Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for http://federall-government.blogspot.com/

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at aziez.cash@gmail.com.

At http://federall-government.blogspot.com/, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by http://federall-government.blogspot.com/ and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, http://federall-government.blogspot.com/ makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
http://federall-government.blogspot.com/ does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on http://federall-government.blogspot.com/.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to http://federall-government.blogspot.com/ and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on http://federall-government.blogspot.com/ send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

http://federall-government.blogspot.com/ has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. http://federall-government.blogspot.com/'s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.

Paul Krugman: "Notice ... how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy."

August 19, 2010

Appeasing the Bond Gods

By PAUL KRUGMAN

As I look at what passes for responsible economic policy these days, there’s an analogy that keeps passing through my mind. I know it’s over the top, but here it is anyway: the policy elite — central bankers, finance ministers, politicians who pose as defenders of fiscal virtue — are acting like the priests of some ancient cult, demanding that we engage in human sacrifices to appease the anger of invisible gods.

Hey, I told you it was over the top. But bear with me for a minute.

Late last year the conventional wisdom on economic policy took a hard right turn. Even though the world’s major economies had barely begun to recover, even though unemployment remained disastrously high across much of America and Europe, creating jobs was no longer on the agenda. Instead, we were told, governments had to turn all their attention to reducing budget deficits.

Skeptics pointed out that slashing spending in a depressed economy does little to improve long-run budget prospects, and may actually make them worse by depressing economic growth. But the apostles of austerity — sometimes referred to as “austerians” — brushed aside all attempts to do the math. Never mind the numbers, they declared: immediate spending cuts were needed to ward off the “bond vigilantes,” investors who would pull the plug on spendthrift governments, driving up their borrowing costs and precipitating a crisis. Look at Greece, they said.

The skeptics countered that Greece is a special case, trapped by its use of the euro, which condemns it to years of deflation and stagnation whatever it does. The interest rates paid by major nations with their own currencies — not just the United States, but also Britain and Japan — showed no sign that the bond vigilantes were about to attack, or even that they existed.

Just you wait, said the austerians: the bond vigilantes may be invisible, but they must be feared all the same.

This was a strange argument even a few months ago, when the U.S. government could borrow for 10 years at less than 4 percent interest. We were being told that it was necessary to give up on job creation, to inflict suffering on millions of workers, in order to satisfy demands that investors were not, in fact, actually making, but which austerians claimed they would make in the future.

But the argument has become even stranger recently, as it has become clear that investors aren’t worried about deficits; they’re worried about stagnation and deflation. And they’ve been signaling that concern by driving interest rates on the debt of major economies lower, not higher. On Thursday, the rate on 10-year U.S. bonds was only 2.58 percent.

So how do austerians deal with the reality of interest rates that are plunging, not soaring? The latest fashion is to declare that there’s a bubble in the bond market: investors aren’t really concerned about economic weakness; they’re just getting carried away. It’s hard to convey the sheer audacity of this argument: first we were told that we must ignore economic fundamentals and instead obey the dictates of financial markets; now we’re being told to ignore what those markets are actually saying because they’re confused.

You see, then, why I find myself thinking in terms of strange and savage cults, demanding human sacrifices to appease unseen forces.

And, yes, we are talking about sacrifices. Anyone who doubts the suffering caused by slashing spending in a weak economy should look at the catastrophic effects of austerity programs in Greece and Ireland.

Maybe those countries had no choice in the matter — although it’s worth noting that all the suffering being imposed on their populations doesn’t seem to have done anything to improve investor confidence in their governments.

But, in America, we do have a choice. The markets aren’t demanding that we give up on job creation. On the contrary, they seem worried about the lack of action — about the fact that, as Bill Gross of the giant bond fund Pimco put it earlier this week, we’re “approaching a cul-de-sac of stimulus,” which he warns “will slow to a snail’s pace, incapable of providing sufficient job growth going forward.”

It seems almost superfluous, given all that, to mention the final insult: many of the most vocal austerians are, of course, hypocrites. Notice, in particular, how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. But that won’t stop them from continuing to pose as deficit hawks whenever anyone proposes doing something to help the unemployed.

So here’s the question I find myself asking: What will it take to break the hold of this cruel cult on the minds of the policy elite? When, if ever, will we get back to the job of rebuilding the economy?

Paul Craig Roberts: "You don't have to be smart to see that Wall Street's and the government's response to the amazing US budget deficit is not to stop the senseless wars and bailouts of mega-millionaires, but to cut 'entitlements'."

Deceptive Economic Statistics: While the economists lied the US economy died

August 17, 2010 at 18:08:41
opednews.com

For OpEdNews: Paul Craig Roberts - Writer

On August 17, Bloomberg reported a US government release that industrial production rose twice as much as forecast, climbing 1 percent. Bloomberg interpreted this to mean that "increased business investment is propelling the gains in manufacturing, which accounts for 11 percent of the world's largest economy."

The stock market rose.

Let's look at this through the lens of statistician John Williams of shadowstats.com. Williams reports that "the primary driver of a 1.0% monthly gain in seasonally-adjusted July industrial production" was "warped seasonal factors" caused by "the irregular patterns in U.S. auto production in the last two years." Industrial production "shrank by 1.0% before seasonal adjustments."

If the government and Bloomberg had announced that industrial production fell by 1.0% in July, would the stock market have risen 104 points on August 17?

Notice that Bloomberg reports that manufacturing accounts for 11 percent of the US economy. I remember when manufacturing accounted for 18% of the US economy. The decline of 39% is due to jobs offshoring.

Think about that. Wall Street and shareholders and executives of transnational corporations have made billions by moving 39% of US manufacturing offshore to boost the GDP and employment of foreign countries, such as China, while impoverishing their former American work force. Congress and the economics profession have cheered this on as "the New Economy."

Bought-and-paid-for-economists told us that "the new economy" would make us all rich, and so did the financial press. We were well rid, they claimed, of the "old" industries and manufactures, the departure of which destroyed the tax base of so many American cities and states and the livelihood of millions of Americans.

The bought-and-paid-for-economists got all the media forums for a decade. While they lied, the US economy died.

Now, back to statistical deception. On August 17, the census Bureau reported a small gain in July 2010 residential construction housing starts. More hope orchestrated. In fact, the "gain," as John Williams reports, was due to a large downward revision" in June's reporting. The reported July "gain" would "have been a contraction" without the downward revision in June's "gain."

So, the overestimate of June housing not only made June look good, but also the downward correction of the June number makes July look good, because starts rose above the corrected June number. The same manipulation is likely to happen again next month.

If the government will lie to you about Iraqi weapons of mass production, Iranian nukes, and 9/11, why won't they lie to you about the economy?

We now have an all-time high of Americans on food stamps, 40.8 million people, about 14% of the population. By next year the government estimates that food stamp dependency will rise to 43 million Americans. So last week Congress cut food stamp benefits. Let them eat cake.

Wherever one looks -- food stamps, home foreclosures, bankrupted states, mounting joblessness -- the message to long-suffering Americans from "their government" is the same: go eat cake, while we fight wars for Israel that enrich the military/security complex, and while we bail out banksters whose annual incomes are in the tens of millions of dollars and up.

It is impossible to get any truth out of the US government about anything. If private companies used US government accounting, the executives would be prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.

"Our government" is committed to fighting wars to enrich the military/security complex and Israel's territorial expansion at the expense of cuts in Social Security and Medicare. All most members of Congress, especially Republicans, want to do is to pay for the pointless wars by cutting Social Security and Medicare.

When they worry about the deficit, it is usually Social Security and Medicare -- so-called "entitlements" that are in the crosshairs.

You don't have to be smart to see that Wall Street's and the government's response to the amazing US budget deficit is not to stop the senseless wars and bailouts of mega-millionaires, but to cut "entitlements."

I will end this column on unemployment. "Our government" tells us that the unemployment rate is just under 10 percent, a figure that would have wrecked any post-Great Depression administration. But, again, "our government" is lying. The reported unemployment rate is just below 10% because the US government no longer, since the corrupt Clinton administration, counts Americans who have been unemployed for longer than one year. Once the unemployed hit one year and one day, they are dropped from the unemployment roles and no longer counted as unemployed.

Compare this fact with the number you read from the financial press. Right now, if measured according to the methodology of 1980, the US unemployment rate is about 22%. Thus, the reported rate of unemployment hides more than half of the unemployed.

And, in the August 2 New York Times,Secretary Treasury Tim Geithner welcomed us to "the recovery."

Utterly amazing.

Paul Krugman: "Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up... And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans."

August 15, 2010

Attacking Social Security

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Social Security turned 75 last week. It should have been a joyous occasion, a time to celebrate a program that has brought dignity and decency to the lives of older Americans.

But the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama’s deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age.

Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Instead, it’s about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.

About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.

But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.

Meanwhile, an aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that’s a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn’t consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts.

So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.

It would be easy to dismiss this bait-and-switch as obvious nonsense, except for one thing: many influential people — including Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president’s deficit commission — are peddling this nonsense.

And having invented a crisis, what do Social Security’s attackers want to do? They don’t propose cutting benefits to current retirees; invariably the plan is, instead, to cut benefits many years in the future. So think about it this way: In order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. O.K.

What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.

And neither wing of the anti-Social-Security coalition seems to know or care about the hardship its favorite proposals would cause.

The currently fashionable idea of raising the retirement age even more than it will rise under existing law — it has already gone from 65 to 66, it’s scheduled to rise to 67, but now some are proposing that it go to 70 — is usually justified with assertions that life expectancy has risen, so people can easily work later into life. But that’s only true for affluent, white-collar workers — the people who need Social Security least.

I’m not just talking about the fact that it’s a lot easier to imagine working until you’re 70 if you have a comfortable office job than if you’re engaged in manual labor. America is becoming an increasingly unequal society — and the growing disparities extend to matters of life and death. Life expectancy at age 65 has risen a lot at the top of the income distribution, but much less for lower-income workers. And remember, the retirement age is already scheduled to rise under current law.

So let’s beat back this unnecessary, unfair and — let’s not mince words — cruel attack on working Americans. Big cuts in Social Security should not be on the table.

George Soros slashes exposure to US equities

George Soros slashes exposure to US equities

George Soros has slashed the amount of money he is willing to gamble on the fortunes of the US stock market in the second quarter as market volatility increased.

By James Quinn
Published: 7:08PM BST 17 Aug 2010

The legendary investor's Soros Fund Management – which has approximately $25bn (£16bn) under management – reduced its equity investments by 42pc to $5.1bn by the end of June, down from $8.8bn at the end of March.

The asset allocation decisions were made during a period in which the Standard & Poor's 500 index – the broadest US equity index – fell 12pc.

The fact that Mr Soros – best known as the man reputed to have made $1bn by "breaking the Bank of England" during the 1992 fiscal crisis – has decided to make such a concerted shift out of equities will send a clear message to other investors.

Gone are Soros's investments in Petrobras, Brazil's oil giant, with investments in bellwether stocks such as Wal-Mart, JP Morgan Chase and Pfizer drastically reduced, cut by 99pc, 97pc and 95pc respectively.

Of those equities that do remain, the fund's holding in a gold exchange traded fund constitutes his largest investment, some 13pc of the equity portfolio, worth $638m.

Although neither Mr Soros or his fund typically do not explain their quarterly investment decisions, it is likely some of the money has been shifted into government bonds, as well as investing in commodities and other safe havens.

The quarterly report – filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission – details investments only in US-traded shares and related derivatives, and the fund does not have to detail overseas shares or cash or commodities held.

A spokesman for Mr Soros did not comment.

Obama lied about his swim in the Gulf and is criminally liable

Obama's Gulf Swim Was Fake

Posted: 2010/08/16
From: Mathaba

by Stephen Lendman

On August 15, AP reported that Obama gave his "personal assurances of (the) Gulf's safety," saying:

"Beaches all along the Gulf Coast are clean, they are safe, and they are open for business."

He lied.

The same day, Britain's government owned BBC reported:

"Barack Obama has taken a swim in the Gulf of Mexico (to) reassure Americans that the waters are safe despite the recent oil spill."

US corporate media reporters repeated the message, CNN's senior White House correspondent Ed Henry among them, saying "Obama takes (the) plunge, swims in the Gulf (to show it's safe and) open for business."

In fact, area businesses continue to be severely impacted, and the entire region is dangerously unsafe.

As for Obama's swim, on August 16, the London Independent reported that Obama and his daughter, Sasha, swam in a private Panama City Beach, FL beach off Alligator Point in St. Andrew Bay, not part of the Gulf.

Reporters were banned, no TV video permitted. "So....only the White House photographer was allowed to capture proceedings. The official picture was intended to provide evidence that the region's beaches are back to normal."

False. A dangerously toxic oil/dispersant brew contaminates much, perhaps the entire Gulf. It's poisoned and potentially lethal for decades, maybe generations. Nothing in it should be ingested. Millions in the region are at risk. No one should swim in coastal waters or eat any Gulf seafood. Responsible officials should ban it. Instead the all-clear's been given.

Obama, his officials, and BP executives are criminally liable. So are state governors, coastal mayors, and regional health authorities.

Area residents with children should leave. Tourists should avoid the region. A growing catastrophe will continue for decades, including a silent epidemic of cancers and other diseases, as well as lives and livelihoods lost.

That's the major media's unreported reality, worsening, not improving daily.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

A brief break from the unending politico-economic bad news: Two thumbs up for a truly uplifing movie, Avenue Montaigne!

We bought this 2007 film this summer on a 5-DVDs-for-30-euros sale at the Fnac in Paris. Although in French, it appears tailored for the American audience, being replete with the jacket description in English, previews of American films, and English subtitles set as the default choice.

From the back jacket of this DVD:
AVENUE MONTAIGNE centers around Jessica a beautiful young woman from the provinces who comes to Paris and lands a job waiting tables at a chic bistro on fabled Avenue Montaigne, the city's nexus for art, music, theater, and fashion. Jessica's customers include a popular TV actress who is courting a major Hollywood director for her first serious film role; a wealthy art collector who is about to liquidate a lifetime's worth of treasures at auction; an illustrious classical pianist who is at odds with his manager/wife as to where his career is headed. Precisely because Jessica doesn't know how celebrated these people are, her guileless and completely unintimidated engagement in their lives has a transforming effect on them -- and ultimately her.

Blogger's comment:
Although incidental to the plot, the film from time to time came back to a copy of a sculpture known as "Le Baiser" ("The Kiss") by Romanian sculptor Constantin Brancusi, which the art collector had in his collection. The most famous example of this Brancusi creation is found in Cimetiere Montparnasse in Paris (see pix below).

Michael Moore Comments on the Financial Condition of the New GM ...and why "We Have to Re-Engineer American Civilization."

MIKE & FRIEND'S BLOG

Michael Moore is an Academy-Award winning filmmaker and best-selling author

August 13th, 2010 2:10 PM

Profits Up at GM! And You're Still Unemployed

By Michael Moore

So General Motors is back to making billions in profit. And if the past is any guide, we know what that means: time for some layoffs!

Or maybe not. Back in the '80s and '90s, when GM was consistently posting giant profits, they were simultaneously firing tens of thousands of workers in my hometown of Flint and across Michigan. Right now it looks like the only person being canned is CEO Edward Whitacre. (Only last week Whitacre was saying he wasn't planning to leave anytime soon—kind of ironic that the former president of the Boy Scouts of America failed to Be Prepared.)

But if they're not laying people off yet, they're also not hiring.

During the first half of 2010, GM made $2.2 billion in profit, yet according to The Wall Street Journal, they've only added 2,000 jobs in all of North America, taking their workforce from 113,000 to 115,000.

And what's true for GM is true for the country. The government stepped in with trillions of dollars in cash and guarantees to keep Corporate America from collapsing due to its own stupidity, short-sightedness and greed.

And it worked—for Corporate America. You may not have noticed as you were being foreclosed on, but the profitability of the Fortune 500 is almost back to normal. It jumped to $391 billion in 2009, up 335 percent from 2008. And the 500 biggest non-financial corporations are now sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, more than at any time in the past 50 years. (That's what the business press always says—that they're "sitting" on it—although as far as I know this is not literally true.)

That's what we should really focus on when talking about GM and other companies who've taken the free handout. It's not about the continuous reshuffling of the white-guys-in-suits deck of cards. What does it mean that the new CEO of GM is Daniel F. Akerson, a managing director at the Carlyle Group? Probably that GM is about to be run by some real ballbusters who have no problem flaunting the law or basic American decency.

To understand what's happening, we have to focus on the bottom line, just like they do. And what the bottom line says is that the entire business world has figured out how to make huge buckets of money without hiring us to work for them. I'm not sure how in the long run this benefits these companies. Maybe the same robots who make most things now are also programmed to buy them?

But the upshot is this: We have to face the fact that most of America's CEOs don't want the economy to get "better." Because for them, it couldn't get better—they've got profit coming out their ears, while with 9.5 percent unemployment their entire workforce is too scared to ask for a 25 cent-an-hour raise. They'd be happy to have things stay just like they are now. Forever.

But as bad as the bad news is, the good news is better. Millions more people now realize that we need a new New Deal. We have to re-engineer American civilization, and it's going to take a lot of people.

Did you know Portugal now gets 45 percent of its electricity from renewable sources—up from 17 percent just five years ago? Or that Scientific American found we could eliminate all fossil fuel usage by 2030? Or that high altitude wind could by itself provide 100 times the energy now used by the entire world? And best of all, we can afford to make the change—we're rich! Remember that $1.8 trillion in our corporate bank accounts? Yet while the rest of the world is heading off to the future, we're just sitting here. The only thing that will work to get us there is what's worked before: just like we did in the '30s and '60s, we have to stop being scared of the top 1 percent, and make them scared of us. That's the only way they'll relax the death grip they have on this country long enough to let us save ourselves and them.

One thing is certain: Obama won't do this for us. Congress? Forget it.

If we want a life worth living for ourselves and our kids, we have to go get it ourselves. We can’t keep waiting for the cavalry to come. That’s because we’re the cavalry.

And from the top floor of the GM tower in downtown Detroit, they should hear our hoofprints a-comin'.

Ben Bernanke Then and Now: Paul Krugman recalls Benrnanke's stinging criticism of the Bank of Japan ten years ago for not taking forceful action to revive a deeply depressed economy and wonders why as head of the Fed he is not now taking his own advice, given that the U.S. is "in worse shape now than Japan was in 2000."

August 12, 2010

Paralysis at the Fed

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Ten years ago, one of America’s leading economists delivered a stinging critique of the Bank of Japan, Japan’s equivalent of the Federal Reserve, titled “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?” With only a few changes in wording, the critique applies to the Fed today.

At the time, the Bank of Japan faced a situation broadly similar to that facing the Fed now. The economy was deeply depressed and showed few signs of improvement, and one might have expected the bank to take forceful action. But short-term interest rates — the usual tool of monetary policy — were near zero and could go no lower. And the Bank of Japan used that fact as an excuse to do no more.

That was malfeasance, declared the eminent U.S. economist: “Far from being powerless, the Bank of Japan could achieve a great deal if it were willing to abandon its excessive caution and its defensive response to criticism.” He rebuked officials hiding “behind minor institutional or technical difficulties in order to avoid taking action.”

Who was that tough-talking economist? Ben Bernanke, now the chairman of the Federal Reserve. So why is the Bernanke Fed being just as passive now as the Bank of Japan was a decade ago?

Now, America’s current economic troubles aren’t exactly identical to those of Japan in 1999-2000: Japan was experiencing outright deflation, while we aren’t — yet. But inflation is well below the Fed’s target of around 2 percent, and it is continuing to slide. And Americans face a level of unemployment, and sheer human misery, far worse than anything Japan went through.

Yet the Fed is doing almost nothing to confront these troubles.

What could the Fed be doing? Back when, Mr. Bernanke suggested, among other things, that the Bank of Japan could get traction by buying large quantities of “nonstandard” assets — that is, assets other than the short-term government debt central banks normally hold. The Fed actually put that idea into practice during the most acute phase of the financial crisis, acquiring, in particular, large amounts of mortgage-backed securities. However, it stopped those purchases in March.

Since then, the economic news has grown steadily worse. And earlier this week, the Fed changed course — but barely. It now says that it will reinvest the proceeds from maturing securities in long-term government bonds. That’s a trivial change, basically the least the Fed could get away with without facing a firestorm of criticism — and far short of the major asset-purchase program the Fed should be undertaking.

Back in 2000, Mr. Bernanke also suggested that the Bank of Japan could move expectations by making announcements about its future policies. In particular, he argued that it could make private-sector borrowing more attractive by announcing that it would keep interest rates low until deflation had given way to 3 percent or 4 percent inflation — an idea originally suggested by yours truly. Since we are, if anything, in worse shape now than Japan was in 2000, an inflation target of at least 3 percent would very much be in America’s interest. But as chairman of the Fed, Mr. Bernanke has explicitly rejected any such move.

What’s going on here? Has Mr. Bernanke been intellectually assimilated by the Fed Borg? I prefer to believe that he’s being political, unwilling to engage in open confrontation with other Fed officials — especially those regional Fed presidents who fear inflation, even with deflation the clear and present danger, and are evidently unmoved by the plight of the unemployed.

And in fairness to Mr. Bernanke, discord among senior officials also makes it difficult for policy to change expectations: it would be hard to credibly commit to higher inflation if this commitment were constantly being undercut by speeches out of the Richmond or Dallas Feds. In fact, I’d argue that loose talk by some Fed officials is already having a negative economic impact. But while Mr. Bernanke doesn’t have the authority to stop that loose talk, he could make it clear that it doesn’t represent overall Fed policy.

Last, but not least, policy is suffering from an act of neglect by President Obama, who waited until his 16th month in office before offering a full slate of nominees to fill vacancies on the Federal Reserve Board. If he had filled those slots quickly — his nominees still aren’t in place — the Fed might be less passive.

But whatever the reasons, the fact is that the Fed — which is required by statute to promote “maximum employment” — isn’t doing its job. Instead, like the rest of Washington, it’s inventing reasons to dither in the face of mass unemployment. And while the Fed sits there in its self-inflicted paralysis, millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their homes and their hopes for the future. [emphasis added]

My blog yesterday treated civilian employment and the civilian labor force. Today Robert Reich hones in on employment in the OTHER force.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he wants to stop production of the C-17 cargo aircraft, because we already have enough of them. Fat chance the Congress will go along.

America’s Biggest Jobs Program — the U.S. Military

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

America’s biggest — and only major — jobs program is the U.S. military.

Over 1,400,000 Americans are now on active duty; another 833,000 are in the reserves, many full time. Another 1,600,000 Americans work in companies that supply the military with everything from weapons to utensils. (I’m not even including all the foreign contractors employing non-US citizens.)

If we didn’t have this giant military jobs program, the U.S. unemployment rate would be over 11.5 percent today instead of 9.5 percent.

And without our military jobs program personal incomes would be dropping faster. The Commerce Department reported Monday the only major metro areas where both net earnings and personal incomes rose last year were San Antonio, Texas, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. — because all three have high concentrations of military and federal jobs.

This isn’t an argument for more military spending. Just the opposite. Having a giant undercover military jobs program is an insane way to keep Americans employed. It creates jobs we don’t need but we keep anyway because there’s no honest alternative. We don’t have an overt jobs program based on what’s really needed.

For example, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Monday his plan to cut spending on military contractors by more than a quarter over three years, congressional leaders balked. Military contractors are major sources of jobs back in members’ states and districts. California’s Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, demanded that the move “not weaken the nation’s defense.” That’s congress-speak for “over my dead body.”

Gates simultaneously announced closing the Joint Force Command in Norfolk, Virginia, that employs 6,324 people and relies on 3,300 private contractors. This prompted Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to warn that the closure “would be a step backward.” Translated: “No chance in hell.”

Gates can’t even end useless weapons programs. That’s because they’re covert jobs programs that employ thousands.

He wants to stop production of the C-17 cargo jet he says is no longer needed. But it keeps 4,000 people working at Boeing’s Long Beach assembly plant and 30,000 others at Boeing suppliers strategically located in 40 states. So despite Gates’s protests the Senate has approved ten new orders.

That’s still not enough to keep all those C-17 workers employed, so the Pentagon and Boeing have been hunting for foreign purchasers. The Indian Air Force is now negotiating to buy ten, and talks are underway with several other nations, including Oman and Saudi Arabia.

Ever wonder why military equipment is one of America’s biggest exports? It’s our giant military jobs program in action.

Gates has also been trying to stop production of a duplicate engine for the F-35 joint Strike Fighter jet. He says it isn’t needed and doesn’t justify the $2.9 billion slated merely to develop it.

But the unnecessary duplicate engine would bring thousands of jobs to Indiana and Ohio. Cunningly, its potential manufacturers Rolls-Royce and General Electric created a media blitz (mostly aimed at Washington, D.C. where lawmakers wold see it) featuring an engine worker wearing a “Support Our Troops” T-shirt and arguing the duplicate engine will create 4,000 American jobs. Presto. Despite a veto threat from the White House, a House panel has just approved funding the duplicate.

By the way, Gates isn’t trying to cut the overall Pentagon budget. He just wants to trim certain programs to make room for more military spending with a higher priority.

The Pentagon’s budget — and its giant undercover jobs program — keeps expanding. The President has asked Congress to hike total defense spending next year 2.2 percent, to $708 billion. That’s 6.1 percent higher than peak defense spending during the Bush administration.

This sum doesn’t even include Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, nuclear weapons management, and intelligence. Add these, and next year’s national security budget totals about $950 billion.

That’s a major chunk of the entire federal budget. But most deficit hawks don’t dare cut it. National security is sacrosanct.

Yet what’s really sacrosanct is the giant jobs program that’s justified by national security. National security is a cover for job security.

This is nuts.

Wouldn’t it be better to have a jobs program that created things we really need — like light-rail trains, better school facilities, public parks, water and sewer systems, and non-carbon energy sources — than things we don’t, like obsolete weapons systems?

Historically some of America’s biggest jobs programs that were critical to the nation’s future have been justified by national defense, although they’ve borne almost no relation to it. The National Defense Education Act of the late 1950s trained a generation of math and science teachers. The National Defense Highway Act created millions of construction jobs turning the nation’s two-lane highways into four- and six-lane Interstates.

Maybe this is the way to convince Republicans and blue-dog Democrats to spend more federal dollars putting Americans back, and working on things we genuinely need: Call it the National Defense Full Employment Act.

---

Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, and his most recent book, Supercapitalism. His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

Graphic Views of the U.S. Unemployment Situation

The graph above was devised by me, using the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "Household Survey Data" through July 2010. The lower data points (squares) represent the total age-16-and-above civilian non-farm payroll employment, while the upper data (circles) represent the total civilian age-16-and-above labor force, defined as all those employed either full or part time plus those out of work who searched for jobs in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.  Thus, those "officially" regarded as unemployed are those lying between the circles and the squares (highlighted by the photograph).

The BLS also reports 2.6 million persons in the "marginally attached labor force," who wanted work and looked for a job in the past 12 months but did not search for one within the past 4 weeks. Clearly they belong above the circles in this graph.

You will notice that the labor force (circles) has tended to flatten out since early 2007 ...and also the fact that I have continued the "unemployed" photograph beyond 2007 as a sort of triangle sloping upward above the circles toward the upper-right corner.  Well, I selected the slope of this triangle to represent U.S. population growth, which is not precisely known but has been most commonly quoted as about 150,000 per month (the exact number I used, although Bob Herbert in his column that I reposted yesterday states "the labor force increases by roughly 150,000 to 200,000 people per month").  These numbers can be compared with the birth rates of those who turned 16 in the past 3 years, about 333,000 per month, and the overall U.S. death rate of about 250,000 per month, which is heavily weighted toward retired persons and thus would not diminish the labor force nearly as fast as the young persons augment it.  In any event, the average slope of the BLS-determined work force from 2001 to January 2007 corresponds to about 147,000 workers added to the labor force per month.

Subtraction of the 2.6 million "marginally attached labor force" from the top of the triangle at the right leaves an additional 3.8 million Americans likely wanting work but having totally given up for at least one year.  Adding the entire 6.4 million difference between the right-most circle and the top-right-most corner of my "triangle" to the 14.6 million Americans "officially" unemployed in July 2010 gives a more realistic figure of 21 million Americans out of work and a corresponding unemployment rate of 13%.

The video below shows the evolution of U.S. unemployment from January 2007 through September 2009 (the dark gray areas on the map represent 10.0% or higher unemployment).

Bob Herbert: "The U.S. will not remain a stable society if this great employment crisis is not addressed head-on — and soon. You cannot allow joblessness on this scale to fester. It’s wrong, and the blowback will be as destructive and intolerable as it is inevitable."

OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Horror Show

By BOB HERBERT
Published August 9, 2010


The employment situation in the United States is much worse than even the dismal numbers from last week’s jobless report would indicate. The nation is facing a full-blown employment crisis and policy makers are not responding with anything like the sense of urgency that is needed.

The employment data for July, released by the government on Friday, showed that private employers added just 71,000 jobs during the month and that the unemployment rate remained flat at 9.5 percent. But as bad as those numbers were, if you look beyond them you’ll see a horror show.

Government workers were walking the plank from coast to coast. About 143,000 temporary Census workers were let go, and another 48,000 government employees at the budget-strapped state and local levels lost their jobs. But the worst news, with the most ominous long-term implications, was that the reason the unemployment rate was not higher was because 181,000 workers left the labor force.

With many of them beaten down by the worst jobs situation since the Great Depression, they just stopped looking for work. And given the Alice-in-Wonderland way in which we compile our official jobless statistics, they are no longer counted as unemployed.

Charles McMillion, the president and chief economist of MBG Information Services in Washington, is an expert on employment and has been looking closely for years at the issue of labor force participation. “Over the past three months,” he said, “1,155,000 unemployed people dropped out of the active labor force and were not counted as unemployed. Even ignoring population growth, if these unemployed had not dropped out of the labor force, simple arithmetic shows that the official unemployment rate would have risen from 9.9 percent in April to 10.2 percent in July, rather than — as it has — fallen to 9.5 percent.”

Because of normal growth in the working-age population, the labor force increases by roughly 150,000 to 200,000 people per month. If those folks were factored in, said Mr. McMillion, “unemployment now would be even higher than 10.2 percent.”

We are not even beginning to cope with this crisis, which began long before the onset of the so-called Great Recession. The economy is showing absolutely no sign of countering the nation’s staggering jobs deficit.

“We have a large number of people who have just given up hope of finding a job,” said Mr. McMillion. He pointed out that there are record numbers — “I mean lights-out record numbers” — of long-term unemployed people who are still looking for jobs. Of the 14.6 million men and women officially counted as unemployed, nearly 45 percent have been out of work for six months or longer.

The Times’s Michael Luo wrote a moving article last week about the people who have started calling themselves the “99ers,” meaning they have been out of work for more than 99 weeks and thus have exhausted the absolute maximum in unemployment benefits. Nearly a million and a half people have been out of work for at least 99 weeks — and not all of them qualified for jobless benefits.

Said Mr. McMillion: “When you combine the long-term unemployed with those who are dropping out and those who are working part-time because they can’t find anything else, it is just far beyond anything we’ve seen in the job market since the 1930s.”

They may be thinking about this in Washington, but they sure aren’t doing much about it. The politicians’ approach to the jobs crisis has been like passing out umbrellas in a hurricane. Millions are suffering and the entire economy is being undermined, and what are they doing? They’re appropriating more and more money for warfare while schizophrenically babbling about balancing the budget.

At some point we’re going to have to claw our way out of this denial. With 14.6 million people officially jobless, and 5.9 million who have stopped looking but say they want a job, and 8.5 million who are working part time but would like to work full time, you end up with nearly 30 million Americans who cannot find the work they want and desperately need.

We’ve got more and more people in our working-age population and fewer and fewer jobs to go around. Mr. McMillion tells us that there are now 3.4 million fewer private-sector jobs in the U.S. than there were a decade ago. In the last 10 years, we’ve seen the worst job creation record since 1928 to 1938.

We’re not heading toward the danger zone. We’re there. The U.S. will not remain a stable society if this great employment crisis is not addressed head-on — and soon. You cannot allow joblessness on this scale to fester. It’s wrong, and the blowback will be as destructive and intolerable as it is inevitable.

Bomb the enemy "back into the stone age": Familiar military hubris befitting the Federal Government's evident intention to financially squeeze the 50 states back into the stone age.

Natalie Bartling stands beneath the streetlight she petitioned to have put on her residential street five years ago in the city of Colorado Springs.

August 8, 2010

America Goes Dark

By PAUL KRUGMAN

The lights are going out all over America — literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno.

Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel.

And a nation that once prized education — that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children — is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead.

We’re told that we have no choice, that basic government functions — essential services that have been provided for generations — are no longer affordable. And it’s true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn’t be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases.

And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn’t cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children.  [Blogger's emphasis]

But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and “centrist” Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade.

In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation’s foundations to crumble — literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education — they’re choosing the latter.

It’s a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run.

In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment.

It’s crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump.

That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we’re going into reverse.

But isn’t keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you’d notice. When we save a schoolteacher’s job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there’s a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle.

And what about the economy’s future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we’re going backward.

How did we get to this point? It’s the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can’t do anything right.

The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud — to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we’re seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.

So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we’ve taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere.

Questioning how the US can lock up more people per capita than any other country in the world and how California can rank 50th among the states in education spending while "we can afford to put people in prison for the rest of their lives for stealing socks."

Fast 4 Freedom

by Diane Lefer posted on Monday, 9 August 2010

Three Strikes and the Prison Industrial Complex

“We’re fasting for freedom,” proclaimed Geri Silva, “because we’re starving for justice.” Silva, founder of FACTS, Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes–the law that mandates life sentences for a third conviction, even if minor and nonviolent, stood on Spring Street Friday morning in front of the downtown Los Angeles offices of Governor Schwarzenegger, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and Assembly Speaker John Perez. About two dozen activists and onlookers gathered there in solidarity with inmates who were fasting in 33 California State prisons while coordinated protests occurred in front of State government offices in Fresno, Indio, Sacramento and San Francisco. With chants of “Prisons for profit, You know you gotta stop it!”, and personal testimonies from families and friends of the incarcerated, protestors sought to raise public–and State officeholder–awareness of the dysfunctional prison system and the impact of unrestrained prison spending on the State budget.

David Chavez of Critical Resistance, a prison abolition organization, questioned how the US can lock up more people per capita than any other country in the world and how California can rank 50th among the states in education spending while “we can afford to put people in prison for the rest of their lives for stealing socks.”

And while the notion of Three Strikes sounds as though it will be applied to violent criminals who are habitual offenders, committing crime after crime, mothers and wives of incarcerated men stepped forward to tell about the common practice by which district attorneys charge more than one strike for a single incident.

graduation not incarcerationAmy York, social worker and sentencing advocate, spoke on behalf of incarcerated youth, many of them first-time offenders sentenced to life in prison for gun crimes in which no one died and in which they did not pull the trigger. “They have no adult rights,” she pointed out. “They are not considered adults for any purpose other than sentencing.” She told of Steven Menendez, arrested at age 14. “He’ll turn 18 on Sunday. He has grown up in the youth facility, a model prisoner.” He should be going to college, she said. Instead, he’ll now be transferred to an adult prison to serve life behind bars. “It breaks my heart that he’s not being given a second chance.”

California taxpayers, we learned, pay $7,500 for a young person in school. We pay about $50,000 a year for each prisoner. While, as representatives of CURB — Californians United for a Responsible Budget — pointed out, the State legislature, without taxpayer input or approval, passed AB900 to fund new prison construction with $7.3 billion in lease revenue bonds and $350 million from the State’s general fund. But if California complied with the federal order to decrease the prison population by 44,000 inmates instead of funding more prison beds, the $2.5 billion in savings could instead fund programs needed to restore quality of life in California.

AB900 was a huge victory for the prison-industrial complex. “People are making a profit out of putting people in cages,” said Geri Silva. Some of the money is earmarked for special prison facilities for elderly, disabled, and terminally ill inmates who could easily be released with no danger to the public. After debt service on the bonds, CURB estimates the cost to Californians at $15 billion at a time of high unemployment and when necessary services–including the education, job training, and mental health support that could keep people out of trouble–are being cut to the bone. One mother, who acknowledged her son had done wrong, said he’d stupidly believed he could help the family by committing a robbery after both he and she lost their jobs due to the economic downturn and were left without income.

It is hard to envision prison population reduction, however, as long as extreme sentences remain the norm and the Board of Prison Terms has an automatic default position in 90-95% of cases when it comes to parole: Denied. Of the lucky few who get approved by the Board, close to 100% have had the decision overruled by Governor Schwarzenegger. And because the Board requires expressions of remorse, there’s no possibility of parole for people who have been wrongfully convicted and maintain their innocence.

“Ten percent of the prison population,” says Silva, citing Gloria Killian as her source. Killian served 16 years in prison before she was exonerated after being convicted of murder in a case notorious for perjured testimony and prosecutorial misconduct. Now as executive director of the Action Committee for Women in Prison she continues the work she began behind bars, winning freedom for women prisoners.

Larry Vanderberg is one of the wrongfully convicted, says his wife, Teri. During a vacation in Palm Springs, in full view of her and of a number of children, Larry–a special ed teacher–tossed the daughter of a family friend into the swimming pool. Later, the child told her mother she thought he’d touched her “pipi” when he lifted her. Teri Vanderberg says the overzealous D.A.’s office in Riverside proceeded to have the little girl and other children questioned, using the kind of coaching and witch hunt tactics discredited by the travesties of justice in the infamous McMartin preschool case and the Bakersfield satanic abuse cases.

Now fathers tell her they know better than to spend any time around their daughters’ friends. In a society where we know children need male role models and father figures, she fears we are encouraging dads to remain aloof and uninvolved. ”I wasn’t an activist before this,” she explains. “We were just a middle class family raising kids in Temecula Valley. Now I’ve met people all around the country who are going through the same thing. As long as any child can say ‘I’ve been touched,’ this could happen to anyone. But you have no idea until it happens to you. It’s like being hit by a truck.”

In prison her husband met another teacher whose conviction was overturned when it became clear that the little girl who’d agreed with prosecutors that he’d touched her vagina had believed “vagina” was a fancy grownup word for “elbow.” By then, the man had served five years in prison and his family was destitute. They lost their home and he is still fighting to regain his teaching credential.

As for Larry Vanderberg, even if you choose to believe he is guilty as charged, that his hand slid between the little girl’s legs as he lifted her into the air, does it make sense that convicted rapists serve eight years and go home when Vanderberg got a life sentence?

Teri Vanderberg’s father has cashed in the equity in his house and her church is holding fundraisers to help pay legal bills for her husband’s appeal. In the meantime, in prison he was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer. In spite of his wife’s constant, unwavering advocacy, Larry Vanderberg still waits for medically necessary follow-up care while his youngest daughter–now a teenager–writes to him, talks to him on the phone, and makes public statements on his behalf but because he’s not allowed any contact with minors, she is barred by the State from visiting him.

“The people who run the State are far removed from the pain and suffering,” said Silva. “The only pain they have is when they get annoyed because here we are again.”

And Molly Bell, describing herself as “straight out of Compton,” explained why she was present and fasting even though “it’s not my husband. It’s not my son. But somebody has to stand in the gap for those who cannot stand here.”

Diane Lefer

Diane Lefer’s new book, The Blessing Next to the Wound, has just been published. Co-authored with Hector Aristizábal, it is a true story of surviving torture and civil war and seeking change (including change in how we treat our youth) through action.

Federal Government Refuses to Bailout States: Supreme Idiocy or Deliberate Malevolence?

For parents who could not work from home or enlist the help of grandparents, a host of Furlough Friday day care programs sprang up. This one, run in Honolulu by Hawaii Kids Count, cost $25 a day; many parents said that they did not know what they would have done without it. Amanda McCann, the organization's owner, spoke to the children.
Credit: Marco Garcia for The New York Times

The motto of C-Tran, the public bus system in Clayton County, Ga., just south of Atlanta, was "Tomorrow's Transportation Today." But when this C-Tran bus pulled up at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on March 31, there was no tomorrow: to save money, the county shut the entire bus system down at midnight. Some 8,400 daily riders were left without local bus service.
Credit: Kendrick Brinson for The New York Times

On the last day of C-Tran service, Constance Glenn, 22, wondered what would become of her. Ms. Glenn, who does not own a car, caught a 5:26 bus each morning to get to the airport by 7, in time for her shift at McDonald's. "With the bus service getting cut off,'' she said, "I'm out of a job.''
Credit: Kendrick Brinson for The New York Times

August 6, 2010

Governments Go to Extremes as the Downturn Wears On

By MICHAEL COOPER

Plenty of businesses and governments furloughed workers this year, but Hawaii went further — it furloughed its schoolchildren. Public schools across the state closed on 17 Fridays during the past school year to save money, giving students the shortest academic year in the nation and sending working parents scrambling to find care for them.

Many transit systems have cut service to make ends meet, but Clayton County, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta, decided to cut all the way, and shut down its entire public bus system. Its last buses ran on March 31, stranding 8,400 daily riders.

Even public safety has not been immune to the budget ax. In Colorado Springs, the downturn will be remembered, quite literally, as a dark age: the city switched off a third of its 24,512 streetlights to save money on electricity, while trimming its police force and auctioning off its police helicopters.

Faced with the steepest and longest decline in tax collections on record, state, county and city governments have resorted to major life-changing cuts in core services like education, transportation and public safety that, not too long ago, would have been unthinkable. And services in many areas could get worse before they get better.

The length of the downturn means that many places have used up all their budget gimmicks, cut services, raised taxes, spent their stimulus money — and remained in the hole. Even with Congress set to approve extra stimulus aid, some analysts say states are still facing huge shortfalls.

Cities and states are notorious for crying wolf around budget time, and for issuing dire warnings about draconian cuts that never seem to materialize. But the Great Recession has been different. Around the country, there have already been drastic cuts in core services like education, transportation and public safety, and there are likely to be more before the downturn ends. The cuts that have disrupted lives in Hawaii, Georgia and Colorado may be extreme, but they reflect the kinds of cuts being made nationwide, disrupting the lives of millions of people in ways large and small.

EDUCATION: HAWAII FURLOUGHS ITS CHILDREN

MILILANI, Hawaii — It was a Friday, and Maria Marte, an administrator for an online college that caters to members of the military, should have been at her office at a nearby Army hospital. Her daughters, Nira, 11, and Sonia, 9, should have been in school.

Instead, Ms. Marte was sitting with a laptop in the dining room of her home in this neatly manicured suburb of Honolulu. “Did you already send your registration in?” she asked a client on the phone, trying to speak above the peals of laughter coming from the backyard, where the girls were having a water-balloon fight with some friends.

It was the 17th, and last, Furlough Friday of the year, the end of a cost-cutting experiment that closed schools across the state, outraging parents and throwing a wrench into that most delicate of balances for families with children: the weekly routine

“I have to pay attention to the customers, and make sure that I’m understanding what they need,” said Ms. Marte, 37, whose husband, Odalis, an Army major, had been deployed in Afghanistan for nearly a year. Then she nodded at the window, toward the girls. “But at the same time, I have to make sure that they’re not killing each other.”

For those 17 Fridays, parents reluctantly worked from home or used up vacation and sick days. Others enlisted the help of grandparents. Many paid $25 to $50 per child each week for the new child care programs that had sprung up.

Children, meanwhile, adjusted to a new reality of T.G.I.T. Getting them up for school on Mondays grew harder. Fridays were filled with trips to pools and beaches, hours of television and Wii, long stretches alone for older children, and, occasionally, successful attempts to get them to do their homework early.

But if three-day-weekends in Hawaii sound appealing in theory, many children said that they wound up missing school.

“I’m really not a big fan of furloughs,” said Nira Marte, a fifth grader, explaining that she missed the time with her friends and her teacher.

Four-day weeks have been used by a small number of rural school districts in the United States, especially since the oil shortage of the 1970s. During the current downturn, their ranks have swelled to more than 120 districts, and more are weighing the change.

But Hawaii is an extreme case. It shut schools not only in rural areas but also in high-rise neighborhoods in Honolulu. Suffering from steep declines in tourism and construction, and owing billions of dollars to a pension system that has only 68.8 percent of the money it needs to cover its promises to state workers, Hawaii instituted the furloughs even after getting $110 million in stimulus money for schools.

Unlike most districts with four-day weeks, Hawaii did not lengthen the hours of its remaining school days: its 163-day school year was the shortest in the nation.

The furloughs were originally supposed to last two years, but the outcry was so great — some parents were arrested staging sit-ins at the office of Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican — that a deal was hammered out to restore the days next year.

On the last furlough day, Ms. Marte toggled back and forth between her girls — making them pizza, taking them to swim practice — and a stream of e-mails and calls. At one point, a soldier on the mainland was interrupted when his baby started bawling.

“Don’t worry, that’s fine,” Ms. Marte reassured him. “I’m in the same boat.”

TRANSPORTATION: A COUNTY SHUTS ITS BUS SYSTEM

RIVERDALE, Ga. — Kelly Smith was reading a library copy of “The Politician,” the tell-all about John Edwards, as his public bus rumbled through a suburb of Atlanta. It was heading toward the airport, where he could switch to a train to his job downtown, in the finance department of the Atlanta Public Schools system. But his mind was drifting.

It was March 31, the last day of public bus service. Clayton County had decided to balance its budget by shutting down C-Tran, the bus system, stranding 8,400 daily riders. Mr. Smith, 45, like two-thirds of the riders, had no car. He needed a plan.

“I think that what they’re doing is criminal,” Mr. Smith said as his 504 bus filled up. “I’ll figure something out, but I see a lot of people here who don’t have an out.”

The next morning, this is what he had figured out: a state-run express bus stopped around three miles from his apartment in Riverdale. So Mr. Smith rose at 5, walked past the defunct C-Tran bus stop just outside his apartment complex and hiked the miles of dark, deserted streets, many of which had no sidewalks.

“If I get hit by a car, it’s my fault,” he said as he crossed a highway. “Who wants to start their day off like this? This is why I don’t get up and jog.”

Mr. Smith was determined to get to the job he had landed in November, and to get there on time. “I was out of work for two and half years, with the economic crisis,” he said. “So the last thing I want to do is walk away from a job.”

Around the country, public transportation has taken a beating during the downturn. Fares typically cover less than half the cost of each ride, and the state and local taxes that most systems depend on have been plummeting.

In most places, that has meant longer waits for more crowded, dirtier and more expensive trains and buses. But it meant the end of the line in Clayton County, a struggling suburb south of Atlanta where “Gone With the Wind” was set and which is now home to most of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

The county — hit hard by the subprime mortgage crisis and the wave of foreclosures that followed — decided it could no longer afford spending roughly $8 million a year on its bus system, which started in 2001.

It hoped that some other entity — like the state — would pick up the cost.

If the threat to shut the system down was a game of chicken, no one blinked.

Now all five bus routes are gone, and riders are trying to adjust.

Jennifer McDaniel, a hostess at a Chili’s in the airport, was forced to spend her tax refund, and take out a big loan, to buy a car. Jaime Tejada, 36, a Delta flight attendant, wondered why transit was so much better in the countries he flies to.

And Tierra Clark, 19, who studies dental hygiene and works five nights a week at the Au Bon Pain at the airport, was left with an unwanted new expense. “I’ll have to call a taxi from now on — $13.75 every night,”
Ms. Clark said, as she rode the very last C-Tran bus home.

Now there is talk of levying a new sales tax so the county can join the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, which it voted not to join when it was created nearly four decades ago. That could get the buses up and running again.

Even if that happens, though, it could be years off — too late for Mr. Smith. After spending a carless Easter vacation trying to figure out a better way to get to work, or even to get his groceries, he ended up quitting his first job in two and a half years and moving just outside Dallas, where his girlfriend had landed a job with a bank.

“A lot of people are leaving Riverdale,” he said.

PUBLIC SAFETY: LIGHTS OUT IN COLORADO SPRINGS

COLORADO SPRINGS — It was when the street lights went out, Diane Cunningham said, that the trouble started.

Her tires were slashed, she said. Her car was broken into. Strange men showed up on her porch. Her neighborhood had grown deserted at night, ever since four streetlights in a row were put out on Airport Road, the street outside her mobile home park.

That is why Ms. Cunningham, 41, and her son Jonathan, 22, were carrying a flat-screen television out of their mobile home on a recent afternoon. “I’m going to pawn this,” Ms. Cunningham said, “to get a shotgun.”
It is impossible to say whether the darkness had contributed to any of the events that frightened the Cunninghams. But ever since Colorado Springs shut off a third of its 24,512 streetlights this winter to save $1.2 million on electricity — while reducing the size of its police force — many residents have said that they feel less safe.

A few miles down Airport Road a 62-year-old man, Esteban Garcia, was shot to death in April when he was robbed outside his family’s taqueria and grocery in a parking lot that had lost the illumination of its nearest streetlight. Gaspar Martinez, a neighboring shopkeeper, said that he believed the lack of the light was partly to blame.

“You figure the robbers think that if it’s dark, it’s the best time to hit,” said Mr. Martinez, 34, whose store, Ruskin Liquor, is in the same small strip mall. Mr. Martinez said that he put more lights up outside his store after the shooting.

The police, who arrested several suspects, said that there was no indication that the doused light had played a role in the crime — or, indeed, in any crimes in Colorado Springs, which remains safer than most cities of its size. But this might be a case, they said, where perception is as important as reality.

“All the sociologists have said this for years: what matters to people isn’t really the number of reported crimes, it’s their perception of safety,” said the city’s police chief, Richard W. Myers. “And let’s say we don’t see any bump in crime — that would be a good thing. But people don’t feel as safe. They’re already telling us that, even if the numbers don’t bear that out. So do we have a problem? I think so.”

Chief Myers said he worried that if law-abiding citizens stopped going out at night or visiting parks, the city’s deserted open spaces could attract more criminals.

One of most influential policing concepts in recent years has been the “broken windows” theory, which holds that addressing minor crimes and signs of disorder can head off bigger problems down the road. Colorado Springs is taking a different tack.

To close a budget gap — the city’s voters, many of whom favor smaller government, turned down a property tax increase in November, and a taxpayer’s bill of rights makes it hard for city officials to raise taxes — Colorado Springs has stopped collecting trash in its parks, stopped watering many medians on its roads and reduced its police force.

The sprawling city of roughly 400,000 at the foot of Pike’s Peak — which covers 194 square miles — made national news when it auctioned off its police helicopters. But less-heralded police cuts could have more impact: the force, which had 687 officers two years ago, is down to 643 and dropping. At any given time, the department estimates that there is a 23 percent chance that all units will be busy.

So it has reduced the number of detectives who investigate property crimes, cut the number of officers assigned to the schools and eliminated units that tracked juvenile offenders and caught fugitives. Officers no longer respond to the scene of most burglaries, at least if they are not in progress.

At the same time, the city joined others — from Fitchburg, Mass., to Santa Rosa, Calif., and began turning off streetlights. Several recent studies have suggested that streetlights help reduce crime — something residents here say is obvious.

Natalie Bartling, a new mother, could not believe it when the light outside her home was shut off in April. Ms. Bartling, 38, had successfully lobbied for the light five years ago after a wave of vandalism and petty thefts hit her middle-class block. So this time she called daily until the city agreed to turn it back on.

“When it got shut off, it was like missing something,” she said on a recent night, standing under its glow. “Part of your life.”