “The real story in China is what’s happening on the ground, in terms of the massive displacement of labor. The official number of surplus rural laborers is an extraordinary 130 million, and is rising rapidly. Meanwhile, in cities, there are at least 9 million unemployed and a projected 15-20 million more in the near future, with millions more losing wages and pensions. That is what the policy of opening to global market forces and investment, as advocated by both Clinton and Jiang Zemin, means for China. But this is meeting growing resistance from Chinese working people, which we don’t hear much about. If the economy slows down, such protests could easily increase.”

For more information, contact Theresa Caldwell or Sam Husseini at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.

U.S. Foreign Aid: Should It Buy Support?

Share

WASHINGTON — With Congress now at work on proposals to fund U.S. foreign aid programs for fiscal year 1999, analysts are debating the merits of such assistance.

Today, the Heritage Foundation released a policy paper claiming that the largest portion of Washington’s foreign aid budget “goes to many countries that seldom support U.S. foreign policy initiatives.” The think tank cited voting records at the United Nations and declared that “most recipients of U.S. foreign aid vote against the United States more often than they vote with it.”

But researchers associated with the Institute for Public Accuracy quickly challenged the spin of the Heritage paper. Among those available for comment are:

LARRY BIRNS
Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Birns said: “The Heritage Foundation is asking the wrong questions of its data, and is doing so because of its knee-jerk conservative attitudes toward rational foreign policy.” He added: “What should worry Heritage is that the U.S. habitually occupies a dangerously isolated niche on foreign policy questions. This condition would be further exacerbated if Washington’s votes in the UN more closely corresponded to Heritage’s own wish list and the spirit behind the useless piece of research it is now distributing.”

JOEL BEININ
Professor of Middle East history and director of the Program in Modern Thought and Literature at Stanford University, Beinin said: “The whole framework [of the policy paper] is absurdly missing the point. Foreign aid is given to shore up American military and economic interests around the world, not so countries vote with the U.S. in the UN — which has at best limited importance.”

JAMES PAUL
According to Paul, executive director of the UN watchdog group Global Policy Forum: “The U.S. tends to vote against most resolutions that have to do with nuclear disarmament and a lot of other good stuff. The U.S. votes to protect its ability to export arms, or protect its nuclear weapons program, or to dominate the world’s economy. Some of these countries that are voting against the U.S. in the UN might have some good reasons to do that.”

ANURADHA MITTAL
Policy director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy — Food First, Mittal commented: “The U.S. government has used, and wants to continue using, aid as a carrot to serve U.S. foreign policy interests and further its interests at the expense of the poor. Feeding the hungry and maintaining peace have always been secondary objectives.”

For more information, contact Theresa Caldwell or Sam Husseini at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.

Election Analysts See Opportunity, Challenge

Share

WASHINGTON — While think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute are showcasing their analysts for the 1998 elections, many political researchers say the greatest concerns of most Americans will remain on the back burner.

Issues such as education, the distribution of prosperity and the relationship between money and political access are addressed by the Institute for Public Accuracy, a national consortium of policy analysts.

Among those available for comment are:

LARRY AGRAN
Former mayor of Irvine, Calif., attorney and founder of CityVote, Agran said: “Washington-based, millionaire celebrity analysts continue ignoring what should be the country’s top priority: closing the growing gap between rich and poor in America. One-fourth of all kids are poor, and that’s an absolute national disgrace. Ending child poverty should be our government’s number-one priority. It’s far better than tax cuts for the rich.”

JOHN BERG
Professor and director of the graduate program in Professional Politics at Suffolk University in Boston, Berg is author of Unequal Struggle: Class, Gender, Race and Power in the U.S. Congress. He said: “One of the things to watch in 1998 is how mad people are about big money’s domination of our electoral process. Some are fighting back, using tools like state-level voter initiatives to reform campaign finance. I think they have a good chance of winning.”

ROBERT BOROSAGE
Co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, Borosage said: “The concerns people have even in this good time are much more about issues like education and affordable health care, which are much more linked to Democratic reforms than Republican conservatism. We may be seeing the beginning of the end of the conservative era of the last two decades.”

MANNING MARABLE
Noted author, professor of history and director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University, Marable said: “The fundamental issue in American politics in the 1990s has been the conflict between the public versus the private. Should government be utilized to address real problems experienced by millions of Americans, or should the private sector and corporate interests determine what’s good for America? The public’s interest should not be sold to the highest corporate bidder.”

GWENDOLYN MINK
Feminist writer and professor of politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz and author of Welfare’s End, Mink said: “The top issue on the minds of most voters is probably education, and the future of their children that education can purchase. For that reason I think voters are going to think very hard about making the decision about returning the Republicans to power in Congress. [The Republicans] are much more interested in pursuing the principles of devolution and privatization than ensuring the welfare of the people.”

ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ
Syndicated columnist, author of Justice: A Question of Race and recipient (with Patrisia Gonzales) of the 1998 human rights award from the Albuquerque (N.M.) Human Rights Commission, Rodriguez said: “I wouldn’t put it past the electorate and Congress to be bolder, and attack groups they see as vulnerable. California showed there’s no longer any sense of civility…. Now, it’s ‘their fault.’ It’s blame politics, going national.”

RON WALTERS
Renowned political analyst and strategist, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, Walters said: “This election cycle is critical for minorities, disadvantaged and immigrants because of the budget surplus. If the political system is configured correctly, they stand to gain.”

For more information, contact Theresa Caldwell or Sam Husseini at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.

Military Spending Claims Draw Fire

Share

WASHINGTON — Projections for the Pentagon budget by one of the nation’s most prominent think tanks drew criticism today from several specialists in military spending.

The Heritage Foundation’s new report, “Current Budget Priorities May Have Serious Defense Consequences,” was faulted for its claim that by 2020, “the downward trend in defense would result in the virtual elimination of defense spending.”

Among those available for comment are:

WILLIAM D. HARTUNG
A Senior Fellow of the World Policy Institute at the New School for Social Research, Hartung said: “A similar projection based on the first four years of the Reagan military buildup would no doubt have shown that if those trends had continued, the entire discretionary budget of the U.S. government would have been going to the Pentagon by the year 2002.” He added: “The real purpose of Heritage’s ill-conceived piece of propaganda is to convince us that the Pentagon is a budget orphan that is somehow being starved to death in the post-Cold War period. To this, I would simply respond by saying, ‘Read my lips — the military budget is not an entitlement program.'”

SCOTT NATHANSON
Acting Director of Demilitarization for Democracy, Nathanson asked: “How can U.S. defense spending be struggling if we outspend all of the budgets of our `potential enemies’ combined?” Nathanson noted: “While many U.S. troops actually have to use food stamps to feed their families, we are spending $80 billion over the next five years on the F-22 fighter jet despite the fact that our current fighters are by far the best in the world. To add insult to injury, Lockheed-Martin has already asked for an export license for the F-22 despite the fact that according to their own promotional brochure, it was the transfer of U.S. fighter jets all over the world that gave rise to the necessity for the F-22 in the first place.”

MICHAEL CLOSSON
Executive Director of the Center for Economic Conversion, Closson said: “What we should have is a serious assessment of our real defense needs rather than view them as an arbitrary percentage of the budget. There are valid reasons for budgetary decline — the Cold War is over. Non-defense spending should take up more of the budget.”

CARL CONETTA
Conetta, a senior analyst with the Commonwealth Institute, noted that recent Pentagon spending is “comparable to that for the period 1973-1981.” Heritage does not take into account the demise of the USSR — or the “defection of other key former members of the Warsaw Pact.”

For more information, contact Theresa Caldwell or Sam Husseini at the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020.