| NOVEMBER 22, 2005
Senator Barack Obama
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
Chicago, IL
Good afternoon.
It is a privilege to give this speech at the Council on Foreign Relations here in Chicago.
A few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit Walter Reed Army Medical Center. While I was there, I met a young man whose legs had been blown off from mortar fire and who had sustained severe nerve damage in his arms and hands. He was sewing as a means of regaining his small motor skills, and as his wife looked on, they talked about their efforts to piece their lives back together. They talked about the wonderful way their young daughter had embraced her father and told him she loved him despite his disfigurement.
I also met a young man who had lost a leg and an arm and who now had a breathing tube in his throat. He was working with two of the therapists in a mock-up kitchen to cook hamburgers on his own.
We went down to the physical therapy area where I talked to a 19-year-old former track star who had lost both his legs and was working out on one of the weight machines. And I spoke to a sergeant from Iowa who had lost one of his legs but was working vigorously to get accustomed to his prosthetic leg so he could return to Iraq as soon as he could. I then went up to the wards to visit with other injured veterans - to take pictures, talk about basketball, and to say thank you.
Listening to the stories of these young men and women, most of them in their early twenties, I had to ask myself how I would be feeling if it were my son, my nephew, or my sister lying there. I asked myself how I would be feeling if it were me struggling to learn how to walk again? Would I feel bitter? Would I feel hopeless?
I don't know. None of us can answer that question fully until we find ourselves in that situation. What I do know is that the extraordinary men and women that I met seemed uninterested in rage or self-pity. They were proud of their service. They were hopeful for their future. They displayed the kind of grit and optimism and resourcefulness that represents the very best of America.
They remind us, in case we need reminding, that there is no more profound decision that we can make than the decision to send this nation's youth to war, and that we have a moral obligation not only to send them for good reasons, but to constantly examine, based on the best information and judgment available, in what manner, and for what purpose, and for how long we keep them in harm's way.
Today, nearly 160,000 American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are risking their lives in the Middle East. They are operating in some of the most dangerous and difficult circumstances imaginable. Well over 2,000 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice - given their full measure of devotion. Thousands more have returned with wounds like those that I saw at Walter Reed.
These men and women are willing to lay down their lives to protect us. When they were told there was danger that needed to be confronted they said, "I will go. I will leave my family and my friends and the life I knew and I will fight." And they went. And they're fighting still.
And so as the war rages on and the insurgency festers - as another father weeps over a flag-draped casket and another wife feeds her husband the dinner he can't fix for himself - it is our duty to ask ourselves hard questions. What do we want to accomplish now that we are in Iraq, and what is possible to accomplish? What kind of actions can we take to ensure not only a safe and stable Iraq, but that will also preserve our capacity to rebuild Afghanistan, isolate and apprehend terrorist cells, preserve our long-term military readiness, and devote the resources needed to shore up our homeland security? What are the costs and benefits of our actions moving forward? What urgency are we willing to show to bring our troops home safely? What kind of answers are we willing to demand from those in charge of the war?
In other words -- What kind of debate are we willing to have?
Last week, the White House showed exactly what kind of debate it wants on future of Iraq - none.
We watched the shameful attempt to paint John Murtha - a Marine Corp recipient of two-purple hearts and a Bronze Star - into a coward of questionable patriotism. We saw the Administration tell people of both parties - people who asked legitimate questions about the intelligence that led us to war and the Administration's plan for Iraq - that they should keep quiet, end the complaining, and stop rewriting history.
This political war - a war of talking points and Sunday news shows and spin - is not one I'm interested in joining. It's a divisive approach that only pushes us further from what the American people actually want - a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq.
I do want to make the following observations, though. First, I am part of that post Baby Boom generation that was too young to fight in Vietnam, not called to fight in Desert Storm, too old for the current conflict. For those like me who - for whatever reason - have never seen battle, whether they be in the Administration or in Congress, let me suggest that they put the words "coward" and "unpatriotic" out of their vocabulary - at least when it comes to veterans like John Murtha who have put their lives on the line for this country. I noticed that the President recognized this bit of wisdom yesterday. I hope others do to.
Second - the Administration is correct to say that we have real enemies, that our battle against radical Islamist terrorism will not be altered overnight, that stability in the Middle East must be part of our strategy to defeat terrorism, that military power is a key part of our national security, that our strategy cannot be poll driven. The Administration is also correct when it says that many overestimated Saddam's biological and chemical capacity, and that some of its decisions in going to war were prompted by real errors in the intelligence community's estimates.
However, I think what is also true is that the Administration launched the Iraq war without giving either Congress or the American people the full story. This is not a partisan claim - you don't have to take my word for it. All you need to do is to match up the Administration's statements during the run-up to the war with the now declassified intelligence estimates that they had in their possession at the time. Match them up and you will conclude that at the very least, the Administration shaded, exaggerated and selectively used the intelligence available in order to make the case for invasion.
The President told the American people about Iraqi attempts to acquire yellow cake during the State of the Union. The Vice-President made statements on national television expressing certainty about Iraq's nuclear weapons programs. Secretary Rice used the words "mushroom cloud" over and over again.
We know now that even at the time these unequivocal statements were made, intelligence assessments existed that contradicted these claims. Analysis from the CIA and State Department was summarily dismissed when it did not help the Administration make the case for war.
I say all this not to score cheap political points. I say this because war is a serious business. It requires enormous sacrifice, in blood and treasure, from the American people. The American people have already lost confidence in the credibility of our leadership, not just on the question of Iraq, but across the board. According to a recent Pew survey, 42% of Americans agree with the statement that the U.S. should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" - a significant increase since the immediate aftermath of 9/11. We risk a further increase in isolationist sentiment unless both the Administration and Congress can restore the American people's confidence that our foreign policy is driven by facts and reason, rather than hopes and ideology. And we cannot afford isolationism - not only because our work with respect to stabilizing Iraq is not complete, but because our missteps in Iraq have distracted us from the larger threat of terrorism that we face, a threat that we can only meet by working internationally, in cooperation with other countries.
Now, given the enormous stakes in Iraq, I believe that those of us who are involved in shaping our national security policies should do what we believe is right, not merely what is politically expedient. I strongly opposed this war before it began, though many disagreed with me at that time. Today, as Americans grow increasingly impatient with our presence in Iraq, voices I respect are calling for a rapid withdrawal of our troops, regardless of events on the ground.
But I believe that, having waged a war that has unleashed daily carnage and uncertainty in Iraq, we have to manage our exit in a responsible way - with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis. I say this not only because we owe it to the Iraqi people, but because the Administration's actions in Iraq have created a self-fulfilling prophecy - a volatile hotbed of terrorism that has already begun to spill over into countries like Jordan, and that could embroil the region, and this country, in even greater international conflict.
In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinquish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home.
Last week's re-politicization of the war makes this kind of focus extremely difficult. In true Washington fashion, the Administration has narrowed an entire debate about war into two camps: "cut-and-run" or "stay the course." If you offer any criticism or even mention that we should take a second look at our strategy and change our approach, you're branded cut-and-run. If you're ready to blindly trust the Administration no matter what they do, you're willing to stay the course.
A variation on this is the notion that anything short of an open-ended commitment to maintain our current troop strength in Iraq is the equivalent of issuing a "timetable" that will, according to the Administration, undermine our troops and strengthen the insurgency.
.
This simplistic framework not only misstates the position of thoughtful critics on both sides of the aisle - from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to Democrat Russ Feingold. It completely misses where the American people are right now.
Every American wants to see a peaceful and stable Iraq. No American wants to leave behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide. But no American wants a war without end - a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the Administration - the worst of all possible outcomes.
It has been two years and seven months since the fall of Baghdad and any honest assessment would conclude that the Administration's strategy has not worked. The civilian efforts to rebuild Iraq, establish a secure environment, and broker a stable political framework have, thus far, come up short.
The Administration owes the American people a reality-based assessment of the situation in Iraq today. For the past two years, they've measured progress in the number of insurgents killed, roads built, or voters registered. But these benchmarks are not true measures of fundamental security and stability in Iraq.
When the Administration now talks about "condition-based" withdrawal, we need to know precisely what those conditions are.
This is why the amendment offered by Senator Levin and the one that passed from Senator Warner are so important. What the Administration and some in the press labeled as a "timetable" for withdrawal was in fact a commonsense statement that: one, 2006 should be the year that the Iraqi government decreases its dependency on the United States; two, that the various Iraqi factions must arrive at a fair political accommodation to defeat the insurgency; and three, the Administration must make available to Congress critical information on reality-based benchmarks that will help us succeed in Iraq.
We need to know whether the Iraqis are making the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement essential for defeating the insurgency.
We need to know how many Iraqi security forces and police and the level of skill they will require to permit them to take the lead in counter-insurgency operations, the defense of Iraq's territory, and maintaining law and order throughout the country.
We need to get accurate information regarding how many Iraqi troops are currently prepared for the transition of security responsibilities, and a realistic assessment of the U.S. resources and time it will take to make them more prepared.
And, we need to know the Administration's strategy to restore basic services, strengthen the capacities of ministries throughout the country, and enlist local, regional, and international actors in finding solutions to political, economic, and security problems.
Straight answers to critical questions - for the most part, that is what both the Levin Amendment and the Warner Amendment call for. Members of both parties and the American people have now made clear that it is not enough to for the President to simply say "we know best" and "stay the course."
As I have said before, there are no magic bullets for a good outcome in Iraq. I am not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, or the Director of National Intelligence. I have neither the expertise nor the inclination to micro-manage war from Washington.
Nevertheless, given the best information I have, and in an effort to offer constructive ideas, I would suggest several broad elements that should be included in any discussion of where we go from here. I should add that some of these ideas have been put forward in greater detail by other senators and foreign policy experts - I claim no pride of authorship, but rather offer my best assessment of the steps we need to take to maximize the prospects for success.
First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say "reduce," and not "fully withdraw."
This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency.
On this point, I am in basic agreement with our top military commander in Iraq. In testimony before Congress earlier this year, General Casey stated that a key goal of the military was to "reduce our presence in Iraq, taking away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency: that of the coalition forces as an occupying force."
This is not and should not be a partisan issue. It is a view shared by Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and someone with whom I am proud to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee.
I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces.
At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism.
We must find the right balance - offering enough security to serve as a buffer and carry out a targeted, effective counter-insurgency strategy, but not so much of a presence that we serve as an aggravation. It is this balance that will be critical to finding our way forward.
Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency.
I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." Without a time-frame, this message will not be sent.
With the Shiites increasingly in control of the government, the U.S. is viewed as the military force that is keeping the Shiites in power, picking sides in the conflict, driving a wedge between the factions, and keeping the Sunnis out of the government.
Wrong as these perceptions may be, they are one of the key elements unifying the insurgency and serving as its best recruiting slogan.
We need to immediately recognize and address this problem.
On October 25, Ambassador Khailizad stated that he believes that the United States is on the right track to start significant reductions of U.S. military forces in the coming year. Earlier in the year, when I pressed Ambassador Khalizad on this during his confirmation hearing to be more specific about a time-frame for withdrawal, he said that there would not be a U.S. presence in Iraq a decade from now. That's at a start - but I think we need to be clearer than somewhere between one and ten years.
Third, we need to start thinking about what an Iraqi government will look like in the near term.
The post-election period will be critically important in working with the Shia and Kurdish leaders to help address Sunni concerns and to take steps to bring them into the government.
In testimony before Congress, Secretary Rice stated that while she believed it was possible to create a multi-ethnic, democratic Iraq under a unified national government, it was also possible that, in the near term, Iraq may look more like a loose federation and less like a tightly-knit, multi-ethnic society. According to the deal struck in the writing of the Constitution, the structure of the national government may still be altered by discussion among the three major factions. If it is the Administration's most realistic assessment that the Iraqi government will take the form of a loose confederation, then we need to be thinking about how we should calibrate our policies to reflect this reality. We cannot, and should not, foist our own vision of democracy on the Iraqis, and then expect our troops to hold together such a vision militarily.
Fourth, we have to do a much better job on reconstruction in Iraq.
The Iraqi people wonder why the United States has been unable to restore basic services - sewage, power, infrastructure - to significant portions of Iraq. This has caused a loss of faith among the Iraqi people in our efforts to rebuild that nation and help it recover from decades of brutal tyranny.
The Administration tells us there can not be reconstruction without security, but many Iraqis make the opposite argument. They say Iraq will never be secure until there is reconstruction and citizens see that a better future awaits them.
The Administration also tells us that they are making progress, but can not publicize the specific successes out of security concerns.
If we are unable to point out the progress, how are Iraqis - especially ones we are trying to persuade to claim a bigger stake in the future of their country - ever to know that the Americans efforts are helping to make their lives better? How does this approach help to quell the insurgency?
We need to break this cycle. We have to get more Iraqis involved with the reconstruction efforts. After all, it is the Iraqis who best know their country and have the greatest stake in restoring basic services.
We need to work with the best and brightest Iraqis, inside and outside of government to come up with a plan to get the power back on in Baghdad and help to restore the faith of the Iraqi people in our important mission in Iraq.
Fifth, we have to launch a major diplomatic effort to get the international community, especially key neighboring states and Arab nations, more involved in Iraq. If one looks at the Balkans - our most recent attempt to rebuild war torn nations - the international community, from the European Union to NATO to the United Nations, were all deeply involved. These organizations, driven largely by European countries in the region, provided legitimacy, helped with burden-sharing, and were an essential part of our exit strategy. Ten years later, conditions are not perfect, but the blood-shed has been stopped, and the region is no longer destabilizing the European Continent. And so a part of any strategy in Iraq must more deeply integrate Iraq's neighbors, international organizations, and regional powers around the world.
Finally, it is critical for this Administration, and Congress, to recognize that despite the enormous stakes the United States now has in seeing Iraq succeed, we cannot let this mission distract us from the larger front of international terrorism that remains to be addressed. Already we are getting reports that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. Our progress in improving our intelligence capabilities - particularly human intelligence - has lagged. Iraq has absorbed resources that could have gone into critical homeland security measures, or in improved coordination with our global allies and partners. At the outset of this war, I challenged the Administration's assertion that deposing Saddam Hussein was the central measure in our war on terrorism. And although I believe we must stabilize Iraq, I continue to believe that the Administration's tendency to equate the military defeat of the Iraqi insurgency with the defeat of international terrorism is dangerously short-sighted.
Long the before the war in Iraq, international terrorism posed a grave security threat to the United States. Well over two years after the start of the Iraq war, these threats to our way of life remain every bit as serious. Some have argued that these threats have grown. The Administration has to be capable of finding a solution in Iraq and strengthening our efforts to combat international terrorism.
In the end, Iraq is not about one person's legacy, a political campaign, or rigid adherence to an ideology.
What is happening in Iraq is about the security of the United States. It is about our men and women in uniform. It is about the future of the Middle East. It is about the world in which our children will live.
Responsible voices from all parts of the political spectrum are coming forth to say this in increasing numbers.
Colin Powell had the courage to call his presentation to the United Nations on Iraq a "blot" on his distinguished record. And recently John Edwards said he made a mistake in voting to go to war in Iraq, and accepted responsibility for this decision.
It is no coincidence that both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Powell no longer serve the government in Washington. Those of us in Washington are falling behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue.
Iraq was a major issue in last year's election.
But that election is now over.
We need to stop the campaign.
The President could take the politics out of Iraq once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people "Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that we're here, I am willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out."
Nearly four decades ago, John F. Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. He admitted that mistakes had been made. He didn't spend a good deal of time publicly blaming the previous Administration, or the other party, or his critics. And through these decisive actions, he earned the respect of the American people and the world - respect that allowed his diplomacy to be trusted a few years later during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Americans everywhere are crying out for this kind of leadership today. They want to find pragmatic solutions to the difficult and complicated situation in Iraq. They want to move forward on of the greatest foreign policy challenges that this nation has faced in a generation. And they want to get it right for every American son and daughter who's been willing to put their lives on the line to defend the country they love. It's time for us in Washington to offer the rest of the country this leadership. Thank you.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Change That Works for You
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Change That Works for You
Raleigh, NC | June 09, 2008
Before we begin, I just want to take a minute to thank Senator Clinton for the kind and generous support she offered on Saturday. She ran an historic campaign that shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere who now know there are no limits to their dreams. And more, she inspired millions of women and men with her strength, her courage, and her unyielding commitment to the causes that brought us here today – the hopes and aspirations of working Americans.
Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I look forward to working with her in these coming months and years to lay out the case for change and set a new course for this country.
I've often said that this election represents a defining moment in our history. On major issues like the war in Iraq or the warming of our planet, the decisions we make in November and over the next few years will shape a generation, if not a century.
That is especially true when it comes to our economy.
We have now lost jobs for five straight months – more than 320,000 since the beginning of this year. Last month we saw the biggest rise in the unemployment rate in more than twenty years. The percentage of homes in foreclosure and late mortgage payments is the highest since the Great Depression. The price of oil has never been higher and set a record on Friday for the largest one-day spike in history. The costs of health care and college tuition and even food have all hit record levels, while family incomes have fallen and the wages of our workers have stayed the same.
You don't have to read the stock tickers or scan the headlines in the financial section to understand the seriousness of the situation we're in right now. You just have to go to Pennsylvania and listen to the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. Or listen to the woman from Iowa who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill. Or talk to the worker I met in Indiana who worked at the same plant his father worked at for thirty years until they moved it to Mexico and made the workers actually pack up the equipment themselves so they could send it to China.
Go to Janesville, Wisconsin or Moraine, Ohio and talk to the workers at General Motors who just found out the plants they labored their entire lives at will be closed forever; or the thousands of truck drivers and airline workers who will lose their jobs because of the debilitating cost of fuel. Or just ask any family in North Carolina who will sit around their kitchen table tonight and wonder whether next week's paycheck will be enough to cover next month's bills – who will look at their children without knowing if they'll be able to give them the same chances that they had.
We did not arrive at the doorstep of our current economic crisis by some accident of history. This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle that was beyond our power to avoid. It was the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long.
George Bush called it the Ownership Society, but it's little more than a worn dogma that says we should give more to those at the top and hope that their good fortune trickles down to the hardworking many. For eight long years, our President sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy, and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs – trillions of dollars in giveaways that proved neither compassionate nor conservative.
And for all of George Bush's professed faith in free markets, the markets have hardly been free – not when the gates of Washington are thrown open to high-priced lobbyists who rig the rules of the road and riddle our tax code with special interest favors and corporate loopholes. As a result of such special-interest driven policies and lax regulation, we haven't seen prosperity trickling down to Main Street. Instead, a housing crisis that could leave up to two million homeowners facing foreclosure has shaken confidence in the entire economy.
I understand that the challenges facing our economy didn't start the day George Bush took office and they won't end the day he leaves. Some are partly the result of forces that have globalized our economy over the last several decades – revolutions in communication and technology have sent jobs wherever there's an internet connection; that have forced children in Raleigh and Boston to compete for those jobs with children in Bangalore and Beijing. We live in a more competitive world, and that is a fact that cannot be reversed.
But I also know that this nation has faced such fundamental change before, and each time we've kept our economy strong and competitive by making the decision to expand opportunity outward; to grow our middle-class; to invest in innovation, and most importantly, to invest in the education and well-being of our workers.
We've done this because in America, our prosperity has always risen from the bottom-up. From the earliest days of our founding, it has been the hard work and ingenuity of our people that's served as the wellspring of our economic strength. That's why we built a system of free public high schools when we transitioned from a nation of farms to a nation of factories. That's why we sent my grandfather's generation to college, and declared a minimum wage for our workers, and promised to live in dignity after they retire through the creation of Social Security. That's why we've invested in the science and research that have led to new discoveries and entire new industries. And that's what this country will do again when I am President of the United States.
We will begin this general election campaign by traveling across the country for the next few weeks to talk about what specifically we need to do to build a 21st economy that works for working Americans. I will speak with economic experts and advisors at the end of the tour, but first I want to speak with you, and hear about your thoughts and your struggles in the places where you live and work. And at each stop, I will take the opportunity to lay out the very real and very serious differences on the economy between myself and Senator McCain.
As I've said before, John McCain is an American hero whose military service we honor. He can also legitimately tout moments of independents from his party, and on some issues, such as earmark reform and climate change, he and I share goals, even if we may differ on how to get there.
But when it comes to the economy, John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country. Because for all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of his economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies. He says we've made "great progress" in our economy these past eight years. He calls himself a fiscal conservative and on the campaign trail he's passionate critic of government spending, and yet he has no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and a permanent occupation of Iraq – policies that have left our children with a mountain of debt.
George Bush's policies have taken us from a projected $5.6 trillion dollar surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration to massive deficits and nearly four trillion dollars in new debt today. We were promised a fiscal conservative. Instead, we got the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history. And now John McCain wants to give us another. Well we've been there once, and we're not going back. It's time to move this country forward.
I have a different vision for the future. Instead of spending twelve billion dollars a month to rebuild Iraq, I think it's time we invested in our roads and schools and bridges and started to rebuild America. Instead of handing out giveaways to corporations that don't need them and didn't ask for them, it's time we started giving a hand-up to families who are trying pay their medical bills and send their children to college. We can't afford four more years of skewed priorities that give us nothing but record debt – we need change that works for the American people. And that is the choice in this election
My vision involves both a short-term plan to help working families who are struggling to keep up and a long-term agenda to make America competitive in a global economy.
A week from today, I'll be talking about this long-term agenda in more detail. It's an agenda that will require us first and foremost to train and educate our workforce with the skills necessary to compete in a knowledge-based economy. We'll also need to place a greater emphasis on areas like science and technology that will define the workforce of the 21st century, and invest in the research and innovation necessary to create the jobs and industries of the future right here in America. One place where that investment would make an enormous difference is in a renewable energy policy that ends our addiction on foreign oil, provides real long-term relief from high fuel costs, and builds a green economy that could create up to five million well-paying jobs that can't be outsourced. We can also create millions of new jobs by rebuilding our schools, roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure that needs repair.
And because we know that we can't or shouldn't put up walls around our economy, a long-term agenda will also find a way to make trade work for American workers. We do the cause of free-trade – a cause I believe in – no good when we pass trade agreements that hand out favors to special interests and do little to help workers who have to watch their factories close down. There is nothing protectionist about demanding that trade spreads the benefits of globalization as broadly as possible.
That's what we need to do in the long-term. But today I want to focus on what we must do in the short-term to lift up our workers, ease the struggle that so many families are facing right now, and restore a sense of fairness and balance to our economy.
Such relief that can't wait until the next President takes office. In January, well before the administration seemed to discover ordinary Americans were struggling, I called for a fiscal stimulus plan to get checks in the hands of hard-working families and seniors. Congress passed such a plan and the first checks are now arriving. But since then hundreds of thousands more people have lost their jobs, and so we must do more.
That's why I've called for another round of fiscal stimulus, an immediate $50 billion to help those who've been hit hardest by this economic downturn – Americans who have lost their jobs, their homes, and are facing rising costs and cutbacks in state and local services like education and healthcare. We need to expand unemployment benefits and extend them for those who can't find another job right away – especially since the long-term unemployment rate is nearly twice as high as it was during the last recession. And we must help the millions of homeowners who are facing foreclosure through no fault of their own.
As late as December, John McCain told a newspaper in New Hampshire that he'd love to offer a solution to the housing crisis, but he just didn't have one. It took him three different tries to figure it out, and in the end, his plan does nothing to help 1.5 million homeowners who are facing foreclosure, even as he supported spending billions to bail out Wall Street. President Bush told the American people he thought the biggest danger arising from this housing crisis was the temptation to do something about it. Now Senator McCain wants to turn Bush's policy of 'too little, too late' into a policy of 'even less, even later'. That's not the change we need right now. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
In contrast, I offered a proposal to crack down on mortgage fraud almost two years ago, and in this campaign I've called for the immediate creation of a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to provide direct relief to victims of the housing crisis. We'll also help those who are facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages so they can stay in their homes at rates they can afford. I'll provide struggling homeowners relief by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.
The principle is simple – if the government can bail out investment banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to folks who are struggling on Main Street. As President, I'll get tough on enforcement, raise the penalties on lenders who break the rules, and implement a new Home Score system that will allow consumers to find out more about mortgage offers and whether they'll be able to make payments. This kind of transparency won't just make our homeowners more secure, it will make our markets more stable, and keep our economy strong and competitive in the future. That's the change Americans need, and that's what I'll do as President.
As the housing crisis spills over into other parts of the economy, we also need to help the millions of Americans who are struggling under skyrocketing costs and stagnant wages that are pushing working families towards a debt spiral from which they can't escape. We have to give them a way out by lowering costs, putting more money in their pockets, and rebuilding a safety net that's becoming badly frayed over the last few decades.
When it comes to reliving these economic anxieties that working families feel, nothing matches the burden they face from crushing health care costs. John McCain's approach to health care mirrors that of George Bush. He's promising four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy – a plan that will actually make it easier – easier – than it already is for insurance companies to deny coverage to the elderly or the sick or those with pre-existing conditions. It may lead millions to lose the coverage they already have and millions more to have to pay even more than they do right now.
We can't afford that. Not when 47 million Americans are already uninsured, a number that is growing by the day. Not when families and businesses across the country are being crushed by the growing burden of health care costs and when half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills.
When I am President, we'll take a different approach. We will give every American the chance to get the same kind of health care that Members of Congress give themselves. We'll bring down premiums by $2500 for the typical family, and we'll prevent insurance companies from discriminating against those who need care most. And we won't just lower costs for families, we'll lower costs for the entire country by making our health care system more efficient through better technology and more emphasis on prevention. That's the choice in this election, and that's the change I'll bring as President.
Just as we need to reform our health care system, we also have to reform a tax code that rewards wealth over work – a 10,000-page monstrosity that high-priced lobbyists have rigged with page after page of special interest loopholes and tax shelters; a tax code that continues George Bush's billion-dollar giveaways to big corporations and wealthy CEOs; a tax code that has plunged this country deeper and deeper into debt.
John McCain takes great pride in saying that he's a fiscal conservative, and he's already signaled that he will try to define me with the same old tax-and-spend label that his side has been throwing around for decades. But let's look at the facts.
John McCain once said that he couldn't vote for the Bush tax breaks in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans. Later, he said it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war because we simply couldn't afford them. Well, nothing's changed about the war, but something's certainly changed about John McCain, because these same Bush tax cuts are now his central economic policy. Not only that, but he is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive. His policy will spend nearly $2 trillion on tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone, a company that just recorded the highest profits in history.
Think about that. At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn't just irresponsible. It's outrageous.
If John McCain's policies were implemented, they would add $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That isn't fiscal conservatism, that's what George Bush has done over the last eight years. Not only can working families not afford it, future generations can't afford it. And we can't allow it to happen in this election.
I'll take a different approach. I will reform our tax code so that it's simple, fair, and advances opportunity instead of distorting the market by advancing the agenda of some lobbyist or oil company. I'll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens, and I'll use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95% of workers and their families. I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills. We'll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect. And while John McCain wants to pick up where George Bush left off by trying again to privatize Social Security, I will never waver in my commitment to protect that basic promise as President. We will not privatize Social Security, we will not raise the retirement age, and we will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.
Now, contrary to what John McCain may say, every single proposal that I've made in this campaign is paid for – because I believe in pay-as-you-go. Senator McCain is right that there's waste in government, and I intend to root it out as President. But his suggestion that the earmark reforms that we're both interested in implementing will somehow make up for his enormous tax giveaway indicates that John McCain was right when he said that he doesn't understand the economy as well as he should. Either that or he's hoping you just won't notice. Whatever it is, it's not the kind of change we need in Washington right now.
I'll be talking in more detail next week about how we can make our workforce more competitive by reforming our education system, but there's also an immediate squeeze we need to deal with, and that's college affordability.
I know how expensive this is from firsthand experience. At the beginning of our marriage, Michelle and I were spending so much of our income just to pay off our college loans. And that was decades ago. The cost of a college education has exploded since then, pricing hundreds of thousands of young Americans out of their dream every year, or forcing them to begin their careers in unconscionable debt. So I'll offer this promise to every student as President – your country will offer you $4,000 a year of tuition if you offer your country community or national service when you graduate. If you invest in America, America will invest in you.
As far as we can tell, John McCain doesn't have a plan to make college more affordable. And that means he isn't listening to the struggles facing a new generation of Americans.
Finally, we need to help those Americans who find themselves in a debt spiral climb out. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don't become the next stage in the housing crisis. To make sure that Americans know what they're signing up for, I'll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we'll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to credit card agreements; ban rate hikes on debt you already had; and ban interest charges on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but you should pay what's fair, not just what fattens profits for some credit card company and they can get away with.
The same principle should apply to our bankruptcy laws. When I first arrived in the Senate, I opposed the credit card industry's bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt. John McCain supported that bill – and he even opposed exempting families who were only in bankruptcy because of medical expenses they couldn't pay.
When I'm President, we'll reform our bankruptcy laws so that we give Americans who find themselves in debt a second chance. We'll make sure that if you can demonstrate that you went bankrupt because of medical expenses, you can relieve that debt and get back on your feet. And I'll make sure that CEOs can't dump your pension with one hand while they collect a bonus with the other. That's an outrage, and it's time we had a President who knows it's an outrage.
This is the choice you will face in November. You can vote for John McCain, and see a continuation of Bush economic policies – more tax cuts to the wealthy, more corporate tax breaks, more mountains of debt, and little to no relief for families struggling with the rising costs of everything from health care to a college education.
But I don't think that is the future we want. The Americans I've met over the last sixteen months in town halls and living rooms; on farms and front porches – they may come from different places and have different backgrounds, but they hold common hopes and dream the same simple dreams. They know government can't solve all their problems, and they don't expect it to. They believe in personal responsibility, and hard work, and self-reliance. They don't like seeing their tax dollars wasted.
But we also believe in an America where unrivaled prosperity brings boundless opportunity – a place where jobs are there for the willing; where hard work is rewarded with a decent living; where no matter how much you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, you can make it if you try.
We believe in the country that gave my grandfather and a generation of heroes the chance to go to college on the GI Bill when they came home from World War II – a GI Bill that helped create the largest middle-class in history.
We believe in the country that made it possible for my mother – a single parent who didn't have much – to send my sister and me to the best schools in the country with the help of scholarships.
We believe in the country that allowed my father-in-law – a city worker at a water filtration plant on the South Side of Chicago – to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age thirty, but that didn't stop him from going to work every day – often with the help of a walker – so that could send my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation.
His job didn't just give him a paycheck; it gave him a sense of dignity and self-worth. His country didn't just reward wealth, but the work and the workers who created it. And that is the America we believe in.
That is the choice we face right now – a choice between more of the same policies that have widened inequality, added to our debt, and shaken the foundation of our economy, or change that will restore balance to our economy; that will invest in the ingenuity and innovation of our people; that will fuel a bottom-up prosperity to keep America strong and competitive in the 21st century.
It is not left or right – liberal or conservative – to say that we have tried it their way for eight long years. And it has failed. It is time to try something new. It is time for change.
The challenges we face are great, and we may not meet them in one term or with one President. But history tells us we have met greater challenges before. And the seriousness of this moment tells us we can't afford not to try.
So as we set out on this journey, let us also forge a new path – a path that leads to unrivaled prosperity; to boundless opportunity; to the America we believe in and a dream that will always endure. Thank you, and may God Bless America.
Raleigh, NC | June 09, 2008
Before we begin, I just want to take a minute to thank Senator Clinton for the kind and generous support she offered on Saturday. She ran an historic campaign that shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere who now know there are no limits to their dreams. And more, she inspired millions of women and men with her strength, her courage, and her unyielding commitment to the causes that brought us here today – the hopes and aspirations of working Americans.
Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I look forward to working with her in these coming months and years to lay out the case for change and set a new course for this country.
I've often said that this election represents a defining moment in our history. On major issues like the war in Iraq or the warming of our planet, the decisions we make in November and over the next few years will shape a generation, if not a century.
That is especially true when it comes to our economy.
We have now lost jobs for five straight months – more than 320,000 since the beginning of this year. Last month we saw the biggest rise in the unemployment rate in more than twenty years. The percentage of homes in foreclosure and late mortgage payments is the highest since the Great Depression. The price of oil has never been higher and set a record on Friday for the largest one-day spike in history. The costs of health care and college tuition and even food have all hit record levels, while family incomes have fallen and the wages of our workers have stayed the same.
You don't have to read the stock tickers or scan the headlines in the financial section to understand the seriousness of the situation we're in right now. You just have to go to Pennsylvania and listen to the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. Or listen to the woman from Iowa who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill. Or talk to the worker I met in Indiana who worked at the same plant his father worked at for thirty years until they moved it to Mexico and made the workers actually pack up the equipment themselves so they could send it to China.
Go to Janesville, Wisconsin or Moraine, Ohio and talk to the workers at General Motors who just found out the plants they labored their entire lives at will be closed forever; or the thousands of truck drivers and airline workers who will lose their jobs because of the debilitating cost of fuel. Or just ask any family in North Carolina who will sit around their kitchen table tonight and wonder whether next week's paycheck will be enough to cover next month's bills – who will look at their children without knowing if they'll be able to give them the same chances that they had.
We did not arrive at the doorstep of our current economic crisis by some accident of history. This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle that was beyond our power to avoid. It was the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long.
George Bush called it the Ownership Society, but it's little more than a worn dogma that says we should give more to those at the top and hope that their good fortune trickles down to the hardworking many. For eight long years, our President sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy, and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs – trillions of dollars in giveaways that proved neither compassionate nor conservative.
And for all of George Bush's professed faith in free markets, the markets have hardly been free – not when the gates of Washington are thrown open to high-priced lobbyists who rig the rules of the road and riddle our tax code with special interest favors and corporate loopholes. As a result of such special-interest driven policies and lax regulation, we haven't seen prosperity trickling down to Main Street. Instead, a housing crisis that could leave up to two million homeowners facing foreclosure has shaken confidence in the entire economy.
I understand that the challenges facing our economy didn't start the day George Bush took office and they won't end the day he leaves. Some are partly the result of forces that have globalized our economy over the last several decades – revolutions in communication and technology have sent jobs wherever there's an internet connection; that have forced children in Raleigh and Boston to compete for those jobs with children in Bangalore and Beijing. We live in a more competitive world, and that is a fact that cannot be reversed.
But I also know that this nation has faced such fundamental change before, and each time we've kept our economy strong and competitive by making the decision to expand opportunity outward; to grow our middle-class; to invest in innovation, and most importantly, to invest in the education and well-being of our workers.
We've done this because in America, our prosperity has always risen from the bottom-up. From the earliest days of our founding, it has been the hard work and ingenuity of our people that's served as the wellspring of our economic strength. That's why we built a system of free public high schools when we transitioned from a nation of farms to a nation of factories. That's why we sent my grandfather's generation to college, and declared a minimum wage for our workers, and promised to live in dignity after they retire through the creation of Social Security. That's why we've invested in the science and research that have led to new discoveries and entire new industries. And that's what this country will do again when I am President of the United States.
We will begin this general election campaign by traveling across the country for the next few weeks to talk about what specifically we need to do to build a 21st economy that works for working Americans. I will speak with economic experts and advisors at the end of the tour, but first I want to speak with you, and hear about your thoughts and your struggles in the places where you live and work. And at each stop, I will take the opportunity to lay out the very real and very serious differences on the economy between myself and Senator McCain.
As I've said before, John McCain is an American hero whose military service we honor. He can also legitimately tout moments of independents from his party, and on some issues, such as earmark reform and climate change, he and I share goals, even if we may differ on how to get there.
But when it comes to the economy, John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country. Because for all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of his economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies. He says we've made "great progress" in our economy these past eight years. He calls himself a fiscal conservative and on the campaign trail he's passionate critic of government spending, and yet he has no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and a permanent occupation of Iraq – policies that have left our children with a mountain of debt.
George Bush's policies have taken us from a projected $5.6 trillion dollar surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration to massive deficits and nearly four trillion dollars in new debt today. We were promised a fiscal conservative. Instead, we got the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history. And now John McCain wants to give us another. Well we've been there once, and we're not going back. It's time to move this country forward.
I have a different vision for the future. Instead of spending twelve billion dollars a month to rebuild Iraq, I think it's time we invested in our roads and schools and bridges and started to rebuild America. Instead of handing out giveaways to corporations that don't need them and didn't ask for them, it's time we started giving a hand-up to families who are trying pay their medical bills and send their children to college. We can't afford four more years of skewed priorities that give us nothing but record debt – we need change that works for the American people. And that is the choice in this election
My vision involves both a short-term plan to help working families who are struggling to keep up and a long-term agenda to make America competitive in a global economy.
A week from today, I'll be talking about this long-term agenda in more detail. It's an agenda that will require us first and foremost to train and educate our workforce with the skills necessary to compete in a knowledge-based economy. We'll also need to place a greater emphasis on areas like science and technology that will define the workforce of the 21st century, and invest in the research and innovation necessary to create the jobs and industries of the future right here in America. One place where that investment would make an enormous difference is in a renewable energy policy that ends our addiction on foreign oil, provides real long-term relief from high fuel costs, and builds a green economy that could create up to five million well-paying jobs that can't be outsourced. We can also create millions of new jobs by rebuilding our schools, roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure that needs repair.
And because we know that we can't or shouldn't put up walls around our economy, a long-term agenda will also find a way to make trade work for American workers. We do the cause of free-trade – a cause I believe in – no good when we pass trade agreements that hand out favors to special interests and do little to help workers who have to watch their factories close down. There is nothing protectionist about demanding that trade spreads the benefits of globalization as broadly as possible.
That's what we need to do in the long-term. But today I want to focus on what we must do in the short-term to lift up our workers, ease the struggle that so many families are facing right now, and restore a sense of fairness and balance to our economy.
Such relief that can't wait until the next President takes office. In January, well before the administration seemed to discover ordinary Americans were struggling, I called for a fiscal stimulus plan to get checks in the hands of hard-working families and seniors. Congress passed such a plan and the first checks are now arriving. But since then hundreds of thousands more people have lost their jobs, and so we must do more.
That's why I've called for another round of fiscal stimulus, an immediate $50 billion to help those who've been hit hardest by this economic downturn – Americans who have lost their jobs, their homes, and are facing rising costs and cutbacks in state and local services like education and healthcare. We need to expand unemployment benefits and extend them for those who can't find another job right away – especially since the long-term unemployment rate is nearly twice as high as it was during the last recession. And we must help the millions of homeowners who are facing foreclosure through no fault of their own.
As late as December, John McCain told a newspaper in New Hampshire that he'd love to offer a solution to the housing crisis, but he just didn't have one. It took him three different tries to figure it out, and in the end, his plan does nothing to help 1.5 million homeowners who are facing foreclosure, even as he supported spending billions to bail out Wall Street. President Bush told the American people he thought the biggest danger arising from this housing crisis was the temptation to do something about it. Now Senator McCain wants to turn Bush's policy of 'too little, too late' into a policy of 'even less, even later'. That's not the change we need right now. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
In contrast, I offered a proposal to crack down on mortgage fraud almost two years ago, and in this campaign I've called for the immediate creation of a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to provide direct relief to victims of the housing crisis. We'll also help those who are facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages so they can stay in their homes at rates they can afford. I'll provide struggling homeowners relief by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.
The principle is simple – if the government can bail out investment banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to folks who are struggling on Main Street. As President, I'll get tough on enforcement, raise the penalties on lenders who break the rules, and implement a new Home Score system that will allow consumers to find out more about mortgage offers and whether they'll be able to make payments. This kind of transparency won't just make our homeowners more secure, it will make our markets more stable, and keep our economy strong and competitive in the future. That's the change Americans need, and that's what I'll do as President.
As the housing crisis spills over into other parts of the economy, we also need to help the millions of Americans who are struggling under skyrocketing costs and stagnant wages that are pushing working families towards a debt spiral from which they can't escape. We have to give them a way out by lowering costs, putting more money in their pockets, and rebuilding a safety net that's becoming badly frayed over the last few decades.
When it comes to reliving these economic anxieties that working families feel, nothing matches the burden they face from crushing health care costs. John McCain's approach to health care mirrors that of George Bush. He's promising four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy – a plan that will actually make it easier – easier – than it already is for insurance companies to deny coverage to the elderly or the sick or those with pre-existing conditions. It may lead millions to lose the coverage they already have and millions more to have to pay even more than they do right now.
We can't afford that. Not when 47 million Americans are already uninsured, a number that is growing by the day. Not when families and businesses across the country are being crushed by the growing burden of health care costs and when half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills.
When I am President, we'll take a different approach. We will give every American the chance to get the same kind of health care that Members of Congress give themselves. We'll bring down premiums by $2500 for the typical family, and we'll prevent insurance companies from discriminating against those who need care most. And we won't just lower costs for families, we'll lower costs for the entire country by making our health care system more efficient through better technology and more emphasis on prevention. That's the choice in this election, and that's the change I'll bring as President.
Just as we need to reform our health care system, we also have to reform a tax code that rewards wealth over work – a 10,000-page monstrosity that high-priced lobbyists have rigged with page after page of special interest loopholes and tax shelters; a tax code that continues George Bush's billion-dollar giveaways to big corporations and wealthy CEOs; a tax code that has plunged this country deeper and deeper into debt.
John McCain takes great pride in saying that he's a fiscal conservative, and he's already signaled that he will try to define me with the same old tax-and-spend label that his side has been throwing around for decades. But let's look at the facts.
John McCain once said that he couldn't vote for the Bush tax breaks in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans. Later, he said it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war because we simply couldn't afford them. Well, nothing's changed about the war, but something's certainly changed about John McCain, because these same Bush tax cuts are now his central economic policy. Not only that, but he is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive. His policy will spend nearly $2 trillion on tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone, a company that just recorded the highest profits in history.
Think about that. At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn't just irresponsible. It's outrageous.
If John McCain's policies were implemented, they would add $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That isn't fiscal conservatism, that's what George Bush has done over the last eight years. Not only can working families not afford it, future generations can't afford it. And we can't allow it to happen in this election.
I'll take a different approach. I will reform our tax code so that it's simple, fair, and advances opportunity instead of distorting the market by advancing the agenda of some lobbyist or oil company. I'll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens, and I'll use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95% of workers and their families. I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills. We'll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect. And while John McCain wants to pick up where George Bush left off by trying again to privatize Social Security, I will never waver in my commitment to protect that basic promise as President. We will not privatize Social Security, we will not raise the retirement age, and we will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.
Now, contrary to what John McCain may say, every single proposal that I've made in this campaign is paid for – because I believe in pay-as-you-go. Senator McCain is right that there's waste in government, and I intend to root it out as President. But his suggestion that the earmark reforms that we're both interested in implementing will somehow make up for his enormous tax giveaway indicates that John McCain was right when he said that he doesn't understand the economy as well as he should. Either that or he's hoping you just won't notice. Whatever it is, it's not the kind of change we need in Washington right now.
I'll be talking in more detail next week about how we can make our workforce more competitive by reforming our education system, but there's also an immediate squeeze we need to deal with, and that's college affordability.
I know how expensive this is from firsthand experience. At the beginning of our marriage, Michelle and I were spending so much of our income just to pay off our college loans. And that was decades ago. The cost of a college education has exploded since then, pricing hundreds of thousands of young Americans out of their dream every year, or forcing them to begin their careers in unconscionable debt. So I'll offer this promise to every student as President – your country will offer you $4,000 a year of tuition if you offer your country community or national service when you graduate. If you invest in America, America will invest in you.
As far as we can tell, John McCain doesn't have a plan to make college more affordable. And that means he isn't listening to the struggles facing a new generation of Americans.
Finally, we need to help those Americans who find themselves in a debt spiral climb out. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don't become the next stage in the housing crisis. To make sure that Americans know what they're signing up for, I'll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we'll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to credit card agreements; ban rate hikes on debt you already had; and ban interest charges on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but you should pay what's fair, not just what fattens profits for some credit card company and they can get away with.
The same principle should apply to our bankruptcy laws. When I first arrived in the Senate, I opposed the credit card industry's bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt. John McCain supported that bill – and he even opposed exempting families who were only in bankruptcy because of medical expenses they couldn't pay.
When I'm President, we'll reform our bankruptcy laws so that we give Americans who find themselves in debt a second chance. We'll make sure that if you can demonstrate that you went bankrupt because of medical expenses, you can relieve that debt and get back on your feet. And I'll make sure that CEOs can't dump your pension with one hand while they collect a bonus with the other. That's an outrage, and it's time we had a President who knows it's an outrage.
This is the choice you will face in November. You can vote for John McCain, and see a continuation of Bush economic policies – more tax cuts to the wealthy, more corporate tax breaks, more mountains of debt, and little to no relief for families struggling with the rising costs of everything from health care to a college education.
But I don't think that is the future we want. The Americans I've met over the last sixteen months in town halls and living rooms; on farms and front porches – they may come from different places and have different backgrounds, but they hold common hopes and dream the same simple dreams. They know government can't solve all their problems, and they don't expect it to. They believe in personal responsibility, and hard work, and self-reliance. They don't like seeing their tax dollars wasted.
But we also believe in an America where unrivaled prosperity brings boundless opportunity – a place where jobs are there for the willing; where hard work is rewarded with a decent living; where no matter how much you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, you can make it if you try.
We believe in the country that gave my grandfather and a generation of heroes the chance to go to college on the GI Bill when they came home from World War II – a GI Bill that helped create the largest middle-class in history.
We believe in the country that made it possible for my mother – a single parent who didn't have much – to send my sister and me to the best schools in the country with the help of scholarships.
We believe in the country that allowed my father-in-law – a city worker at a water filtration plant on the South Side of Chicago – to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age thirty, but that didn't stop him from going to work every day – often with the help of a walker – so that could send my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation.
His job didn't just give him a paycheck; it gave him a sense of dignity and self-worth. His country didn't just reward wealth, but the work and the workers who created it. And that is the America we believe in.
That is the choice we face right now – a choice between more of the same policies that have widened inequality, added to our debt, and shaken the foundation of our economy, or change that will restore balance to our economy; that will invest in the ingenuity and innovation of our people; that will fuel a bottom-up prosperity to keep America strong and competitive in the 21st century.
It is not left or right – liberal or conservative – to say that we have tried it their way for eight long years. And it has failed. It is time to try something new. It is time for change.
The challenges we face are great, and we may not meet them in one term or with one President. But history tells us we have met greater challenges before. And the seriousness of this moment tells us we can't afford not to try.
So as we set out on this journey, let us also forge a new path – a path that leads to unrivaled prosperity; to boundless opportunity; to the America we believe in and a dream that will always endure. Thank you, and may God Bless America.
McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy
McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy
John McCain defends President Bush's Iraq strategy;
White House pitches plan to Egypt, Jordan
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2007
By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer
(AP) Sen. John McCain defended President Bush's Iraq plan on Friday as a difficult but necessary move, parting company with lawmakers questioning the wisdom of the military build up.
"I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success," said McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008.
McCain also took a shot at Democrats who say the United States must bring some troops home within four to six months.
"I believe these individuals ... have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq," he said. "If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."
McCain spoke at the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spent a second day on Capitol Hill defending the president's strategy.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the panel's new chairman, said that deepening America's commitment in Iraq would be a grave mistake. Bush wants to add 21,500 more U.S. troops to the 132,000 already there.
"Increasing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq is flawed strategy because it is based on a flawed premise that there is a military solution to the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions," Levin said.
Repeating an admission that Bush made in his nationally televised address on Wednesday, Gates told the senators, "Mistakes certainly have been made by the United States in Iraq. However we got to this moment, the stakes now are incalculable."
Bush on Friday sought support for his new Iraq military build up in telephone calls to Jordan's King Abdullah II and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
Of Bush's telephone conversations with the king of Jordan and Egyptian president Friday morning, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "They talked about the way forward in Iraq, Secretary Rice's upcoming trip, efforts to make progress on the road map and important regional issues."
Also, it was revealed Friday that Bush will meet at the White House next Tuesday with the new U.N. secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon.
"There are many important issues on which the United Nations is deeply engaged," said press secretary Tony Snow.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was leaving Friday on a trip to the Middle East.
Late Thursday, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, warned against sending more troops for long. The group had called for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by early 2008, but said that a temporary troop increase might be justified under some circumstances.
"We are encouraged by the president's statement that 'America's commitment is not open-ended' and Secretary Gate's statement that the addition of 21,000 troops would be viewed as a temporary surge," Baker and Hamilton said in a statement. "The violence in Baghdad will not end without national reconciliation."
During a series of Capitol Hill hearings Thursday, top administration officials heard scathing criticism of the strategy from Democrats and some Republicans who said they weren't convinced it represents a change in U.S. military policy.
The new strategy was slammed as desperate and even dumb, and many expressed frustration that there was no stated time limit on the build up or a defined threat that the U.S. would pull out if the Iraqis don't perform as promised.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate intend to hold votes within a few weeks on Bush's revised Iraq policy. The nonbinding resolutions would be one way to show their opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., charged that what Democrats really want to do is cut off funding for the troops, something Democrats have denied. McConnell threatened to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the buildup plan.
McConnell conceded that GOP lawmakers as well as Democrats are troubled by Bush's new policy, but he said, "Congress is completely incapable of dictating the tactics of the war."
Options for war critics to try forcing its end are limited, given the slim margin of Democratic control, especially in the Senate. But votes stating symbolic opposition to the troop buildup could embarrass many Republicans leery of supporting Bush's plan.
During Thursday's hearings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gates and Pace insisted that the Iraqi government's new political commitment to take charge of their own country was the key change.
"There are no guarantees and I cannot guarantee what the Iraqi government's going to do," Pace said. "I can simply tell you what they have said they're going to do. And if they do what they say they're going to do, then this will succeed."
Bush's plan, which the president outlined in a prime-time address to the nation Wednesday, would raise troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 _ from 132,000 to 153,500 _ at a cost of $5.6 billion. It also calls for the Iraqi government to increase its own forces and to do more to quell sectarian violence.
___
Associated Press writers Anne Gearan, Jennifer Loven, Tom Raum and Barry Schweid contributed to this report.
©MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
John McCain defends President Bush's Iraq strategy;
White House pitches plan to Egypt, Jordan
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2007
By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer
(AP) Sen. John McCain defended President Bush's Iraq plan on Friday as a difficult but necessary move, parting company with lawmakers questioning the wisdom of the military build up.
"I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success," said McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008.
McCain also took a shot at Democrats who say the United States must bring some troops home within four to six months.
"I believe these individuals ... have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq," he said. "If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."
McCain spoke at the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spent a second day on Capitol Hill defending the president's strategy.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the panel's new chairman, said that deepening America's commitment in Iraq would be a grave mistake. Bush wants to add 21,500 more U.S. troops to the 132,000 already there.
"Increasing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq is flawed strategy because it is based on a flawed premise that there is a military solution to the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions," Levin said.
Repeating an admission that Bush made in his nationally televised address on Wednesday, Gates told the senators, "Mistakes certainly have been made by the United States in Iraq. However we got to this moment, the stakes now are incalculable."
Bush on Friday sought support for his new Iraq military build up in telephone calls to Jordan's King Abdullah II and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
Of Bush's telephone conversations with the king of Jordan and Egyptian president Friday morning, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "They talked about the way forward in Iraq, Secretary Rice's upcoming trip, efforts to make progress on the road map and important regional issues."
Also, it was revealed Friday that Bush will meet at the White House next Tuesday with the new U.N. secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon.
"There are many important issues on which the United Nations is deeply engaged," said press secretary Tony Snow.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was leaving Friday on a trip to the Middle East.
Late Thursday, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, warned against sending more troops for long. The group had called for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by early 2008, but said that a temporary troop increase might be justified under some circumstances.
"We are encouraged by the president's statement that 'America's commitment is not open-ended' and Secretary Gate's statement that the addition of 21,000 troops would be viewed as a temporary surge," Baker and Hamilton said in a statement. "The violence in Baghdad will not end without national reconciliation."
During a series of Capitol Hill hearings Thursday, top administration officials heard scathing criticism of the strategy from Democrats and some Republicans who said they weren't convinced it represents a change in U.S. military policy.
The new strategy was slammed as desperate and even dumb, and many expressed frustration that there was no stated time limit on the build up or a defined threat that the U.S. would pull out if the Iraqis don't perform as promised.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate intend to hold votes within a few weeks on Bush's revised Iraq policy. The nonbinding resolutions would be one way to show their opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., charged that what Democrats really want to do is cut off funding for the troops, something Democrats have denied. McConnell threatened to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the buildup plan.
McConnell conceded that GOP lawmakers as well as Democrats are troubled by Bush's new policy, but he said, "Congress is completely incapable of dictating the tactics of the war."
Options for war critics to try forcing its end are limited, given the slim margin of Democratic control, especially in the Senate. But votes stating symbolic opposition to the troop buildup could embarrass many Republicans leery of supporting Bush's plan.
During Thursday's hearings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gates and Pace insisted that the Iraqi government's new political commitment to take charge of their own country was the key change.
"There are no guarantees and I cannot guarantee what the Iraqi government's going to do," Pace said. "I can simply tell you what they have said they're going to do. And if they do what they say they're going to do, then this will succeed."
Bush's plan, which the president outlined in a prime-time address to the nation Wednesday, would raise troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 _ from 132,000 to 153,500 _ at a cost of $5.6 billion. It also calls for the Iraqi government to increase its own forces and to do more to quell sectarian violence.
___
Associated Press writers Anne Gearan, Jennifer Loven, Tom Raum and Barry Schweid contributed to this report.
©MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
印度股市也暴跌 通胀形势严峻 或将步越南后尘
印度股市也暴跌 通胀形势严峻 或将步越南后尘 环球时报
越南经济动荡所引发的恐慌正在亚洲范围内蔓延。6月12日，在本周三印度央行15个月来首次调高利率后，印度股市下跌2.5%。通货膨胀、卢比加速贬值，股市暴跌——突然间，“印度经济将步越南后尘”的说法渐起。但在印度本国，越南的经济动荡却并没有引发过多关注。专家在接受《环球时报》记者采访表示，印度与越南经济体差别太大，两者可比性不大。但也正由于印度经济的“分量”，其目前的经济状态更具有“警示”意义。
6月6日，印度公布的最新通货膨胀为8.24%，创下新高；卢比自4月以来的最大跌幅超过7%。为了缓解高通胀压力，6月11日，印度央行15个月来，首次将利率调高到8%。而就在利率上调之后的第二天，印度股市跌幅近3%。其中，印度最大的银行，ICICI银行下跌3.8%，是2006年10月份以来的最低。印度也加入了印尼、菲律宾、越南、巴基斯坦等升息的亚洲国家之列。
股市大幅下跌、通胀形势日益严峻、卢比的贬值，再加上印度目前的对外贸易总体上还维持着逆差的局面，如果一旦外资集中加速撤离，将会给印度股市乃至整个印度经济体带来严重的冲击。事实上，经济界目前也已经出现了“印度是否会成为第二个越南”的言论，甚至有专家认为，印度经济危机可能会波及整个亚洲市场。
英国路透社在12日接连发表的两篇报道中就说，油价的攀升压低了市场的情绪，整个亚洲市场都感染了“通胀忧虑”，印度资本市场中，对于消费需求降低和抑制盈利增长的担忧正日益增加。另一篇报道则认为，作为IT产品初级供应地的印度企业，正在面临来自其主要市场美国的“订单减缩”，而贬值的卢比也已不足以“拯救”印度的IT企业了。
值得注意地是，在印度本国，并没有出现“经济危机”的预测，印度媒体也没有给予越南经济危机过多的关注。由于印度经济是以私人家族企业做为支撑点，民营企业较强的抗风险能力使得印度经济拥有一个比较“坚硬的外壳”，这与越南完全依赖国外资本的“外生性”经济区别很大。因此，印度人并没有感受到过多的危机感。
中国人民大学经济学院副院长刘元春教授在接受《环球时报》记者采访时认为，尽管“印度将成为第二个越南”的预测渐起，但越南和印度这两个经济体差别太大，印度经济目前还处于“安全区域”。刘元春教授认为，越南出现经济危机的征兆现在来看已非常明显，但对于印度而言，下“经济危机”的论断还为时尚早。
“尽管如此，作为‘金砖四国’的成员，国际资本对于印度的关注度会非常高，也不能排除国际游资对印度进行‘袭击性’操作的可能，”刘元春教授说道，“一旦印度经济真的走向衰势，亚洲乃至全球市场将面临大调整。”“到那时，国际资本会涌进中国，中国将成为国际资本的‘避难区’，而这无疑将考验中国金融部门对国际资本的监管力度。”
越南经济动荡所引发的恐慌正在亚洲范围内蔓延。6月12日，在本周三印度央行15个月来首次调高利率后，印度股市下跌2.5%。通货膨胀、卢比加速贬值，股市暴跌——突然间，“印度经济将步越南后尘”的说法渐起。但在印度本国，越南的经济动荡却并没有引发过多关注。专家在接受《环球时报》记者采访表示，印度与越南经济体差别太大，两者可比性不大。但也正由于印度经济的“分量”，其目前的经济状态更具有“警示”意义。
6月6日，印度公布的最新通货膨胀为8.24%，创下新高；卢比自4月以来的最大跌幅超过7%。为了缓解高通胀压力，6月11日，印度央行15个月来，首次将利率调高到8%。而就在利率上调之后的第二天，印度股市跌幅近3%。其中，印度最大的银行，ICICI银行下跌3.8%，是2006年10月份以来的最低。印度也加入了印尼、菲律宾、越南、巴基斯坦等升息的亚洲国家之列。
股市大幅下跌、通胀形势日益严峻、卢比的贬值，再加上印度目前的对外贸易总体上还维持着逆差的局面，如果一旦外资集中加速撤离，将会给印度股市乃至整个印度经济体带来严重的冲击。事实上，经济界目前也已经出现了“印度是否会成为第二个越南”的言论，甚至有专家认为，印度经济危机可能会波及整个亚洲市场。
英国路透社在12日接连发表的两篇报道中就说，油价的攀升压低了市场的情绪，整个亚洲市场都感染了“通胀忧虑”，印度资本市场中，对于消费需求降低和抑制盈利增长的担忧正日益增加。另一篇报道则认为，作为IT产品初级供应地的印度企业，正在面临来自其主要市场美国的“订单减缩”，而贬值的卢比也已不足以“拯救”印度的IT企业了。
值得注意地是，在印度本国，并没有出现“经济危机”的预测，印度媒体也没有给予越南经济危机过多的关注。由于印度经济是以私人家族企业做为支撑点，民营企业较强的抗风险能力使得印度经济拥有一个比较“坚硬的外壳”，这与越南完全依赖国外资本的“外生性”经济区别很大。因此，印度人并没有感受到过多的危机感。
中国人民大学经济学院副院长刘元春教授在接受《环球时报》记者采访时认为，尽管“印度将成为第二个越南”的预测渐起，但越南和印度这两个经济体差别太大，印度经济目前还处于“安全区域”。刘元春教授认为，越南出现经济危机的征兆现在来看已非常明显，但对于印度而言，下“经济危机”的论断还为时尚早。
“尽管如此，作为‘金砖四国’的成员，国际资本对于印度的关注度会非常高，也不能排除国际游资对印度进行‘袭击性’操作的可能，”刘元春教授说道，“一旦印度经济真的走向衰势，亚洲乃至全球市场将面临大调整。”“到那时，国际资本会涌进中国，中国将成为国际资本的‘避难区’，而这无疑将考验中国金融部门对国际资本的监管力度。”
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
越南经济动荡 影响中国几何？
新华社：越南经济动荡 影响中国几何？(组图) 新华社
股市暴跌、货币狂贬、通胀大飙、房价缩水……无论从哪一个经济指标来看，近期越南经济动荡都是不争的事实。更可怕的是，“越南可能爆发类似1997年亚洲金融危机”的说法蔓延开来，市场上的不安情绪迅速扩散。
越南金融风险说，始自摩根士丹利的一份分析报告。报告称，由于越南央行在国内通胀率高企和外贸逆差扩大的情况下，仍使越南盾保持坚挺，因此越南正面临一场“货币危机”，这场危机与泰铢1997年时的情况类似。越南盾可能面临类似泰铢当年下跌的风险，而越南盾的贬值可能在东南亚地区传染、扩散。
事实真的如此严重？越南会否引爆第二次亚洲金融危机？中国经济又会不会受到影响？
越南经济频亮红灯
上周五，越南股市股指报收384.24点，较去年最高点1170点缩水67%，成为全球今年表现最差股市。
越南经济的动荡不单表现在股指上。近些天来，境外不可交割远期市场上越南盾未来12个月汇率跌幅超过30%，越南5年期主权债务信贷违约掉期价格较5月30日收盘价上涨了近100个基点；过去几个月，胡志明市部分高档公寓的房价缩水达到20%-50%。与此同时，标准普尔、惠誉国际和穆迪等评级机构纷纷下调了对越南经济前景的预测。
市场情绪的急剧转变，缘于越南经济基本面预期恶化。5月份越南总体通胀率从去年9月份的8%-9%大幅上升至25.2%，其中食品类同比上涨42.35%；今年前5个月贸易逆差达到144亿美元，是一年前的4倍，比去年全年贸易逆差总额还高出20亿美元。
越南经济形势之所以会在短时间内急转直下，是因为越南在资本项目开放上急于求成，与基础货币发行体制和资金使用效率不配套所致。
越南虽然仍然实行资本项目管制，但开放的步伐越来越快。在前两年全球资金追逐新兴市场红利的过程中，越南吸引的外资“赶印超中”，产生消化不良。越南国内的资金配置效率远远赶不上吸引外资与开放资本的速度。
越南国内财力也不足以应付危机。国内外汇资产储备不足，今年前5个月贸易逆差高达144亿美元，截至去年3月底，越南的外汇储备仅为185亿美元，据世界银行预测，越南今年的外债规模将达到240亿美元，占GDP的30.2%；越南政府财政赤字近年持续扩大，长时间维持在占GDP约5%的危险水平。越南难以应对眼下外汇抽逃“陷阱”：外汇抽逃———越南盾贬值———从国外进口资源导致通胀上升———经济接近崩溃，这一恶性循环链条是横亘在越南经济上的天堑，必须借助外力才能破解。
不会传染东南亚
虽然越南经济正处于非常困难的阶段，但是，“就越南资本容量而言，还没有力量传导到其他地方。”专家一针见血指出，事态还没有严重到引发东南亚金融危机的程度，很多担心是多余的。
首先，越南经济体容量太小，以目前越南区区80只股票的资本市场与150亿美元左右的外债规模，说得极端一些，就算越南货币市场彻底崩溃，也不可能传导到周边的其他国家。
其次，1997年东南亚金融危机发生后，各国亡羊补牢的头等大事就是增加外汇储备，以资本项目适当管制并慎对国际热钱，10年后，这些国家的抗击打能力已今非昔比。
还有，目前不存在大面积的金融危机传导机制：1997年东南亚金融危机时，欧美大型投资机构一揽子做空与美元挂钩国家汇率，如索罗斯量子基金做空东南亚货币。当时，热钱有几乎无风险的套利机制，对冲基金借入低息的美元日元，投资到东南亚各国，在资本市场高企时获取资本收益，在东南亚各国为抑制通胀不得不升息时获取高额的利息收益。一旦热钱撤退，就意味着投资基金卖出手中头寸还款，一个投资项目撤出就会引发连锁反应，从而形成区域性的金融危机。
目前，欧美基金为应对次贷风险自顾不暇，加之各新兴市场国家居高不下的外汇储备，或多或少实行资本项目管制，货币对冲基金不具备一揽子做空的条件。
事实上，亚洲国家也为抵御区域性金融风险的传递筑起了篱笆。今年5月4日，东盟和中日韩财政部长一致同意，为筹建中的共同外汇储备基金出资至少800亿美元，以帮助参与国抵御可能发生的金融危机，中日韩3国分担80％的出资额，余下的20％由东盟国家负担。亚洲国家一旦共同行动，应对越南等小型市场危机，应该是绰绰有余。
对中国影响在可控范围内
“越南金融危机”的危言一出，国际投行高盛高华就在第一时间对此发表了看法。
高盛高华认为，越南经济动荡对于中国经济的传染效应风险较为有限。理由是，目前越南发生国际收支危机的概率还不足以影响中国经济的基本预期。
实际上，中国应该防止全球美元过剩所导致的流动性冲击。如果越南通胀进一步恶化，大量本地资金可能会逃向黄金和美元，进而导致国内货币体系面临压力。因此，外国投资者对于越南等其他新兴市场的信心可能会进一步恶化，进而导致更多的资金从这些市场流出。由于中国拥有雄厚的财力和强大的国际收支地位，所受到的传染效应应会非常有限。
中国要防范的危机，主要来自于全球经济停滞带来的影响。如果全球性通胀继续上升，美国财政部挽救美元价值的努力收不到效果，全球经济必然进入下降周期，而对于经济结构转型尚未成功、仍高度依赖出口的中国经济来说，也无法独善其身。
另一个风险，则来自于热钱冲击。德意志银行最新的研究报告估算，今年前4个月，实际流入中国的热钱规模甚至超过了官方外汇储备增量，达到3700亿美元。央行的数据也显示，今年一季度外汇新增贷款同比上涨18倍，这表明热钱流入速度加快，国内金融机构热衷于外汇借款进行无风险套利，但这种短存长贷可能引发未来的巨大风险，这与防止经济下滑同样重要。（记者 叶檀 陆绮雯）
股市暴跌、货币狂贬、通胀大飙、房价缩水……无论从哪一个经济指标来看，近期越南经济动荡都是不争的事实。更可怕的是，“越南可能爆发类似1997年亚洲金融危机”的说法蔓延开来，市场上的不安情绪迅速扩散。
越南金融风险说，始自摩根士丹利的一份分析报告。报告称，由于越南央行在国内通胀率高企和外贸逆差扩大的情况下，仍使越南盾保持坚挺，因此越南正面临一场“货币危机”，这场危机与泰铢1997年时的情况类似。越南盾可能面临类似泰铢当年下跌的风险，而越南盾的贬值可能在东南亚地区传染、扩散。
事实真的如此严重？越南会否引爆第二次亚洲金融危机？中国经济又会不会受到影响？
越南经济频亮红灯
上周五，越南股市股指报收384.24点，较去年最高点1170点缩水67%，成为全球今年表现最差股市。
越南经济的动荡不单表现在股指上。近些天来，境外不可交割远期市场上越南盾未来12个月汇率跌幅超过30%，越南5年期主权债务信贷违约掉期价格较5月30日收盘价上涨了近100个基点；过去几个月，胡志明市部分高档公寓的房价缩水达到20%-50%。与此同时，标准普尔、惠誉国际和穆迪等评级机构纷纷下调了对越南经济前景的预测。
市场情绪的急剧转变，缘于越南经济基本面预期恶化。5月份越南总体通胀率从去年9月份的8%-9%大幅上升至25.2%，其中食品类同比上涨42.35%；今年前5个月贸易逆差达到144亿美元，是一年前的4倍，比去年全年贸易逆差总额还高出20亿美元。
越南经济形势之所以会在短时间内急转直下，是因为越南在资本项目开放上急于求成，与基础货币发行体制和资金使用效率不配套所致。
越南虽然仍然实行资本项目管制，但开放的步伐越来越快。在前两年全球资金追逐新兴市场红利的过程中，越南吸引的外资“赶印超中”，产生消化不良。越南国内的资金配置效率远远赶不上吸引外资与开放资本的速度。
越南国内财力也不足以应付危机。国内外汇资产储备不足，今年前5个月贸易逆差高达144亿美元，截至去年3月底，越南的外汇储备仅为185亿美元，据世界银行预测，越南今年的外债规模将达到240亿美元，占GDP的30.2%；越南政府财政赤字近年持续扩大，长时间维持在占GDP约5%的危险水平。越南难以应对眼下外汇抽逃“陷阱”：外汇抽逃———越南盾贬值———从国外进口资源导致通胀上升———经济接近崩溃，这一恶性循环链条是横亘在越南经济上的天堑，必须借助外力才能破解。
不会传染东南亚
虽然越南经济正处于非常困难的阶段，但是，“就越南资本容量而言，还没有力量传导到其他地方。”专家一针见血指出，事态还没有严重到引发东南亚金融危机的程度，很多担心是多余的。
首先，越南经济体容量太小，以目前越南区区80只股票的资本市场与150亿美元左右的外债规模，说得极端一些，就算越南货币市场彻底崩溃，也不可能传导到周边的其他国家。
其次，1997年东南亚金融危机发生后，各国亡羊补牢的头等大事就是增加外汇储备，以资本项目适当管制并慎对国际热钱，10年后，这些国家的抗击打能力已今非昔比。
还有，目前不存在大面积的金融危机传导机制：1997年东南亚金融危机时，欧美大型投资机构一揽子做空与美元挂钩国家汇率，如索罗斯量子基金做空东南亚货币。当时，热钱有几乎无风险的套利机制，对冲基金借入低息的美元日元，投资到东南亚各国，在资本市场高企时获取资本收益，在东南亚各国为抑制通胀不得不升息时获取高额的利息收益。一旦热钱撤退，就意味着投资基金卖出手中头寸还款，一个投资项目撤出就会引发连锁反应，从而形成区域性的金融危机。
目前，欧美基金为应对次贷风险自顾不暇，加之各新兴市场国家居高不下的外汇储备，或多或少实行资本项目管制，货币对冲基金不具备一揽子做空的条件。
事实上，亚洲国家也为抵御区域性金融风险的传递筑起了篱笆。今年5月4日，东盟和中日韩财政部长一致同意，为筹建中的共同外汇储备基金出资至少800亿美元，以帮助参与国抵御可能发生的金融危机，中日韩3国分担80％的出资额，余下的20％由东盟国家负担。亚洲国家一旦共同行动，应对越南等小型市场危机，应该是绰绰有余。
对中国影响在可控范围内
“越南金融危机”的危言一出，国际投行高盛高华就在第一时间对此发表了看法。
高盛高华认为，越南经济动荡对于中国经济的传染效应风险较为有限。理由是，目前越南发生国际收支危机的概率还不足以影响中国经济的基本预期。
实际上，中国应该防止全球美元过剩所导致的流动性冲击。如果越南通胀进一步恶化，大量本地资金可能会逃向黄金和美元，进而导致国内货币体系面临压力。因此，外国投资者对于越南等其他新兴市场的信心可能会进一步恶化，进而导致更多的资金从这些市场流出。由于中国拥有雄厚的财力和强大的国际收支地位，所受到的传染效应应会非常有限。
中国要防范的危机，主要来自于全球经济停滞带来的影响。如果全球性通胀继续上升，美国财政部挽救美元价值的努力收不到效果，全球经济必然进入下降周期，而对于经济结构转型尚未成功、仍高度依赖出口的中国经济来说，也无法独善其身。
另一个风险，则来自于热钱冲击。德意志银行最新的研究报告估算，今年前4个月，实际流入中国的热钱规模甚至超过了官方外汇储备增量，达到3700亿美元。央行的数据也显示，今年一季度外汇新增贷款同比上涨18倍，这表明热钱流入速度加快，国内金融机构热衷于外汇借款进行无风险套利，但这种短存长贷可能引发未来的巨大风险，这与防止经济下滑同样重要。（记者 叶檀 陆绮雯）
Sunday, June 8, 2008
英国空军七千里外遥控无人飞机击毙塔利班头目
英国空军七千里外遥控无人飞机击毙塔利班头目 每日邮报
飞行员通过人造卫星遥控阿富汗上空的无人驾驶飞机。无人驾驶飞机将拍下来的高清晰间谍照片、摄像数据和雷达数据通过卫星传送到地面指挥官和英军飞行员电脑中。当雷达和高清晰摄像机侦测到地面的塔利班目标后，英军飞行员会迅速选好无人驾驶飞机上的攻击武器，并对地面目标发起致命袭击。几分钟之内，一枚卫星导航的炸弹就会从无人驾驶飞机上发射而出，击中地面目标
英国皇家空军的两名飞行员日前通过一架无人驾驶飞机成功狙杀了阿富汗南部一名高级塔利班头目。然而不可思议的是，这两名英军飞行员却并不身处阿富汗，而是驻扎在距阿富汗7000英里远的美国拉斯维加斯市郊外的一个空军基地中，他们是通过人造卫星遥控无人驾驶飞机，并向塔利班目标发动致命空袭的。
通过人造卫星遥控无人飞机
英军飞行员千里遥控狙杀塔利班目标的流程是：当“收割机”号无人驾驶飞机从阿富汗南部的坎大哈军事基地起飞后，美国内华达州拉斯维加斯市郊外克里奇空军基地中的两名英国皇家空军飞行员通过人造卫星遥控这些阿富汗上空的无人驾驶飞机。这些无人驾驶飞机只有小型商务飞机般大小，它们可以从常规跑道上起飞，并高高飞翔在阿富汗坎大哈军事基地的上空，为英国军方充当高空间谍，监视塔利班武装的一举一动。
这些无人驾驶飞机可以在战场上空盘旋飞行14小时，飞行时速高达300英里，并且可以在15000米的高空盘旋，飞行时的噪音也相当小。无人驾驶飞机可以将拍下来的高清晰间谍照片、摄像数据和雷达数据通过卫星传送到地面指挥官和7000英里外的英军飞行员电脑中。
无人飞机发起致命空袭
当雷达和高清晰摄像机侦测到地面的塔利班目标后，无人驾驶飞机控制员将会仔细检查发回的照片，以便确证锁定的目标是塔利班分子，而不是普通平民，英军飞行员会迅速选好无人驾驶飞机上的攻击武器，并对地面目标发起致命袭击。
几分钟之内，一枚卫星导航的炸弹就会从无人驾驶飞机上发射而出，在没有任何警告的情况下击中地面目标，以迅雷不及掩耳之势将地面敌人消灭。
狙杀塔利班如玩电脑游戏
通过这种遥控狙击，英军飞行员几秒钟内就可向锁定的塔利班头目发动袭击，而不需像以前一样苦等一小时，等待常规战斗机赶来发动袭击。
对于坐在7000英里外的拉斯维加斯克里奇空军基地中的英军飞行员来说，在电脑上千里遥控狙杀塔利班头目，就好像玩电子游戏一样刺激。
轰炸机飞行员要失业？
据悉，英军飞行员7000英里外遥控狙杀塔利班目标，堪称是英军空战史上的象征性分水岭。许多军方官员都认为，无人驾驶飞机代表空战的未来。目前的无人驾驶攻击机技术已经如此先进，以后可能再也不需要轰炸机飞行员服役了。
飞行员通过人造卫星遥控阿富汗上空的无人驾驶飞机。无人驾驶飞机将拍下来的高清晰间谍照片、摄像数据和雷达数据通过卫星传送到地面指挥官和英军飞行员电脑中。当雷达和高清晰摄像机侦测到地面的塔利班目标后，英军飞行员会迅速选好无人驾驶飞机上的攻击武器，并对地面目标发起致命袭击。几分钟之内，一枚卫星导航的炸弹就会从无人驾驶飞机上发射而出，击中地面目标
英国皇家空军的两名飞行员日前通过一架无人驾驶飞机成功狙杀了阿富汗南部一名高级塔利班头目。然而不可思议的是，这两名英军飞行员却并不身处阿富汗，而是驻扎在距阿富汗7000英里远的美国拉斯维加斯市郊外的一个空军基地中，他们是通过人造卫星遥控无人驾驶飞机，并向塔利班目标发动致命空袭的。
通过人造卫星遥控无人飞机
英军飞行员千里遥控狙杀塔利班目标的流程是：当“收割机”号无人驾驶飞机从阿富汗南部的坎大哈军事基地起飞后，美国内华达州拉斯维加斯市郊外克里奇空军基地中的两名英国皇家空军飞行员通过人造卫星遥控这些阿富汗上空的无人驾驶飞机。这些无人驾驶飞机只有小型商务飞机般大小，它们可以从常规跑道上起飞，并高高飞翔在阿富汗坎大哈军事基地的上空，为英国军方充当高空间谍，监视塔利班武装的一举一动。
这些无人驾驶飞机可以在战场上空盘旋飞行14小时，飞行时速高达300英里，并且可以在15000米的高空盘旋，飞行时的噪音也相当小。无人驾驶飞机可以将拍下来的高清晰间谍照片、摄像数据和雷达数据通过卫星传送到地面指挥官和7000英里外的英军飞行员电脑中。
无人飞机发起致命空袭
当雷达和高清晰摄像机侦测到地面的塔利班目标后，无人驾驶飞机控制员将会仔细检查发回的照片，以便确证锁定的目标是塔利班分子，而不是普通平民，英军飞行员会迅速选好无人驾驶飞机上的攻击武器，并对地面目标发起致命袭击。
几分钟之内，一枚卫星导航的炸弹就会从无人驾驶飞机上发射而出，在没有任何警告的情况下击中地面目标，以迅雷不及掩耳之势将地面敌人消灭。
狙杀塔利班如玩电脑游戏
通过这种遥控狙击，英军飞行员几秒钟内就可向锁定的塔利班头目发动袭击，而不需像以前一样苦等一小时，等待常规战斗机赶来发动袭击。
对于坐在7000英里外的拉斯维加斯克里奇空军基地中的英军飞行员来说，在电脑上千里遥控狙杀塔利班头目，就好像玩电子游戏一样刺激。
轰炸机飞行员要失业？
据悉，英军飞行员7000英里外遥控狙杀塔利班目标，堪称是英军空战史上的象征性分水岭。许多军方官员都认为，无人驾驶飞机代表空战的未来。目前的无人驾驶攻击机技术已经如此先进，以后可能再也不需要轰炸机飞行员服役了。
Saturday, June 7, 2008
印度富商开324家皮包公司 全球骗贷7亿美元
印度富商开324家皮包公司 全球骗贷7亿美元 现代快报
印度商人维伦德拉·拉斯托吉的大名上过英国媒体所列“富豪榜”，他30岁出头便拥有身家上亿英镑。而实际上，这名亿万富商大部分资产来自欺诈。他6年内借300多家“空壳”公司从银行骗取3.5亿英镑(约合7亿美元)。他5日被判入狱9年半。
“公司”只有一桌一椅
英国南萨瑟克刑事法庭法官5日宣判，拉斯托吉因诈骗罪入狱9年半。两名同谋分别获判8年半和7年半监禁。
拉斯托吉现年40岁，曾算得上英国商界成功人士，年纪轻轻就成为金属贸易公司“RBG资源”的首席执行官，在伦敦市中心的高级住宅区安家置业，每天有司机专车接送上下班，两个孩子在私立学校接受教育，客户遍布全球。
凭借5年内年收入415万英镑(830万美元)的“实力”，时年34岁的拉斯托吉在《星期日泰晤士报》“在英最富亚洲商人”排行榜上位列第209，资产1.5亿英镑(3亿美元)。
不为人知的是，这一切繁华背后其实是拉斯托吉精心打造的“空壳帝国”。
英国重大诈骗案检察局调查发现，1996年1月至2002年6月期间，拉斯托吉在美国、阿联酋、新加坡等国家“伪造”了324家客户公司，目的是让投资银行相信他的“RBG资源”公司在全球拥有大量客户和订单，以骗取贷款。
调查人员说，这些公司都是藏身小公寓或店铺的“空壳”，一些公司固定资产“不过一把椅子、一张桌子”。调查人员跟踪一些“客户”地址和电话发现，拉斯托吉的“客户”甚至包括一家位于美国新泽西州的自动洗衣房，还有一个位于印度的牛棚。
助手误发传真露马脚
调查人员说，拉斯托吉的“空壳帝国”成功运营多年，隐匿极深。如果不是他公司一个员工发送传真时操作失误，这个大骗局恐怕时至今日还没败露。
据英国媒体报道，拉斯托吉一名助手假冒客户，从国外同一地点向“RBG资源”发送伪造的商业邮件。但这名助手点错按钮，把本应发给拉斯托吉的传真误发给了为公司做审计的普华永道会计师事务所。
同时收到属于6个“客户”的文件，且发自同一台传真机，让审计师感到事情“不对劲”。尽管拉斯托吉的助手慌忙打电话企图解释，但为时已晚。
《每日电讯报》说，当重大诈骗案检察局调查人员到拉斯托吉家突击搜查时，他正在“疯狂地把文件塞进碎纸机”，企图销毁证据。
至少欠贷8亿美元
根据法庭文件，拉斯托吉从银行骗贷共计3.5亿英镑，利用在阿联酋迪拜和瑞士的投资把这些钱转走。
调查人员说，拉斯托吉通常在一家银行贷款到期时，向另一家银行贷更多款填补之前漏洞。这也是骗局多年没有败露的原因之一。
但银行和投资机构却因此遭受巨大损失。
据英国《独立报》报道，拉斯托吉在英国、德国等欧洲国家的银行和投资机构至少欠贷4亿英镑(8亿美元)。
此外，拉斯托吉还借助其兄弟在美国的公司大量贷款，导致美国银行也蒙受不少损失。
印度商人维伦德拉·拉斯托吉的大名上过英国媒体所列“富豪榜”，他30岁出头便拥有身家上亿英镑。而实际上，这名亿万富商大部分资产来自欺诈。他6年内借300多家“空壳”公司从银行骗取3.5亿英镑(约合7亿美元)。他5日被判入狱9年半。
“公司”只有一桌一椅
英国南萨瑟克刑事法庭法官5日宣判，拉斯托吉因诈骗罪入狱9年半。两名同谋分别获判8年半和7年半监禁。
拉斯托吉现年40岁，曾算得上英国商界成功人士，年纪轻轻就成为金属贸易公司“RBG资源”的首席执行官，在伦敦市中心的高级住宅区安家置业，每天有司机专车接送上下班，两个孩子在私立学校接受教育，客户遍布全球。
凭借5年内年收入415万英镑(830万美元)的“实力”，时年34岁的拉斯托吉在《星期日泰晤士报》“在英最富亚洲商人”排行榜上位列第209，资产1.5亿英镑(3亿美元)。
不为人知的是，这一切繁华背后其实是拉斯托吉精心打造的“空壳帝国”。
英国重大诈骗案检察局调查发现，1996年1月至2002年6月期间，拉斯托吉在美国、阿联酋、新加坡等国家“伪造”了324家客户公司，目的是让投资银行相信他的“RBG资源”公司在全球拥有大量客户和订单，以骗取贷款。
调查人员说，这些公司都是藏身小公寓或店铺的“空壳”，一些公司固定资产“不过一把椅子、一张桌子”。调查人员跟踪一些“客户”地址和电话发现，拉斯托吉的“客户”甚至包括一家位于美国新泽西州的自动洗衣房，还有一个位于印度的牛棚。
助手误发传真露马脚
调查人员说，拉斯托吉的“空壳帝国”成功运营多年，隐匿极深。如果不是他公司一个员工发送传真时操作失误，这个大骗局恐怕时至今日还没败露。
据英国媒体报道，拉斯托吉一名助手假冒客户，从国外同一地点向“RBG资源”发送伪造的商业邮件。但这名助手点错按钮，把本应发给拉斯托吉的传真误发给了为公司做审计的普华永道会计师事务所。
同时收到属于6个“客户”的文件，且发自同一台传真机，让审计师感到事情“不对劲”。尽管拉斯托吉的助手慌忙打电话企图解释，但为时已晚。
《每日电讯报》说，当重大诈骗案检察局调查人员到拉斯托吉家突击搜查时，他正在“疯狂地把文件塞进碎纸机”，企图销毁证据。
至少欠贷8亿美元
根据法庭文件，拉斯托吉从银行骗贷共计3.5亿英镑，利用在阿联酋迪拜和瑞士的投资把这些钱转走。
调查人员说，拉斯托吉通常在一家银行贷款到期时，向另一家银行贷更多款填补之前漏洞。这也是骗局多年没有败露的原因之一。
但银行和投资机构却因此遭受巨大损失。
据英国《独立报》报道，拉斯托吉在英国、德国等欧洲国家的银行和投资机构至少欠贷4亿英镑(8亿美元)。
此外，拉斯托吉还借助其兄弟在美国的公司大量贷款，导致美国银行也蒙受不少损失。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
