A Redistribution Scheme Posing as Deficit Reduction

Commission Co-Chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson

The Deficit Commission has proposed a plan to rewrite the social contract, and make the poor and middle class pay

The Deficit Commission may have styled itself from day one as a "bipartisan team" bent on cutting the nation's debt, but upon close inspection some its core proposals seem less about reducing absolute debt, and more about shifting tax burdens to rewrite the social contract.  The central feature of the plan —which upon first read appears to be a smorgasbord of spending cuts that would hit every sector of society equally— is redistribution.


By its very definition redistribution never affects all sectors of society equally.  Wealth and income are  shifted among different classes, races, men and women, and sectors of capital under any redistribution scheme.  On balance the Deficit Commission's proposal calls for a restructuring of the US political economy to benefit corporate capital and the wealthy, and to force the poor and middle class to pay for an increasing share of everything.

The options presented with respect to comprehensive tax reform are an excellent case in point.  The Deficit Commission presents us with several alternatives, all of which would produce a general state of austerity, but also shift wealth and income in drastic ways.  For brevity we'll just look at one of the tax plans.

The "Zero Plan" takes its name from the fact that it would begin with a near total elimination of all tax expenditures.  Tax expenditures are deductions that taxpayers (persons and corporations) can make by tallying up special exemptions, credits, and rebates that the Congress uses to promote certain economic and social behaviors like home ownership or industrial investment.  In a nutshell the Zero Plan would reduce the tax code to three individual rates and a single corporate rate.  Within these four rates the plethora of tax expenditures would be drastically cut back, saving $1.1 trillion according to the commission.  The Congress would then use this cash to reduce the deficit and further reduce marginal tax rates across the board.  Last but not least, the Commission says that the Congress would "add back in any desired tax expenditures, and pay for them by increasing one or all of the rates from their zero- expenditure low."

From the Deficit Commission's Co-Chairs' Proposal.

The Commission's draft proposal includes a graph —"Who Benefits from Tax Expenditures?"— to illustrate the main beneficiaries of tax expenditures, implying that the plan is fair to the poor and middle class because under the current tax code, with its complex and vast array of itemized deductions, it is the wealthy who disproportionately benefit from expenditures.  The bottom half of taxpayers benefit mostly from a handful of major deductions which include refundable credits such at the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and deductions on mortgage interest.  The wealthy and corporations on the other hand, pay professional accountants to rack up numerous and byzantine deductions on their assets.

However if we read closely into the Zero Plan its redistributionary nature becomes apparent.  First there's the matter of the "simplification" of marginal tax rates to three personal brackets and one corporate bracket.  While this means of cutting taxes relies on eliminating tax expenditures, and therefore will not affect social welfare programs financed through legislation, at the zero baseline level it does eliminate very important tax reductions for the low-income working families.  These tax reductions are relied upon for for survival –to provide income to pay rent, tuition, for child care, and groceries— and therefore are fundamentally different from tax expenditures available to the wealthy and corporations.  Equally eliminating reductions that allow poor people to pay their rent or purchase food and clothing is not at all equal to the elimination of a deduction that allows a millionaire to pocket tens of thousands of dollars because of their second and third homes.  In treating every taxpayer equally, the Co-Chairs' Proposal does disproportional harm to those at the bottom.

While the reduction in marginal tax rates appears to be fair and even across the board, we have to remember that we're cutting rates across a drastically different set of absolute incomes.  This means that while millions of taxpayers in the lowest tax bracket would see a seven point drop, the money they keep will only be a tiny fraction of what a taxpayer in the uppermost brackets will save under the plan. 

For example, a single person with an income of $34,000 is schedule to pay at a rate of 15% in 2011, totaling about $5,130.  Under the Zero Plan their tax bracket would fall to 8%, reducing their tax burden to $2,740.  They save about $2,390, and while this is a serious chunk of change, it's also not a serious bit of assistance considering the levels of debt Americans are now dealing with, as well as the rising costs of everything from education to gas.

However if we look at a taxpayer in the upper brackets the saving are immense.  An individual with an income of 375,000 is scheduled to be taxed at a rate of 33% in 2011.  Under the Zero Plan their burden is reduced by 10 points to 23%.  Their savings under the Zero Plan increases by $37,570 —more than the pre-taxed income of the above mentioned hypothetical individual!  At the uppermost levels, the realm of millionaires and billionaires, tax rates reach 39%, but under the Zero Plan would all drop to 23%, allowing the nation's wealthiest individuals and families to keep an immense share of wealth that would otherwise fund important federal programs that benefit the majority of Americans.

The impression of equality that the across-the-board cut of tax rates gives under the Deficit Commission's proposal is therefore illusory.  Low-income and middle class families will end up saving relatively small amounts of their income that will hardly make a difference in paying for housing, health care, transportation and other major expenses, while at the same time losing key tax credits and deductions they already rely upon.  The wealthy, on the other hand, lose the myriad of deductions they already use to save immense amounts of money from the tax man, but they save these funds anyhow with the huge proportional drop in their tax rates relative to the poor and middle class.

The Zero Plan includes three baseline options that do not initially ax the Child Tax Credit, EITC, and Current Mortgage, Health and Retirement Benefits.  This is where the Commission's redistributionary measures become a little more subtle, and it takes a little unpacking.  Here's how the Zero Plan, even when it keeps these important tax expenditures, harms the poor and middle class by redistributing the tax burden on them.

The first thing to note is how the corporate tax rate drops from 35% to 26%.  Then, under each scenario which considers keeping some or all of these important tax reductions for working and middle class families, the corporate rate does not rise if (under scenario B) the Child Tax Credit and EITC are kept, and then only rises one point at a time under the next two scenarios (C and D) including further tax expenditures.  Table 1. illustrates this virtual corporate exemption from incremental rate increases.  This two point absolute rise contrasts starkly with the 5 to 7 point rises for individual taxpayers, with the middle class taking on the burden of rate increases to pay for retained expenditures.

Table 1. Tax rate increases under the Zero Plan's scenarios, A, B, C, D (data adapted from the Deficit Commission's draft proposal).

Guess Who's Not Coming to Tea?

The morning after the midterm elections news outlets across the nation ran with headlines like, "Minorities ride GOP wave to groundbreaking wins."  According to an Associated Press article, "Latina, African-Americans lead a notable list of Republicans to win last night."  In the Atlanta Journal Constitution one columnist declared, "Inspired by Obama, Republicans of color win more seats."  An editorial in the New York Daily Post put it to its readers: "guess who's coming to tea," claiming that "the Tea Party-inspired wave that produced historic Republican wins also revealed a substantial diversity in the movement."

However, a closer look at this supposed "diversity in the movement" reveals a less than convincing picture of racial progress within the GOP and its voter base.  The high profile of a few Republicans of color instead points to a relatively new and circumscribed phenomenon in white political ideology: white conservative voters in select districts and states are now willing to vote for Republican candidates of color, but only under certain conditions.  White conservatives seem willing to elect Republicans of color who embrace a post-racial colorblindness, who promote the Party's far-right cultural and economic values, and still only in races without a centrist white option.  Furthermore, in most high profile races the GOP's new candidates or color have only prevailed when running against a woman or another person of color, and again only in races with a majority white electorate.

One of the first things that jumps out about the new supposed "wave" of Republicans of color within the conservative movement is that a simple accounting doesn't add up to proclamations that they've made groundbreaking wins or added anything other than token diversity to the GOP.  While there might be a few black faces in high places such as Michael Steel, statistically the Republican Party remains about as white as it has been since the mid-1980s, having gained no meaningful political ground within communities of color.  The Republican Party's voting base remains overwhelmingly white, as do its successful candidates for national offices. 

This year's elections did result in two black Republican representatives who will take their seats in the 112th Congress, but these two men do not even account for one percent of the GOP's caucus in the House.  In contrast there are 42 black Democrats in the House, comprising 21% of the Party's ranks, a level of representation that exceeds the general population in fact.  There are of course no black senators.

In this year's primaries thirty-two black Republican candidates ran for nomination, the largest in a single year since Reconstruction, spurring commentaries about the new post-racial era.  Commentators claimed, among other things, that even the modern day Republican Party —founded as it was after segregationist Dixiecrats joined the pro-corporate GOP establishment— is embracing blacks, Latinos, immigrants, and homosexuals.  The results of Tuesday's elections don't support the claim that the Republican Party's white voter base is openly embracing communities of color or acting in a post-racial way.  Only fourteen black Republicans progressed into Tuesday's elections.  And after the ballots were counted, a mere two prevailed - Allen West in Florida's 22nd Congressional District, and Tim Scott in the 1st District of South Carolina.  The remaining twelve were mostly trounced by their Democratic Party rivals.

Interestingly black Republicans West and Scott prevailed in districts that are overwhelmingly white, making them politicians of color with mostly white constituencies.  Such is an anomaly in the Democratic Party where except for the commander in chief, black congresspersons nearly all represent districts in which either blacks or Latinos are the solid majority.  It would seem then that black Republicans succeed in their campaigns in direct proportion to the extent that they succeed in representing a mythical post-racial America for white conservative voters who do not feel threatened by a candidate's ethnic or racial identification, candidates who in fact go out of their way to deny the significance of their own race, and deny the salience of racial difference in the American political system.

In The 22nd District of Florida, where West prevailed with 54% of the vote, whites make up 82% of the population.  Famous as an epicenter of 2000's disputed presidential election, Florida's 22nd was created in the 1990s census and was, congressionally speaking, Republican property for the fourteen years during which Eugene Clay Shaw, Jr. won multiple re-elections on the strength of white conservative voters who routinely out-mobilized white progressives and the district's small Hispanic and black swing votes.  Representative Shaw spent the better part of the 1990s bashing immigrants and welfare recipients, making claims such as, "many aliens immigrate to America with the express intent of accessing welfare as soon as they are eligible."  Shaw voted for every conceivable bill that would withdraw support for the nation's poor and scapegoat them for everything from crime to budget deficits.

The racial subtext to Shaw's positions were clear to the elderly white population that made up his conservative base.  Allen West represents a return of the district to Shaw's white conservative voters after four years of centrist Democrat, and white male, Ron Klein.  Klein's ability to win in the 22nd seemed to hinge on the nationwide repudiation of the Bush administration and Republicans in 2006 which mobilized more of the poor, youth, people of color, and other likely Democrats to the polls, and then again in 2008 when Obama's candidacy aligned with the district's congressional election, again boosting turnout of progressives.

Hailed as a new face of diversity within the Republican Party, black Republican Tim Scott again represents a district that is three quarters white and which has a long history of electing segregationists and racists politicians who in words and deeds have opposed legislation to advance racial justice.  South Carolina's 1st Congressional District has been a Republican stronghold since 1981 when Ronald Reagan's election signaled the final consolidation of the Republican shift among white southern conservatives away from the Democratic Party which had become, in their eyes, irredeemably colored. 

In 1986 the 1st District's voters elected Arthur Ravenel, Jr., a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans who once called the NAACP the "National Association for Retarded People."  Even the District's previous Democratic Congressmen, like L. Mendel Rivers who held the post from 1941 to 1970, have been ardent segregationists.  To appease his own white voter base Scott supported a compromise to move the Confederate battle flag from statehouse to a monument nearby.  His platform is popular among conservative white South Carolinians; he is anti-abortion, supports further militarization of the US-Mexico border, and has called for legislation to enforce English as the official language.  On the whole he does not support legislation that in polls has been shown to be popular with the majority of African Americans.

Bergmann and her "colorblind" supporters during the campaign.

Outcomes for the Republican Party's new black "wave" have been poor in congressional districts with black and Latino majorities and a history of supporting the civil rights, labor, women's rights.  The race in Tennessee's 9th District, roughly encompassing Memphis, is an excellent example.  In a race pitting Charlotte Bergmann, a black woman endorsed by the Tea Party movement, against Democrat Steve Cohen, the district's black majority overwhelmingly voted against Bergmann.  Cohen won handily with 75% of the vote.  Black voters had no problem seeing beyond race and voting for the candidate who they felt best represented their interests, even though he was a white man. 

In a radio interview during the campaign, Cohen described the Tea Party as a bigoted reaction against blacks, gays and lesbians, and surmised that its the rank and file's motivation seemed to be "hostility to anybody who wasn’t just, you know, a clone of George Wallace’s fan club."  Bergmann's local Tea Party supporters responded by calling Cohen racist and demanding a retraction of his statement which he refused to do.  Tea Party bloggers pointed to Bergmann's race to refute Cohen's observations about the movement's overall tenor and the impacts that Tea Party policies would have on blacks, gays and lesbians, and others he considered key members of his constituency.  Sticking to his words, Cohen had no problem garnering votes from a majority of black constituents who would seem to agree that the Tea Party's agenda will result in systematically racist harms to people of color, whether implemented by white or black politicians.

In the few remaining races that featured black Republican contenders they mostly faced black Democratic Party opponents.  The Democrats easily won election in districts with non-white majorities, producing some of the largest spreads in the nation.  Black Democrats had few problems dispatching their Republican rivals by running on platforms that the vast majority of black and many Latino voters identify with: repealing the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing universal health care coverage, protecting Social Security and Medicaid, raising the minimum wage, increasing unemployment insurance, and just about anything else that runs opposite the Tea Party and Republican Party establishment.

The conditions under which Republicans of color can win office appear to be very circumscribed and particular.  In many cases where non-white Republicans have won office, they have done so against opponents who are women.  Where Republicans of color have beaten Democrats of color, they tend to do so only in districts or states with large white majorities which are given the choice between a black candidate who represents the mainstream of black political thought, and a right-wing black candidate whose platform more resembles white conservative thought.

Gov. Elect Nikki Haley's triumph over Vincent Sheehan in South Carolina appears to be the exception to this rule.  However, in Louisiana where the Republican Party elected its first non-white governor in modern history in 2007, Bobby Jindal prevailed over Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a centrist female Democrat, with 54% of the vote.  Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries may indicate a similar tendency among among Democratic Party voters for high office?

Susana Martinez's historic election in New Mexico this year pitted a Latina Republican against Democrat Diane Denish, a white woman who lost by a spread of 10 points.  While Martinez has been offered up by some as evidence that the Republican Party is inclusive of Latinos and immigrants, a closer look at Martinez reveals quite the opposite.

New Mexico has elected one of the most anti-immigrant politicians in the nation, largely on a wave of white xenophobia.  Gov. elect Martinez has promised that one of her first initiatives will be to ban "illegal immigrants" from obtaining driver's licenses.  Further playing to popular myths of immigrants who "leech" the welfare state (and sounding like a clone of Florida's Eugene Clay Shaw, Jr. no less), Martinez has promised she will oppose "providing illegal immigrants with free tuition through taxpayer-funded lottery scholarships." 



In her campaign ads and appearances she bragged about carrying her own pistol and portrayed herself as a tough on crime leader, especially against "illegals."  As the District Attorney of Dona Ana county, borderline to Mexico, she aligned herself with Albuquerque's conservative white Mayor and City Council to the north.  In the last year Albuquerque's officials have implemented Arizona-like procedures within the Sheriff and Police Departments and county jails.  In June of 2010 a mini-scandal threatened to break when an e-mail leaked from her office.  In the note a staff members of the chief law enforcement officer for Dona Ana County joked about killing muslim and mexican immigrants, but the episode blew over with Martinez claiming to have "reprimanded" the underling.



Weighing the actual numbers of Republicans of color in office, the constituencies they represent, the policy programs they intend to implement, and the circumstance by which they won office, claims of a diversifying GOP are much overblown.  Rather than representing a shift of voters within communities of color into he Republican Party, or a GOP policy agenda that includes initiatives which resonate with people of color, the new (and small) cohort of black and Latino Republicans in office is mostly a phenomenon resulting from the specific dynamics of particular races, and the willingness of white conservatives to occasionally break racial ranks and vote for non-whites who will represent their interests.


Tuesday's full elections results for black Republicans:

Allen West, Florida-22 (winner with 54% of vote against Ron Klein, white male, in district that is 82.3% white, 10.7% Hispanic, 3.8% black)

Tim Scott, South Carolina-1 (winner with 65% of vote against Ben Frasier in district 74/21% white black split)

Charlotte Bergmann, Tenn.-9 (loser to Steve Cohen, a white man who wins with 75% of vote in district with 59.7% black majority)

Robert Broadus, Md.-4 (loser to Donna Edwards, black woman who wins with 83.5% of vote in district with 56.8% black majority,)

Stephen Broden, Texas-30 (loser to Eddie Bernice Johnson, black woman who wins with 76% of vote in district with 41.2% Hispanic and 39.1% black majorities)

Michel Faulkner, N.Y.-15 (loser to Charles Rangle, black man, who wins with 80% of vote in district with 47.6% Hispanic and 34.6% black majorities)

Ryan Frazier, Colo.-7 (loser to Ed Perlmutter, white man, who wins with 53% of vote in district with 68.9% white majority)

Isaac Hayes, Ill.-2 (loser to Jesse Jackson, Jr., black man, who wins with 80% of the vote in a district with 62.4% black majority)

Charles Lollar, Md.-5 (loser to Steny Hoyer, white man, who wins with 64% of vote in a district with a 60% white majority, 30% black minority)

Bill Marcy, Miss.-2 (loser to Benny Thompson, black man, who wins with 62% of vote in a district with a 63.5% black majority)

Star Parker, Calif-37 (loser to Laura Richardson, black woman, who wins with 69% of vote in a district with a 43.2% Hispanic and 24.8% black majority)

Bill Randall, N.C.-13 (loser to Brad Miller, white man, who wins 55% of vote in district with a 65% white majority, 27% black minority)

Marvin Scott, Ind.-7 (loser to Andre Carson, black man, who wins with 59% of vote in district with 63% white majority, 29% black minority)

Chuck Smith, Virginia-3 (loser to Bobby Scott, black man, who wins with 70% of vote in a district that is 56.4% black)

Sounding the Alarm

In the wake of 9-11 local governments nationwide set up alert networks to notify citizens in real time of possible threats to public safety.  The system is rather simple.  Authorities broadcast short notifications simultaneously and in real time through email and text messages to wireless devices.

New Orleans set up its own citizens alert network after Hurricane Katrina.  In a city under assault of hurricanes and toxic oil disasters, federal and local authorities have reasoned the system could save lives and help conserve emergency responder resources.

Living downstream from cancer alley's many toxic and volatile refineries, and in a region that frequently experiences deadly and freakish weather, having such a system in place is wise.  New Orleanians might be surprised, however, to learn what the system is actually being used for.  On October 13, for example, a NOLAReady alert landed in the inboxes and cellular devices of thousands across Orleans Parish. 

Was it life-threatening weather?

A highly disruptive road shutdown?

Evacuation or Shelter in Place information?

A boil water notice?

Did the Shell Oil plant blow up?  Had the river crevassed?  Did a chemical tanker spill its cargo near the French Market?

The grave threat to public safety on October 13 was none other than two women stealing baby formula.  According NOPD Officer Gary Flot's alert message sent far and wide at 2:46 pm;

"Members of The New Orleans Police Department are requesting the public’s assistance in locating and identifying two female suspects wanted in connection with a shoplifting. The offense occurred October 8, 2010, approximately 6:30 P.M., in the Ideal Market in the 200 block of South Broad Street.

According to investigators, the suspects entered the store and concealed 18 cans of Enfamil baby formula under a baby blanket and exited the store. Both suspects entered a dark green Dodge Intrepid and fled south on Palmyra Street then unknown."

This dire warning to the people ends with the assurance that "First District Detective Kris Vilen is actively working the case and following up on leads given by our citizens."

Please forgive me for proposing a different kind of alert for New Orleans.  Maybe the NOPD would kindly send it out through NOLAReady?  It goes like this:

Warning: The people of New Orleans are suffering after five years of failed and misguided reconstruction policies.  The poverty rate remains 1 in 4 for the general population.  35 percent of our children endure poverty.  The city lacks affordable housing, and yet the politicians and real estate companies barrel ahead to demolish public housing.  A quarter of our homes are vacant, while 1 in 25 of us is homeless.  The public hospital remains shuttered.  Lower-Mid City is evicted.  The city has lost 20% of its pre-Katrina population.  Some neighborhoods never came back at all.  Half of workers in New Orleans earn less than $35,000 a year, and many earn considerably less, enduring frequent spells of un and underemployment.  Government remains corrupt.  The cops still brutalize, and now apparently have nothing better to do than chase impoverished mothers who are just trying to feed their kids.  Displaced and dispossessed after the flood, now the people of New Orleans struggle through the Great Recession.  Interpersonal violence has worsened.  Women and children suffer from family and institutional abuse.  Young men are killing each other in the streets.  Trauma and mental illness have worsened and there are few resources to help one another.  The people of New Orleans have caught hell.

I'd be interested in hearing from others what you might write as an alert for the city of New Orleans.

New START: A brief analysis of the treaty ratification process, campaign finance, and lobbying activities

Summary

For many reasons the New START treaty is proving to be a costly affirmation of nuclear arms as a national priority. The ratification process has empowered pro-nuclear interest groups. Debate during ratification has also cemented assurances to fund the multi-billion dollar missile defense and prompt global strike weapons systems while undermining the possibility of political opposition. Campaign contribution and lobbying disclosure data both help to explain why corporate contractors with stakes in these programs have been ably protected by both Republican and Democratic Senators throughout the ratification debate. Like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that was debated in the 1990s, the political process of New START ratification has insulated nuclear weapons spending, as well as large budgets for other weapons systems. On balance New START has already exerted strong anti-disarmament influences on federal decisionmakers, making it an arms affirmation treaty.

Ratification and the Budget

On September 16 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported the New START treaty to the Senate floor by a vote of 14-4. If the Democrats believe they have the Republican votes lined up a full-Senate ratification vote is expected to take place after the upcoming elections, during the lame duck period.

The federal government will not have a budget before the end of the fiscal year (Oct. 1). In place of a detailed budget the Congress is now set to pass a continuing resolution (CR). CRs typically fund government at the previous year's levels until the legislature can draft and approve a comprehensive budget. There is much uncertainty and anxiety about how long departments will operate under these constraints; without a budget planning will be very difficult.

Partly because of pressure to ratify New START, the Obama administration is now poised to make several exceptions within the budget to allow for immediate increased spending, and to facilitate long-term planning in specific areas. One of these exceptions would guarantee a large increase for the National Nuclear Security Administration's budget, by about $624 million over 2010 levels. In all the USA would spend upwards of $7.009 billion on nuclear weapons for 2011. A large portion of the increase is to lock in "modernization" of the US nuclear weapons complex.


Arms Affirmation

New START has already proven to be one of the most costly treaties in recent history. Whether or not the treaty is ratified, negotiation between the White House and Senate Democrats and their Senate Republican colleagues has already produced a multi-billion dollar deal ensuring the military and its contractors receive billions in budget increases for, among other things, a new plutonium bomb pit factory, a growing missile defense program that is already as large as the NNSA nuclear weapons program, and hundreds of millions in funding to convert nuclear-capable missiles into conventional strike weapons. The dynamics of the ratification process, fed by the right and left, has produced this and other contrary outcomes to the supposed intent of the treaty - disarmament. New START, however, should not be seen as a disarmament treaty. Indeed, it would be more accurate to classify New START as an arms affirmation treaty.

The nominal reductions in deployed strategic nuclear weapons the treaty requires of the United States are rather trivial when contextualized alongside the multi-billion dollar nuclear and non-nuclear weapons programs that the treaty text and Senate ratification process have committed the White House and Senate to authorize and fund. Some of New START's key shortcomings include the following; The treaty's "reductions" only address deployed strategic nuclear weapons, not tactical weapons, nor strategic weapons held in reserve. Because of the way nuclear weapons are counted in the treaty, the USA may, if it chooses to, withdraw as little as 162 weapons from its arsenal to reach the 1550 warhead limit. This would amount to a mere 8% reduction, and again the reduction only affects deployed strategic weapons. In fact, if the USA choses to juggle warheads among different platforms under the treaty's accounting rules, US Strategic Command could, in theory, actually upload warheads to the arsenal, keeping more than 1550 at the ready. Table 1. outlines the treaty's so-called disarmament requirements.

Table 1., US nuclear force "reductions" required under New START.
Under the treaty the USA must reduce its total strategic deployed arsenal to 1550 weapons on 700 platforms. The treaty counts each bomber as 1 nuclear weapon, even though bombers are capable of carrying 16-20 nuclear weapons a piece.
Thus if the United States currently has 1,968 strategic weapons deployed on 798 platforms, it need only reduce the platform count 98. It does not need to de-deploy 418 weapons to reach the 1550 limit. Rather, US war planners can, if they choose to do so, upload cruise missiles and bombs onto bombers that are "reduced" from the ICBM and SLBM legs of the triad. Thus, because of the bomber counting rule, the United States instantly has 256 weapons hidden in 60 bombers. More so, it has an upload capacity of 820 spaces for cruise missiles and bombs on these bombers, which in theory would allow it to deploy well over the 1550 limit, so long as it reduces ICMB and SLBM weapons by 162.

Ironically, many "peace and security" foundations and organizations, from the Ploughshares Fund and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, to the American Friends Service Committee and Peace Action West have been lobbying aggressively for New START ratification, further empowering Republican Senators to demand even larger investments in nuclear and non-nuclear weapons programs. The Obama administration has proven more than willing to promise larger funds.

From the very start, New START was negotiated with the understanding that it would not impede modernization of nuclear weapons, nor the nuclear weapons complex, and also that it would not impede ongoing and planned investments in missile defense and prompt global strike (PGS) weapons systems. In Article V the treaty text makes it clear that nuclear modernization is allowed, and also provides an important exemption for the current Ground-based Midcourse missile defense system.

In an attempt to win Republican votes, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. John Kerry allowed the minority party's "Resolution of Advice and Consent," drafted by Sen. Lugar, to replace his own text, and to accompany the treaty to the floor for full Senate ratification. Sen. Lugar's text replaced Sen. Kerry's already strong endorsement of nuclear modernization, missile defense, and PGS with an even bolder endorsement and binding set of assurances. Two additional amendments were made to Lugar's text by Republican Senators Risch and DeMint to assure funding increases for new nuclear weapons capable submarines, missiles and bombers (the strategic "triad"), and a clause expressing that the sense of the Senate is to build not just any missile defense system, but to approach the vision of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative - an impenetrable shield over North America ready to strike down one or thousands of warheads from the sky.

Lugar's approved resolution further insulates nuclear modernization, missile defense, and prompt global strike, not just legally from the treaty's requirements, but politically from any official, agency, or advocacy group that would seek to cut the budgets of any of these programs. In this way the ratification process, characterized by intense pressure from the White House and arms control and "peace" groups, has actually undercut the possibility of opposition to new weapons programs that will consume many billions of dollars, many decades into the future. In testimony and op-ed pieces centrist arms control groups like the Arms Control Association and Council for a Livable World, have actually emphasized that New START imposes no limits on modernization, nor on PGS or missile defense. Liberal "peace" groups have tended to omit any references to modernization or other weapons systems that will be given the green light by the treaty in their communications with constituents and the public.

With respect to nuclear weapons modernization, Lugar's text, now the official Senate text reads;

"(iii) the United States is committed to providing the resources needed to achieve these objectives, at a minimum at the levels set forth in the presidents 10-year plan provided to the Congress pursuant to section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,
(B) If appropriations are enacted that fail to meet the resources requirements set forth in the President's 10-year plan, or if at any times more resources are required than estimated in the President's 10-year plan, the President shall submit to Congress, within 60 days of such enactment or the identification of the requirement for such additional resources, as appropriate, a report datelining—
(i) how the President proposed to remedy the resource shortfall;
(ii) if additional resources are required, the proposed level of funding required and an identification of the stockpile work, campaign, facility, site, asset, program, operation, activity, construction, or project for which additional funds are required;"

Modernization of the Stockpile and Complex

Required resources for modernization are immense. The "section 1251 plan," written by the Obama White House outlines a large array of investments in nuclear weapons modernization, including, funding to sustain the large weapons research and design laboratories at Livermore, CA, and Los Alamos, NM; funds to work directly on the nuclear stockpile by "reusing" "refurbishing," and even "replacing" components with newer and more advanced capabilities; and funds to rebuild the complete core of the federal government's industrial nuclear complex where nuclear weapons and materials are fabricated, tested, and assembled. This possibly constitutes the federal government's single largest program-specific capital infrastructure investment.

By NNSA's own definition, a "major construction project" is any capital investment costing more than $20,000,000. The agency currently has 14 such projects underway in the nuclear weapons complex. The largest among these will cost many billions of dollars. For example, the CMRR Nuclear Facility's last official price tag was $3.2 billion, but sources close to the design process report that it is nearing the $6 billion mark.

The Uranium Processing Facility may cost upwards of $5 billion.

The Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility has already cost $255 million.

The High Explosive Pressing Facility is scheduled to cost $134 million.

Seven of NNSA's 14 major construction projects have no total cost estimate. The Agency also plans to begin other major construction projects within the next five to ten years.

Table 3., reproduced from the section 1251 report, shows major planned infrastructure projects within the nuclear weapons complex between 2010 and 2030.

Then there is one project that is omitted from NNSA's own construction accounting budget because its upfront cost are being borne by a private developer and local government in the Kansas City Area. The facility, "KCRIMS," which is estimated to cost half a billion to build, will then be leased back the NNSA for a cost of almost a billion dollars over its operating life-span. KCRIMs will be a large industrial factory where most of the thousands of parts inside every US nuclear weapon model will be manufactured.

The FY2011 nuclear weapons budget is stocked with increased design and fabrication accounts for nuclear weapons. For example, the Obama administration suggests spending $249 million on the W76 "Life Extension Program" (LEP). With 768 W76 warheads in the deployed strategic stockpile, this weapon constitutes the true backbone of US nuclear force.x Its life extension program will cost at least several billion. Other LEPs with similar or even larger cost estimates, like the B-61 gravity bomb, are planned or underway.

Section 6 of the Senate's ratification resolution calls on the executive branch to clarify its plans for the prompt global strike weapons program. PGS is reportedly "embraced by the new administration," whose top advisors see it as a more usable strategic alternative to nuclear weapons. With respect to Missile Defense the treaty resolution reads, "It is the understanding of the United States that [...] the New START Treaty does not impose any limitations on the deployment of missile defenses other than the requirements of paragraph 3, Article V." Paragraph 3, Article V imposes limits on the conversion of ICBMs and SLBMs for use as missile defense interceptors, but the treaty excludes existing Minuteman ICBMs used at Vandenberg and Ft. Greely Air Force Bases for this very purpose. No other ICBM or SLBM is proposed or desired by the Pentagon for such a weapons system. The limitation, therefore, is not one.


Senate Brokerage of Arms Spending

An analysis of campaign funds partly helps to explain why the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been so diligent in crafting the treaty resolution's language, making sure that nuclear weapons modernization, missile defense, and prompt global strike are not limited in any meaningful way, and that planned major investments in these weapons programs will proceed under the most favorable fiscal and political conditions. Democrats and Republicans have agreed upon big investments throughout the ratification debate. The difference is in how much they propose to increase weapons procurement budgets by, with the Democrats offering somewhat less than Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans have been protecting the interests of nuclear weapons, missile defense and PGS contractors who are among their biggest financial supporters and who have the most active professional lobbyist on Capitol Hill. Over the last five years members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have received more than $765,000 in contributions from missile defense, prompt global strike, and nuclear weapons contractors. Democrats led Republicans with approximately $424,000 in contractor cash. Republicans received $341,000 from the same set of contractors.

Table 4., Senate Foreign Relations Committee members and campaign contributions from nuclear weapons, missile defense, and PGS constractors, 2005-2010.
Data compiled from http://www.opensecrets.org.

Figure 1., Largest recipients of nuclear weapons, missile defense, and PGS contractor campaign contributions on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Data compiled from http://www.opensecrets.org

Senators with the most arms contractor cash were Christopher Dodd (D), James Inhofe (R), Jim Webb (D), and Jim DeMint (R). Sen. Dodd's commanding lead is due to a singularly large pattern of contributions from United Technologies, a diversified military contractor headquartered in his state, Connecticut. Without Dodd's $115,250 in United Technologies Corp cash the Democrat's would trail Republicans in total weapons contractor contributions by about $31,000.

Figure 2. Distribution of contributions of NNSA, missile defense and PGS contracting corporations made to SFR Committee members over the past five years.
Data compiled from http://www.opensecrets.org

In raw cash terms the largest contributions by corporations have come from United Technologies, Honeywell International, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, CH2M Hill, General Dynamics and Boeing. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor from the PGS "Conventional Strike Missile," a modified Minuteman III ICBM with a hypersonic "payload delivery vehicle" capable of attacking any point on earth within one hour. Boeing and Northrop Grumman are the prime contractors for the Missile Defense Agency's "Ground-based Midcourse Defense," weapons system. United Technologies, Raytheon, and General Dynamics and Honeywell have numerous contracts and subcontracts supporting these and other missile defense or PGS weapons programs.

Only three Senators on the Committee, all Democrats, have reported no significant contributions from missile defense, PGS, and nuclear weapons contractors: Russell Feingold, Robert Casey, and Edward Kaufman.

A look at lobbying records is also helpful in understanding the dynamics of the New START ratification process and why it is resulting in such a favorable outcome for specific weapons programs and their contractors. Since signing New START on April 8 2010, military contractors with stakes in missile defense have spent approximately $59 million lobbying the Senate. Raytheon alone has spent $22 million since April to employ its own lobbyists as well as firms like the Breaux Lott Leadership Group, Potomac Advocates and DLA Piper, LLP.

In the same period other military contractors have reported similarly large lobbying expenses in filings that mention "missile defense": Lockheed Martin $13 million, Boeing and Northrop Grumman both $9 million, Honeywell $1.6 million, and Orbital Sciences Corporation half a million. Other professional lobbying firms employed by these corporations include Clark & Weinstock, McBee Strategic Consulting, The Foxtail Group, and Carter Consulting.

Table 5., Top 10 missile defense contractors and their lobbyists listing "missile defense" in their Senate disclosure filings between April 8, 2010 and September 22, 2010.

Data compiled from Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, http://soprweb.senate.gov

Registrant Name	Client Name	Amount Expended	Date received
The Breaux Lott Leadership Group	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$70,000	04/20/10
The Breaux Lott Leadership Group	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$70,000	04/20/10
DLA Piper LLP (US)	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$120,000	04/20/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$1,550,000	04/20/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$1,550,000	04/20/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$1,550,000	04/20/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$1,920,000	06/03/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$1,920,000	06/03/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$1,920,000	06/03/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$2,220,000	07/20/10
The Breaux Lott Leadership Group	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$75,000	07/20/10
DLA Piper LLP (US)	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$110,000	07/20/10
The Breaux Lott Leadership Group	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$75,000	07/20/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$1,660,000	07/20/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$1,660,000	07/20/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$1,660,000	07/20/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$2,220,000	07/20/10
RAYTHEON COMPANY	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$2,220,000	07/20/10
PRASAM	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$10,000	04/19/10
PRASAM	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$10,000	07/14/10
American Defense International, Inc.	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$80,000	04/16/10
American Defense International, Inc.	RAYTHEON COMPANY	$80,000	07/15/10
Total Raytheon		$22,750,000
Principled Strategies, LLC	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	$5,000	07/13/10
Clark & Weinstock	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	$40,000	04/14/10
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	$3,450,000	04/20/10
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	$3,450,000	04/20/10
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	$3,460,000	06/02/10
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	$3,460,000	06/02/10
Clark & Weinstock	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION	$40,000	07/08/10
Total Lockheed Martin		$13,905,000
BOEING COMPANY	BOEING COMPANY	$4,060,000	04/20/10
McBee Strategic Consulting, LLC	BOEING COMPANY	$60,000	04/20/10
McBee Strategic Consulting, LLC	BOEING COMPANY	$60,000	04/20/10
BOEING COMPANY	BOEING COMPANY	$4,970,000	07/19/10
McBee Strategic Consulting, LLC	BOEING COMPANY	$90,000	07/20/10
McBee Strategic Consulting, LLC	BOEING COMPANY	$90,000	07/20/10
The Foxtail Group, LLC	The Boeing Co.	$50,000	04/15/10
The Foxtail Group, LLC	The Boeing Co.	$50,000	07/03/10
Total Boeing Company		$9,430,000
CARTER CONSULTING, INC.	NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP	$20,000	07/02/10
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION	NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION	$4,130,000	04/20/10
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION	NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION	$4,930,000	07/20/10
Total Northrop Grumman		$9,080,000
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL	HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL	$1,650,000	04/20/10
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.	AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.	$215,334	04/09/10
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.	AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.	$241,276	06/14/10
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.	AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.	$241,275	06/15/10
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.	AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.	$207,928	07/09/10
Total AIAA		$905,813
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE	AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE	$676,413	07/19/10
Orbital Sciences Corporation	Orbital Sciences Corporation	$80,000	04/20/10
Orbital Sciences Corporation	Orbital Sciences Corporation	$80,000	04/20/10
Orbital Sciences Corporation	Orbital Sciences Corporation	$80,000	04/20/10
Orbital Sciences Corporation	Orbital Sciences Corporation	$60,000	06/14/10
Orbital Sciences Corporation	Orbital Sciences Corporation	$60,000	06/14/10
Orbital Sciences Corporation	Orbital Sciences Corporation	$60,000	06/14/10
Orbital Sciences Corporation	Orbital Sciences Corporation	$30,000	07/19/10
Orbital Sciences Corporation	Orbital Sciences Corporation	$30,000	07/19/10
Orbital Sciences Corporation	Orbital Sciences Corporation	$30,000	07/19/10
Total OSC		$510,000
Van Scoyoc Associates	Moog, Inc.	$30,000	04/20/10
Van Scoyoc Associates	Moog, Inc.	$30,000	04/20/10
Van Scoyoc Associates	Moog, Inc.	$40,000	07/20/10
Van Scoyoc Associates	Moog, Inc.	$40,000	07/20/10
Total Moog, Inc.		$140,000
J Street	J Street	$130,000	07/20/10

New START's Big Winners: US Nuke Complex, Pentagon, and Contractors

Passage of New START in a 14-4 vote out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is already being hailed by Democrats and arms control NGOs as a substantial victory. A floor vote for ratification is now apparently set to occur after the elections.

While ratification is by no means guaranteed, there are several clear winners already: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Aerojet General, Alliant Techsystems, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons laboratories, Y-12 nuclear labs, the Pentagon, and Bechtel Corporation.

While much noise has been made about the New START treaty's cut to the nuclear weapons stockpile, the actual required reduction in arms may be as low as 8%, or 162 warheads out of a total of thousands. Furthermore, keep in mind too that this only affects deployed strategic warheads, not "tactical" weapons, and not weapons in the "reserve" stockpile.



So why the big deal? Why are both sides fighting like mad over a treaty that really requires virtually no change to the status quo US-Russia relationship and US nuclear stockpile?

Here's why in a nutshell:

1. The Democrats, led by the Obama administration, want the treaty badly in order to prove that their means of combating proliferation and the rising power of states like Iran is better than the Republican strategy. The difference essentially is that the Democrats propose to give the impression that the USA is cutting its arsenal and seeking "global zero." Of course it's not and the Dems intend to fund the US nuclear complex at large levels. Long-range national security state doctrine calls for keeping nukes far into the future, and modernizing them the whole way along. But the Democratic foreign policy establishment thinks their plan will provide superior power, diplomatic and military, when dealing with nations that pose a threat to US imperial interests. It's a tough balancing act, this anti-nuclear nuclearism! Thankfully the liberal militarists have found willing allies in the foundation community. Funds and NGOs like Ploughshares, American Friends Service Committee, and Peace Action West have lobbied extensively for ratification, proving that a little money goes a long way in politics.

2. The Republican strategy remains what the old gipper gave us - "peace through strength." G. W. Bush pursued it with his aggressive nuclear weapons programs, but the Democrats managed to back him down. Undeterred, many Republicans think the Democrats are wasting the national security state's time and energy and would just rather invest huge sums in weapons and invade and occupy nations as a first and early recourse when problems arise. There remains a great deal of ideological opposition to treaties, especially arms control pacts, whether or not they actually constrain US military might.

3. In addition to this acrimonious debate about imperial strategy, there's bread and butter. While New START doesn't pose any threats to any military funding whatsoever, it does offer a major opportunity to demand huge funding increases for several weapons programs.

A. Chief among these is the nuclear weapons program. New START ratification is being used as the primary forum in which to hash out the budget for nuclear weapons over the next ten years. Thus far supporters of the nuke complex have gotten a pretty good deal; a minimum $10 billion increase over the next ten years to build a new plutonium pit factory, new uranium plant, new weapons components factory, and other major capital projects. Corker and Isakson's votes on September 16 to pass the treaty to the full Senate for a ratification vote may signal that they have received even larger funding commitments for the huge nuclear facilities in their states, or that they will use their vote on the floor to extort better deals between now and then.

B. Then there's "missile defense" and "prompt global strike." Missile defense has its own agency in the Pentagon and budget larger than the NNSA's. Prompt global strike, a new conventional strategic weapons system capable of killing anyone on the planet in under an hour with hypersonic munitions, is a multi-hundred million dollar and growing program. Both are getting very large increases in Obama's FY2011 budget, due in part to Republican demands that neither program be constrained by New START. Of course the treaty does not such thing, but the concern is really a theatrical way of demanding even larger increases for these weapons systems. The Democrats are too happy to oblige. Obama and Biden are champions of prompt global strike.

4. Thus the Senators on both sides of the debate are working for the nuclear weapons complex, Pentagon, and their powerful corporate contractors. The Democrats have already offered up major funding increases, even before Republican opposition. Conservatives have only pulled the issue further to the right, and arms control foundations and NGOs have fed the whole process by making New START out to be vastly more important and meaningful than it objectively is.

Still don't see the bi-partisan consensus to fund the nuclear weapons complex and Pentagon's missile defense and prompt global strike programs and contractors? Here's some campaign finance data for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members' 2010 election cycle bank accounts. Both Democrats and Republicans are well endowed, demonstrating why the interests of the nuclear weapons complex and other weapons programs are absolutely not threatened by New START.

[The first number ranks the contributing corporation among the Senator's top donors for 2010. Figures from http://www.opensecrets.org. Raytheon, Textron, Lockheed, Boeing, United Technologies, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, SAIC, Carlyle, BAE, EADS all contract with the Missile Defense Agency and related Pentagon program offices. Lockheed serves at the lead contractor for prompt global strike. Bechtel, Honeywell, CH2M Hill, McDermott (through its BWXT subsidiary), URS, Flour, and Lockheed Martin contract with the NNSA to operate the US nuclear weapons complex. AECOM is subcontractor for the US nuclear weapons program.]

Democrats

John Kerry

20 Raytheon Co $15,250

84 Honeywell International $8,500

84 Textron Inc $8,500

Christopher J. Dodd

3 United Technologies $115,250

16 General Dynamics $29,300

Russell D. Feingold

Barbara Boxer

18 CH2M HILL $23,500

84 Lockheed Martin $10,300

89 Honeywell International $10,000

Robert Menendez

21 CH2M Hill $36,075

95 AECOM Technology Corp $17,200

Benjamin L. Cardin

41 Northrop Grumman $15,700

83 Lockheed Martin $11,000

Robert P. Casey Jr

Jim Webb

5 SAIC Inc $20,000

8 Northrop Grumman $18,150

21 US Dept of Defense $10,800

24 McDermott International $10,000

48 Raytheon Co $8,250

Jeanne Shaheen

17 Honeywell International $16,000

Edward E. Kaufman

Kirsten E. Gillibrand

59 BAE Systems $16,300

79 Carlyle Group $12,500

85 Raytheon Co $11,750

Republicans

Richard Lugar

24 Lockheed Martin $10,000

33 Raytheon Co $9,750

36 Bechtel Group $8,850

39 Honeywell International $8,500

Bob Corker

57 Honeywell International $15,000

85 US Government [partly Y-12] $12,650

Johnny Isakson

50 Boeing Co $10,000

50 Lockheed Martin $10,000

James E. Risch

5 URS Corp $12,700

12 Honeywell International $10,000

50 Bechtel Group $7,000

69 Boeing Co $5,000

Jim DeMint

13 URS Corp/Washington $16,499

18 Fluor Corp $14,250

25 Lockheed Martin $12,600

44 Boeing Co $10,201

91 Honeywell International $9,000

John Barrasso

15 Northrop Grumman $13,500

34 Honeywell International $10,000

96 URS Corp $6,000

Roger F. Wicker

14 Northrop Grumman $17,500

21 European Aeronautic Defence & Space $14,500

41 General Dynamics $11,000

47 Raytheon Co $10,000

James M. Inhofe

21 BAE Systems $12,700

27 Lockheed Martin $12,000

29 Boeing Co $11,750

48 Honeywell International $10,000

48 Northrop Grumman $10,000

48 Raytheon Co $10,000

48 United Technologies $10,000