Nick Schwellenbach and Carol Leonnig at The Washington Post write:

An eight-year-old policy that forbids government contractors and employees to engage in sex trafficking in war zones has proved almost impossible to enforce amid indications that such activities are occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The policy, instituted eight years ago by President George W. Bush and still in effect today, calls for the prosecution of government employees and contractors who engage in trafficking and the suspension or disqualification of companies whose workers do. Bush's get-tough language also threatened criminal prosecutions for solicitation of prostitutes because many of the women are forced into the work.

Agencies say the cases are difficult to pursue because of limited investigative resources and jurisdictional questions. But some experts and lawmakers believe that authorities are turning a blind eye to evidence of such crimes.

"Zero prosecutions," said Martina Vandenberg, a lawyer and former Human Rights Watch investigator, "suggests zero effort to enforce the law." ...

In Afghanistan, evidence of trafficking came to light when 90 Chinese women were freed after brothel raids in 2006 and 2007. The women told the International Organization on Migration that they had been taken to Afghanistan for sexual exploitation, according to a 2008 report.

Nigina Mamadjonova, head of IOM's counter-human trafficking unit in Afghanistan, said the women alleged in interviews that their clients were mostly Western men.

• • • • •

In case you missed it earlier, here's a diary worth reading: Congressional Budget Office Says Corn-Based Ethanol a Waste of Taxpayer Subsidy.

Nick Schwellenbach and Carol Leonnig at The Washington Post write:

An eight-year-old policy that forbids government contractors and employees to engage in sex trafficking in war zones has proved almost impossible to enforce amid indications that such activities are occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The policy, instituted eight years ago by President George W. Bush and still in effect today, calls for the prosecution of government employees and contractors who engage in trafficking and the suspension or disqualification of companies whose workers do. Bush's get-tough language also threatened criminal prosecutions for solicitation of prostitutes because many of the women are forced into the work.

Agencies say the cases are difficult to pursue because of limited investigative resources and jurisdictional questions. But some experts and lawmakers believe that authorities are turning a blind eye to evidence of such crimes.

"Zero prosecutions," said Martina Vandenberg, a lawyer and former Human Rights Watch investigator, "suggests zero effort to enforce the law." ...

In Afghanistan, evidence of trafficking came to light when 90 Chinese women were freed after brothel raids in 2006 and 2007. The women told the International Organization on Migration that they had been taken to Afghanistan for sexual exploitation, according to a 2008 report.

Nigina Mamadjonova, head of IOM's counter-human trafficking unit in Afghanistan, said the women alleged in interviews that their clients were mostly Western men.

• • • • •

In case you missed it earlier, here's a diary worth reading: Congressional Budget Office Says Corn-Based Ethanol a Waste of Taxpayer Subsidy.

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are Unitary Moonbat, grog, claude, mem from somerville, shayera, and alfonso nevarez, with sunspark says running the edit machine because she had so much fun yesterday that they just couldn't drag her away.

It's July 18. On this day in 1936, the first Oscar Meyer Wienermobile was introduced and Generalisimo Francisco Franco led the initial forays of the Spanish Civil War. One can only speculate on whether these events might have been connected.

Here are tonight's hidden gems uncovered by the intrepid explorers of the DR:

In the Stuff About Money category:

• Second-time diarist mbez paints a grim picture of The View from Long-Term Unemployment Land. (claude)
• With implications for today, KAMuston brings transparency to the depths of the Great Depression and the kinds of policy prescriptions that finally led to recovery in LET'S MAKE A DEAL. (Alfonso Nevarez)
• jamess just got out of one of "those" meetings, and has some thoughts on Doing More with Less. (Unitary Moonbat)

In the Politics on Both Sides of the Pond category:

• Tom Borthwick explores political terminology and ambiguity of meaning in A Brief Essay on Partisanship and Language. (mem from somerville)
• Like being slapped in the face by John Boehner himself, Marianna76 finds herself Tango'd from the Tanning Bed as the British National Health Service is cut and outsourced and warns that similar politics are at play on this side of the pond. (Alfonso Nevarez)

In the Interesting Miscellany of the Day category:

• Ojibwa relates stories from the life of a Native American story-teller whose work was long under-appreciated in American Indian Biography: D'Arcy McNickle. (mem from somerville)
• With extensive sourcing, Garrett describes the tortures found in A Battlefield of the Mind, and notes that you are in it. (mem from somerville)
• scorpiorising looks at public testimony about The Downplaying of Dispersants and how questions are being raised about its long-term toxicity. (grog)

And finally, A Few Thoughts On Loss:

• Memories of Marcus: A sad Saturday in Berkeley casts shadows on Jane Stillwater's walk with her granddaughter. (claude)
• annetteboardman muses upon the Lost music of her childhood sounds and what we no longer hear. (claude)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: July 17, 2010 and Week's High Impact Diaries: July 10-16, 2010

BeninSC has today's Top Comments.

Don't hesitate even for a microsecond to promote your favorite diaries (even your own) in the Open Thread. That's what Open Threads are for. (At least this one.)

This just in: Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are Unitary Moonbat, grog, claude, mem from somerville, shayera, and alfonso nevarez, with sunspark says running the edit machine because she had so much fun yesterday that they just couldn't drag her away.

It's July 18. On this day in 1936, the first Oscar Meyer Wienermobile was introduced and Generalisimo Francisco Franco led the initial forays of the Spanish Civil War. One can only speculate on whether these events might have been connected.

Here are tonight's hidden gems uncovered by the intrepid explorers of the DR:

In the Stuff About Money category:

• Second-time diarist mbez paints a grim picture of The View from Long-Term Unemployment Land. (claude)
• With implications for today, KAMuston brings transparency to the depths of the Great Depression and the kinds of policy prescriptions that finally led to recovery in LET'S MAKE A DEAL. (Alfonso Nevarez)
• jamess just got out of one of "those" meetings, and has some thoughts on Doing More with Less. (Unitary Moonbat)

In the Politics on Both Sides of the Pond category:

• Tom Borthwick explores political terminology and ambiguity of meaning in A Brief Essay on Partisanship and Language. (mem from somerville)
• Like being slapped in the face by John Boehner himself, Marianna76 finds herself Tango'd from the Tanning Bed as the British National Health Service is cut and outsourced and warns that similar politics are at play on this side of the pond. (Alfonso Nevarez)

In the Interesting Miscellany of the Day category:

• Ojibwa relates stories from the life of a Native American story-teller whose work was long under-appreciated in American Indian Biography: D'Arcy McNickle. (mem from somerville)
• With extensive sourcing, Garrett describes the tortures found in A Battlefield of the Mind, and notes that you are in it. (mem from somerville)
• scorpiorising looks at public testimony about The Downplaying of Dispersants and how questions are being raised about its long-term toxicity. (grog)

And finally, A Few Thoughts On Loss:

• Memories of Marcus: A sad Saturday in Berkeley casts shadows on Jane Stillwater's walk with her granddaughter. (claude)
• annetteboardman muses upon the Lost music of her childhood sounds and what we no longer hear. (claude)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: July 17, 2010 and Week's High Impact Diaries: July 10-16, 2010

BeninSC has today's Top Comments.

Don't hesitate even for a microsecond to promote your favorite diaries (even your own) in the Open Thread. That's what Open Threads are for. (At least this one.)

This just in: Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

It did not get a great deal of attention outside of that wonderful community of people known as election junkies, but a critical milestone in the 2010 electoral cycle came and went sans fanfare on Thursday. On that date, the deadline passed for candidates for the upcoming midterm elections to file their second quarter fundraising reports with the Federal Election Commission.

Interest groups, party committees, and habitual donors to campaigns will be more likely to use this particular FEC report to base their decisions for targeting the recipients of their largesse than any other.

With virtually no exceptions, we have reached the point where it is late enough in the cycle for all the candidates to finally be formally declared. So, at this stage, the players in the battle for the balance of Congressional power are known.

Furthermore, this is the last real opportunity for campaigns to demonstrate their financial viability for the home stretch. The next quarterly reports, after all, are not due until well into the Fall. And while campaigns are required to file pre-primary reports, the majority of states have now done so.

So...formally speaking, this was a big freaking deal.

This cycle, especially, provided a lot of intrigue as the numbers came in. Two competing impulses were in competition with one another: the nearly unanimous speculation that this will be a year where the terrain favors Republicans would likely bolster GOP warchests to the detriment of the Democrats. That said, the Democrats still control electoral majorities, and their benefactors would very much like to keep it that way.

How did the numbers shake down? Arguably, a little bit better for Democrats than might be thought.

To simplify matters, let's lay down a few parameters by which this data was gathered. To save about 40 man-hours of poreing over FEC reports, the analysis was limited to just those districts that are on Charlie Cook's competitive race chart. For big Stu Rothenberg fans, no disrespect was intended to the other preeminent horse race analyst. Cook's list was selected simply because it was a bit longer.

This left a total of 118 races. One can certainly quibble with Cook's ratings a bit (I think there are a dozen GOP-held seats not on the list that will ultimately be more competitive than New Jersey 06, where I'd expect Frank Pallone to crush teabagger Anna Little), but they are a pretty fair assessment of the state of play, more or less.

So, in short, don't argue with me if you think that Illinois 14 isn't a tossup.

The compilation of the most recent fundraising totals were for the three-month (or quarterly) totals. This meant, in some cases, adding together two or three separate reports in those states that had primaries and runoffs. So, if the figures cited here are a little different than something you have read, that might explain why. Also provided in the data is the total amount raised to date, and the cash-on-hand figures.

Self-funded campaign figures were treated like any other contributions, but an annotation was made in the list of totals (after the jump) for those candidacies where 40% or more of the total cash was self-funded.

With that out of the way, let's look at a summary of what the numbers told us. Those are interested in the numbers can find them all thrown together in a bunch after the jump.

REPUBLICAN-HELD COMPETITIVE SEATS
Sadly, of course, there aren't very many of these in this particular cycle, according to most campaign analysts. Two cycles of big gains in the House have winnowed down the target list considerably. Given that Democrats had gained north of 50 seats in a four-year span, it really shouldn't be a surprise to see that this cycle is likely to be a defensive one.

That said, the Democrats appear to be well suited to play at least a little bit of offense during the 2010 midterms.

Cook identifies 18 GOP-held seats as competitive. Democrats are financially competitive in several of these seats. Indeed, a fairly good baseline of the health of the incumbent party is enjoying a two-to-one cash on hand edge or better (as you'll see, the Democrats do extraordinarily well by this metric). The Republicans have to be at least a little concerned that Democrats seem to be close to financial parity in these 18 seats. Indeed, the GOP enjoys that doubled-up CoH edge in just 5 of 18 districts (28%). This equals, for what it is worth, the number of these GOP competitive seats where the Democrat enjoys a CoH advantage over the incumbent party. This does include three open seats (DE-AL, IL-10, and MI-03), but it also includes a pair of incumbents (Lungren, Reichert) whose challengers are sitting on more cash than they are.

A couple of these competitive districts have been a bit of a disappointment (CA-44, FL-12, and LA-02 had a trio of Democratic challengers who couldn't break into the six-digit range for the quarter), but in the overall analysis, the Democrats will certainly have the resources to flip at least a few of these seats in November.

DEMOCRATIC-HELD COMPETITIVE SEATS: TIER ONE
Cook identifies a total of 34 seats as either "toss-up" or leaning in the direction of the GOP. Of those 6 seats ruled as leaning in the GOP's directions, there is little in the figures that should counter that perception. Of the six, only IN-08 stands out as a possible overstatement of GOP fortunes. Democratic legislator Trent Van Haaften leads Republican nominee Larry Bucshon in quarterly total and cash-on-hand. An argument could also be made, perhaps, for Stephene Moore, who just got started in KS-03 and outraised leading Republican Kevin Yoder for the quarter. He has pretty big leads in total amount raised and CoH, however, and she probably needs a much bigger quarterly edge to bridge the gap in the next few months. The other four races, however (AR-02, LA-03, NY-29, TN-06) look awfully pessimistic for the Democrats, both from a terrain standpoint and a financial standpoint.

The so-called "toss-up" races, on the other hand, look a bit better for the Democrats. Of the 28 races placed in this tier, Democrats are holding onto 2-to-1 CoH leads in the majority of them (61%). This would seem to be a very clear sign that the Democrats have not been caught flat-footed by the terrain of this cycle, and have been building a financial seawall that they hope can withstand what may well become a wave election.

Those cash edges, incidentally, should only be enhanced in several races (FL-08, MD-01, MI-01, MI-07, NH-01, TN-08, WA-03) where potentially ugly primaries loom for the GOP. Conversely, there is only one Democratic primary that could get expensive and acrimonious (NH-02).

If there is cause for a modicum of concern for Democrats, however, it becomes apparent in the quarterly totals, where the two parties split evenly (14-to-14) on who raised the most cash in Q2. This could be something that accelerates as we head out of the primary season, because many of the GOPers in question emerged from competitive primaries where the expectation is that the party will now coalesce around just one person.

Highlights in this group for the Democrats include several vulnerable incumbents (Pomeroy, Perriello, and Edwards) who clearly recognized their predicament and raised north of $600K for the quarter. A couple of disappointments among the numbers, as well: Larry Kissell has never been a strong fundraiser, and this quarter ($104K) was no exception. Meanwhile, it might be best to reserve judgement on the man who is supposed to hold MI-01 for the Democrats (Gary McDowell). McDowell raised just $137K for the quarter. Backers of the northern Michigan Democrat, however, would certainly argue that he did not have the full quarter, having only leapt into the race in May.

DEMOCRATIC-HELD COMPETITIVE SEATS: TIER TWO
For the second tier of Democratic seats to watch this cycle, let's look at the 66 seats that Cook rates as either "Leans Democratic" or "Likely Democratic". Here, the financial edge for Democrats is even more magnified. Democrats enjoy a 2-to-1 CoH edge or greater in a whopping 57 of 66 races (86%). They also beat their Republican opponents in the quarterly amount raised in the overwhelming majority of cases: Democrats had Q2 leads in 45 races to just 21 for their Republican challengers.

Indeed, the disparities in some of the "Leans Democratic" races would seem to call GOP competitiveness in those races into question, even in spite of the GOP-friendly terrain of the districts involved. It is hard to imagine, for example, that when either Sydney Hay or Paul Gosar emerge from their late primary in AZ-01, that they will have the resources to challenge Democratic freshman Ann Kirkpatrick in a way that would put the Democrat's hold on the seat in any major peril. The same is true in PA-10, where despite the pro-McCain flavor of the district, it is tough to imagine Republican Tom Marino making a charge with a warchest that currently consists of only $11,000 on hand.

There are some seats, conversely, that could easily move to toss-up based on the economic parameters of the race. One such race is the battle in northeastern Ohio's 16th district, where Jim Renacci had a monster second quarter, and has actually pulled ahead of Democratic freshman John Boccieri in total funds raised. Also, Tim Bishop (NY-01) and Betty Sutton (OH-13) have more favorable ground politically, but both must deal with self-funding candidates whose checkbooks are almost comical (Tom Ganley in Ohio has already cut checks to himself for over $6 million).

The factor of primary elections here also works in the favor of the Democrats. While there is only one Democratic primary that could really deplete resources (the open-seat battle in Massachusetts' 10th district), there are more than a dozen upcoming primaries on the Republican side of the ballot that could merit that description.

Of course, as I noted on Sunday Kos last week, money is not everything, especially in so-called wave elections. The comparatively decent financial position of many embattled Democratic candidates ought to be heartening, but ought not be interpreted as a sign that all is well, and that little change in the balance of power is forthcoming. All the campaign dollars in the world won't mean a whole heckuva lot if an incumbent party doesn't utilize them well. How the Democrats in question expend those resources (i.e. how well they can inform voters of their successes and crystallize the choice facing to voters in November) is going to determine the fate of Democratic chances in November to a greater extent than merely how much in the way of resources said Democrats will have to expend.

It did not get a great deal of attention outside of that wonderful community of people known as election junkies, but a critical milestone in the 2010 electoral cycle came and went sans fanfare on Thursday. On that date, the deadline passed for candidates for the upcoming midterm elections to file their second quarter fundraising reports with the Federal Election Commission.

Interest groups, party committees, and habitual donors to campaigns will be more likely to use this particular FEC report to base their decisions for targeting the recipients of their largesse than any other.

With virtually no exceptions, we have reached the point where it is late enough in the cycle for all the candidates to finally be formally declared. So, at this stage, the players in the battle for the balance of Congressional power are known.

Furthermore, this is the last real opportunity for campaigns to demonstrate their financial viability for the home stretch. The next quarterly reports, after all, are not due until well into the Fall. And while campaigns are required to file pre-primary reports, the majority of states have now done so.

So...formally speaking, this was a big freaking deal.

This cycle, especially, provided a lot of intrigue as the numbers came in. Two competing impulses were in competition with one another: the nearly unanimous speculation that this will be a year where the terrain favors Republicans would likely bolster GOP warchests to the detriment of the Democrats. That said, the Democrats still control electoral majorities, and their benefactors would very much like to keep it that way.

How did the numbers shake down? Arguably, a little bit better for Democrats than might be thought.

To simplify matters, let's lay down a few parameters by which this data was gathered. To save about 40 man-hours of poreing over FEC reports, the analysis was limited to just those districts that are on Charlie Cook's competitive race chart. For big Stu Rothenberg fans, no disrespect was intended to the other preeminent horse race analyst. Cook's list was selected simply because it was a bit longer.

This left a total of 118 races. One can certainly quibble with Cook's ratings a bit (I think there are a dozen GOP-held seats not on the list that will ultimately be more competitive than New Jersey 06, where I'd expect Frank Pallone to crush teabagger Anna Little), but they are a pretty fair assessment of the state of play, more or less.

So, in short, don't argue with me if you think that Illinois 14 isn't a tossup.

The compilation of the most recent fundraising totals were for the three-month (or quarterly) totals. This meant, in some cases, adding together two or three separate reports in those states that had primaries and runoffs. So, if the figures cited here are a little different than something you have read, that might explain why. Also provided in the data is the total amount raised to date, and the cash-on-hand figures.

Self-funded campaign figures were treated like any other contributions, but an annotation was made in the list of totals (after the jump) for those candidacies where 40% or more of the total cash was self-funded.

With that out of the way, let's look at a summary of what the numbers told us. Those are interested in the numbers can find them all thrown together in a bunch after the jump.

REPUBLICAN-HELD COMPETITIVE SEATS
Sadly, of course, there aren't very many of these in this particular cycle, according to most campaign analysts. Two cycles of big gains in the House have winnowed down the target list considerably. Given that Democrats had gained north of 50 seats in a four-year span, it really shouldn't be a surprise to see that this cycle is likely to be a defensive one.

That said, the Democrats appear to be well suited to play at least a little bit of offense during the 2010 midterms.

Cook identifies 18 GOP-held seats as competitive. Democrats are financially competitive in several of these seats. Indeed, a fairly good baseline of the health of the incumbent party is enjoying a two-to-one cash on hand edge or better (as you'll see, the Democrats do extraordinarily well by this metric). The Republicans have to be at least a little concerned that Democrats seem to be close to financial parity in these 18 seats. Indeed, the GOP enjoys that doubled-up CoH edge in just 5 of 18 districts (28%). This equals, for what it is worth, the number of these GOP competitive seats where the Democrat enjoys a CoH advantage over the incumbent party. This does include three open seats (DE-AL, IL-10, and MI-03), but it also includes a pair of incumbents (Lungren, Reichert) whose challengers are sitting on more cash than they are.

A couple of these competitive districts have been a bit of a disappointment (CA-44, FL-12, and LA-02 had a trio of Democratic challengers who couldn't break into the six-digit range for the quarter), but in the overall analysis, the Democrats will certainly have the resources to flip at least a few of these seats in November.

DEMOCRATIC-HELD COMPETITIVE SEATS: TIER ONE
Cook identifies a total of 34 seats as either "toss-up" or leaning in the direction of the GOP. Of those 6 seats ruled as leaning in the GOP's directions, there is little in the figures that should counter that perception. Of the six, only IN-08 stands out as a possible overstatement of GOP fortunes. Democratic legislator Trent Van Haaften leads Republican nominee Larry Bucshon in quarterly total and cash-on-hand. An argument could also be made, perhaps, for Stephene Moore, who just got started in KS-03 and outraised leading Republican Kevin Yoder for the quarter. He has pretty big leads in total amount raised and CoH, however, and she probably needs a much bigger quarterly edge to bridge the gap in the next few months. The other four races, however (AR-02, LA-03, NY-29, TN-06) look awfully pessimistic for the Democrats, both from a terrain standpoint and a financial standpoint.

The so-called "toss-up" races, on the other hand, look a bit better for the Democrats. Of the 28 races placed in this tier, Democrats are holding onto 2-to-1 CoH leads in the majority of them (61%). This would seem to be a very clear sign that the Democrats have not been caught flat-footed by the terrain of this cycle, and have been building a financial seawall that they hope can withstand what may well become a wave election.

Those cash edges, incidentally, should only be enhanced in several races (FL-08, MD-01, MI-01, MI-07, NH-01, TN-08, WA-03) where potentially ugly primaries loom for the GOP. Conversely, there is only one Democratic primary that could get expensive and acrimonious (NH-02).

If there is cause for a modicum of concern for Democrats, however, it becomes apparent in the quarterly totals, where the two parties split evenly (14-to-14) on who raised the most cash in Q2. This could be something that accelerates as we head out of the primary season, because many of the GOPers in question emerged from competitive primaries where the expectation is that the party will now coalesce around just one person.

Highlights in this group for the Democrats include several vulnerable incumbents (Pomeroy, Perriello, and Edwards) who clearly recognized their predicament and raised north of $600K for the quarter. A couple of disappointments among the numbers, as well: Larry Kissell has never been a strong fundraiser, and this quarter ($104K) was no exception. Meanwhile, it might be best to reserve judgement on the man who is supposed to hold MI-01 for the Democrats (Gary McDowell). McDowell raised just $137K for the quarter. Backers of the northern Michigan Democrat, however, would certainly argue that he did not have the full quarter, having only leapt into the race in May.

DEMOCRATIC-HELD COMPETITIVE SEATS: TIER TWO
For the second tier of Democratic seats to watch this cycle, let's look at the 66 seats that Cook rates as either "Leans Democratic" or "Likely Democratic". Here, the financial edge for Democrats is even more magnified. Democrats enjoy a 2-to-1 CoH edge or greater in a whopping 57 of 66 races (86%). They also beat their Republican opponents in the quarterly amount raised in the overwhelming majority of cases: Democrats had Q2 leads in 45 races to just 21 for their Republican challengers.

Indeed, the disparities in some of the "Leans Democratic" races would seem to call GOP competitiveness in those races into question, even in spite of the GOP-friendly terrain of the districts involved. It is hard to imagine, for example, that when either Sydney Hay or Paul Gosar emerge from their late primary in AZ-01, that they will have the resources to challenge Democratic freshman Ann Kirkpatrick in a way that would put the Democrat's hold on the seat in any major peril. The same is true in PA-10, where despite the pro-McCain flavor of the district, it is tough to imagine Republican Tom Marino making a charge with a warchest that currently consists of only $11,000 on hand.

There are some seats, conversely, that could easily move to toss-up based on the economic parameters of the race. One such race is the battle in northeastern Ohio's 16th district, where Jim Renacci had a monster second quarter, and has actually pulled ahead of Democratic freshman John Boccieri in total funds raised. Also, Tim Bishop (NY-01) and Betty Sutton (OH-13) have more favorable ground politically, but both must deal with self-funding candidates whose checkbooks are almost comical (Tom Ganley in Ohio has already cut checks to himself for over $6 million).

The factor of primary elections here also works in the favor of the Democrats. While there is only one Democratic primary that could really deplete resources (the open-seat battle in Massachusetts' 10th district), there are more than a dozen upcoming primaries on the Republican side of the ballot that could merit that description.

Of course, as I noted on Sunday Kos last week, money is not everything, especially in so-called wave elections. The comparatively decent financial position of many embattled Democratic candidates ought to be heartening, but ought not be interpreted as a sign that all is well, and that little change in the balance of power is forthcoming. All the campaign dollars in the world won't mean a whole heckuva lot if an incumbent party doesn't utilize them well. How the Democrats in question expend those resources (i.e. how well they can inform voters of their successes and crystallize the choice facing to voters in November) is going to determine the fate of Democratic chances in November to a greater extent than merely how much in the way of resources said Democrats will have to expend.

Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income. After that, the share going to the richest 1 percent steadily declined. New Deal reforms, followed by World War II, the GI Bill and the Great Society expanded the circle of prosperity. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America's total annual income. But after that, inequality began to widen again, and income reconcentrated at the top. By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928—with 23.5 percent of the total.
   -- Robert Reich in Unjust Spoils, The Nation, July 19, 2010

In a nation where revenue-strapped county governments are now grinding up paved roads and spreading gravel in the place of asphalt because they can no longer afford maintenance, and states like California are pondering the deep-sixing of adult education programs even though the less-educated populace suffers most from both chronic and acute economic problems, it's not impolite to tell the undiluted truth.

And the truth is that, despite sweetheart settlements with the likes of Goldman-Sachs, the United States is plagued by corporadoes whose premises should be surrounded, Michael Moore-style, with yellow police tape for class war-crimes.

Unfortunately, it's impolitic to tell the truth of class warfare when Glenn Beck draws blackboard arrows to prove Democrats are National Socialists and other hate-ragers spread the meme of ObaMao, the black-red-and-yellow peril wrapped up in a single soundbite. Intone the words "ruling class," and you're automatically a commie.

The most unfortunate consequence of the sinking of John Edwards's political career is that his powerful narrative about "Two Americas" got submerged along with it. In fact, just as the now nearly abandoned phrase "third world" didn't account for grimmer conditions in a fourth and even fifth world of impoverished nations, "Two Americas" also doesn't quite cover the reality of the economic inequality that has been worsening in the United States. The terminology nonetheless resonated. If only it could be revived without the taint of being connected to you-know-who.

But never mind. Skip the soundbites. The discussion, a nuanced, long-term, no-nonsense, deeply imagined, unclichéd, vision-driven discussion, is what matters now. Turning what emerges from this conversation into campaign themes comes later.

On that score, The Nation's recent six-author collection on inequality in America provides a good beginning - only a beginning - for a comprehensive debate to and fro about inequality, and, most importantly, what to do about it. Happily, Garrett, a seven-year veteran at Daily Kos, has used the Reich piece to kick off a series on inequality on Thursday evenings. If only we could accompany that with a weekly broadcast-and-streaming roundtable on MSNBC and NBC. Rachel Maddow could moderate, poke and provoke these authors and others with her trademarked brilliance. Then the impact of inequality might begin to make some inroads in the public consciousness. A pipe-dream, I know.

For now, the echo-chamber will have to do. To begin, look at a few visuals from the report of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Income Gaps Between Very Rich And Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show [pdf]:

Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation — an increase in income of $973,100 per household — compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth (see Figure 1).

If all groups’ after-tax incomes had grown at the same percentage rate over the 1979-2007 period, middle-income households would have received an additional $13,042 in 2007 and families in the bottom fifth would have received an additional $6,010.

In 2007, the average household in the top 1 percent had an income of $1.3 million, up $88,800 just from the prior year; this $88,800 gain is well above the total 2007 income of the average middle-income household ($55,300).

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (via Business Insider):

But income is less than half the picture. What's more telling is wealth. Using the word that the right wing always speaks with horror when it applies to rank-and-file Americans, wealth has been heavily redistributed upward in the past 31 years.

That's where we are. Dean Baker explains how we got there and offers The Right Prescription for an Ailing Economy:

rising inequality is at the center of the current economic crisis. And since that increase in inequality was not a natural process but the result of conscious policy, it can be reversed. Some of the remedies are well-known. Restoring some discipline to CEO pay would be a great first step. One way would be to change the rules on corporate governance and require that compensation packages be approved by stockholders, where only directly cast votes count.

A small tax on financial speculation would go a long way toward moderating the multimillion-dollar salaries on Wall Street. The tax rates being discussed in Congress would raise trading costs only back to the level of the late 1980s or early '90s, but they would take a huge bite out of profits from the short-term trading at which the Wall Street crew excels.

Trade and immigration policy have been structured to put non-college-educated workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world, thereby putting downward pressure on their wages. We can instead restructure trade and immigration policy so as to subject highly paid professionals (doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc.) to the full force of international competition. This will help to bring down the pay of those in the top 2 to 3 percent of wage distribution. It will also raise real wages for the rest of the workforce by lowering the price of the goods and services produced by these professionals.

Finally, unions have long been a major force in reducing inequality. Whatever can be done to protect the right to organize and allow workers the option of joining unions will help to reduce inequality.

It is not difficult to develop policies to reduce the inequality that has given us a crisis-prone economy. The problem is getting the political will.

And that's the continuing fly in our ointment. Even if Baker's and Reich's and other of The Nation's authors are right about their competing prescriptions - all in all, quite modest prescriptions - there is not yet enough political will to transform them from wishes into reality.

The destruction of the middle class has not been the product of one party's machinations. One connived, the other - or rather a portion of it - acquiesced as it leaned ever more rightward. The current economic situation - the acute one in which corporate profits and cash hoarding stand side-by-side with intolerable odds for job seekers as well as the chronic one we see in these measures of inequality - didn't start yesterday. And neither of them can be instantly rolled back.

Moving down that path will require progressives within the Democratic Party (and those who work with it because no other reasonable choice capable of winning high public office exists) to learn how better to influence the party's economic direction with an effective use of honey and vinegar. Emphasis on the word effective. So far, despite a few victories in the past 19 months - some good, some modest, some arguable - progressives are lagging in that influence. We are good at passing out blame for the situation but carefully avoid mirrors in the process.

Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income. After that, the share going to the richest 1 percent steadily declined. New Deal reforms, followed by World War II, the GI Bill and the Great Society expanded the circle of prosperity. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America's total annual income. But after that, inequality began to widen again, and income reconcentrated at the top. By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928—with 23.5 percent of the total.
   -- Robert Reich in Unjust Spoils, The Nation, July 19, 2010

In a nation where revenue-strapped county governments are now grinding up paved roads and spreading gravel in the place of asphalt because they can no longer afford maintenance, and states like California are pondering the deep-sixing of adult education programs even though the less-educated populace suffers most from both chronic and acute economic problems, it's not impolite to tell the undiluted truth.

And the truth is that, despite sweetheart settlements with the likes of Goldman-Sachs, the United States is plagued by corporadoes whose premises should be surrounded, Michael Moore-style, with yellow police tape for class war-crimes.

Unfortunately, it's impolitic to tell the truth of class warfare when Glenn Beck draws blackboard arrows to prove Democrats are National Socialists and other hate-ragers spread the meme of ObaMao, the black-red-and-yellow peril wrapped up in a single soundbite. Intone the words "ruling class," and you're automatically a commie.

The most unfortunate consequence of the sinking of John Edwards's political career is that his powerful narrative about "Two Americas" got submerged along with it. In fact, just as the now nearly abandoned phrase "third world" didn't account for grimmer conditions in a fourth and even fifth world of impoverished nations, "Two Americas" also doesn't quite cover the reality of the economic inequality that has been worsening in the United States. The terminology nonetheless resonated. If only it could be revived without the taint of being connected to you-know-who.

But never mind. Skip the soundbites. The discussion, a nuanced, long-term, no-nonsense, deeply imagined, unclichéd, vision-driven discussion, is what matters now. Turning what emerges from this conversation into campaign themes comes later.

On that score, The Nation's recent six-author collection on inequality in America provide a good beginning - only a beginning - for a comprehensive debate to and fro about inequality, and, most importantly, what to do about it. Happily, Garrett, a seven-year veteran at Daily Kos, has used the Reich piece to kick off a series on inequality on Thursday evenings. If only we could accompany that with a weekly broadcast-and-streaming roundtable on MSNBC and NBC. Rachel Maddow could moderate, poke and provoke these authors and others with her trademarked brilliance. Then the impact of inequality might begin to make some inroads in the public consciousness. A pipe-dream, I know.

For now, the echo-chamber will have to do. To begin, look at a few visuals from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities report Income Gaps Between Very Rich And Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show [pdf]:

Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation — an increase in income of $973,100 per household — compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth (see Figure 1).

If all groups’ after-tax incomes had grown at the same percentage rate over the 1979-2007 period, middle-income households would have received an additional $13,042 in 2007 and families in the bottom fifth would have received an additional $6,010.

In 2007, the average household in the top 1 percent had an income of $1.3 million, up $88,800 just from the prior year; this $88,800 gain is well above the total 2007 income of the average middle-income household ($55,300).

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (via Business Insider):

But income is less than half the picture. What's more telling is wealth. Using the word that the right wing always speaks with horror when it applies to rank-and-file Americans, wealth has been heavily redistributed upward in the past 31 years.

That's where we are. Dean Baker explains how we got there and offers The Right Prescription for an Ailing Economy:

rising inequality is at the center of the current economic crisis. And since that increase in inequality was not a natural process but the result of conscious policy, it can be reversed. Some of the remedies are well-known. Restoring some discipline to CEO pay would be a great first step. One way would be to change the rules on corporate governance and require that compensation packages be approved by stockholders, where only directly cast votes count.

A small tax on financial speculation would go a long way toward moderating the multimillion-dollar salaries on Wall Street. The tax rates being discussed in Congress would raise trading costs only back to the level of the late 1980s or early '90s, but they would take a huge bite out of profits from the short-term trading at which the Wall Street crew excels.

Trade and immigration policy have been structured to put non-college-educated workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world, thereby putting downward pressure on their wages. We can instead restructure trade and immigration policy so as to subject highly paid professionals (doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc.) to the full force of international competition. This will help to bring down the pay of those in the top 2 to 3 percent of wage distribution. It will also raise real wages for the rest of the workforce by lowering the price of the goods and services produced by these professionals.

Finally, unions have long been a major force in reducing inequality. Whatever can be done to protect the right to organize and allow workers the option of joining unions will help to reduce inequality.

It is not difficult to develop policies to reduce the inequality that has given us a crisis-prone economy. The problem is getting the political will.

And that's the continuing fly in our ointment. Even if Baker's and Reich's and other of The Nation's authors are right about their competing prescriptions, quite modest prescriptions, there is not yet enough political will to transform them from wishes into reality.

The destruction of the middle class has not been the product of one party's machinations. One connived, the other - or rather a portion of it - acquiesced as it leaned ever more rightward. The current economic situation - the acute one in which corporate profits and cash hoarding stands side-by-side with intolerable odds for job seekers as well as the chronic one we see in these measures of inequality - didn't start yesterday. And neither of them can be instantly rolled back.

Moving down that path will require that progressives within the Democratic Party - and those who work with it because no other reasonable choice capable of winning high public office exists - to learn how better to influence the party's economic direction with an effective use of honey and vinegar. Emphasis on the word effective. So far, despite a few victories in the past 19 months - some good, some modest, some arguable - progressives are lagging in that influence. We are good at passing out blame for the situation but carefully avoid mirrors in the process.

With Republicans opposing President Obama's attempts at least temporarily to halt deepwater drilling, the political play seems obvious: The more people understand the magnitude of the BP disaster, the more they will back the President, which is why Glenn Greenwald's well-researched post, from July 5, was so baffling and infuriating:

Last week, I interviewed Mother Jones' Mac McClelland, who has been covering the BP oil spill in the Gulf since the first day it happened.  She detailed how local police and federal officials work with BP to harass, impede, interrogate and even detain journalists who are covering the impact of the spill and the clean-up efforts.

Greenwald referred to this Newsweek article, from May:

As BP makes its latest attempt to plug its gushing oil well, news photographers are complaining that their efforts to document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf of Mexico are being thwarted by local and federal officials -- working with BP -- who are blocking access to the sites where the effects of the spill are most visible. More than a month into the disaster, a host of anecdotal evidence is emerging from reporters, photographers, and TV crews in which BP and Coast Guard officials explicitly target members of the media, restricting and denying them access to oil-covered beaches, staging areas for clean-up efforts, and even flyovers.

And he updated with an article about the efforts the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security are making to prevent journalists from committing acts of journalism at spill sites. According to Dan Froomkin, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is now doing its part:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is hoarding vast amounts of raw data that independent marine researchers say could help both the public and scientists better understand the extent of the damage being caused by the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

In most cases, NOAA insists on putting the data through a ponderous, many-weeks-long vetting process before making it public.

In other cases, NOAA actually intended to keep the data secret indefinitely. But officials told the Huffington Post on Tuesday that they have now decided to release it -- though when remains unclear.

BP, incidentally, gets to see all this data right away.

Scientists are being denied access, but BP isn't. The people who might help alleviate the damage are being denied access, but the people who caused the damage aren't. And this has been a problem at least since May. It seems we have a serious transparency problem, which makes no sense from a scientific and environmental standpoint, and also makes no sense from a political standpoint. What purpose is served by not allowing scientists to learn about what's happening? What purpose is served by not allowing the public to know what's happening?

A late June Pew Poll found that the public has soured on new offshore oil drilling:

The survey finds further evidence that the disaster has undermined public support for increased offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. waters. Just 44% favor increased offshore drilling, down 10 points since early May and 19 points since February. A majority (52%) now opposes more offshore drilling.

Nearly seven-in-ten Democrats (69%) and 51% of independents oppose increased offshore drilling; in February, majorities in both groups favored more offshore drilling. By contrast, most Republicans (63%) continue to favor expanded drilling in U.S. waters, but support has slipped from earlier this year (74% in February).

And Josh Nelson noted the political implications of a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:

One of the topics they included in this question was offshore drilling. Specifically, they asked how voters felt about candidates who ‘Favor continuing oil drilling off the U.S. coast.’ Notice that they did not ask about candidates who favor increased drilling, they asked about candidates who favor continuing drilling. The results are astounding: 48% of voters are either very uncomfortable or have reservations about Congressional candidates who ‘favor continuing’ offshore drilling. Just 41% are comfortable or enthusiastic about candidates taking that position

The public opposes new offshore drilling, the voters are uncomfortable with candidates who merely support continuing offshore drilling, and the Coast Guard, DHS, and the NOAA are preventing both scientists and the public from having access to information that could further solidify these opinions, not to mention possibly help solve the multitude of problems.

Why?

Does the Obama Administration really not want people to know the full facts about what is happening in the Gulf?

Why?

With Republicans opposing President Obama's attempts at least temporarily to halt deepwater drilling, the political play seems obvious: The more people understand the magnitude of the BP disaster, the more they will back the President, which is why Glenn Greenwald's well-researched post, from July 5, was so baffling and infuriating:

Last week, I interviewed Mother Jones' Mac McClelland, who has been covering the BP oil spill in the Gulf since the first day it happened.  She detailed how local police and federal officials work with BP to harass, impede, interrogate and even detain journalists who are covering the impact of the spill and the clean-up efforts.

Greenwald referred to this Newsweek article, from May:

As BP makes its latest attempt to plug its gushing oil well, news photographers are complaining that their efforts to document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf of Mexico are being thwarted by local and federal officials -- working with BP -- who are blocking access to the sites where the effects of the spill are most visible. More than a month into the disaster, a host of anecdotal evidence is emerging from reporters, photographers, and TV crews in which BP and Coast Guard officials explicitly target members of the media, restricting and denying them access to oil-covered beaches, staging areas for clean-up efforts, and even flyovers.

And he updated with an article about the efforts the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security are making to prevent journalists from committing acts of journalism at spill sites. According to Dan Froomkin, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is now doing its part:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is hoarding vast amounts of raw data that independent marine researchers say could help both the public and scientists better understand the extent of the damage being caused by the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

In most cases, NOAA insists on putting the data through a ponderous, many-weeks-long vetting process before making it public.

In other cases, NOAA actually intended to keep the data secret indefinitely. But officials told the Huffington Post on Tuesday that they have now decided to release it -- though when remains unclear.

BP, incidentally, gets to see all this data right away.

Scientists are being denied access, but BP isn't. The people who might help alleviate the damage are being denied access, but the people who caused the damage aren't. And this has been a problem at least since May. It seems we have a serious transparency problem, which makes no sense from a scientific and environmental standpoint, and also makes no sense from a political standpoint. What purpose is served by not allowing scientists to learn about what's happening? What purpose is served by not allowing the public to know what's happening?

A late June Pew Poll found that the public has soured on new offshore oil drilling:

The survey finds further evidence that the disaster has undermined public support for increased offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. waters. Just 44% favor increased offshore drilling, down 10 points since early May and 19 points since February. A majority (52%) now opposes more offshore drilling.

Nearly seven-in-ten Democrats (69%) and 51% of independents oppose increased offshore drilling; in February, majorities in both groups favored more offshore drilling. By contrast, most Republicans (63%) continue to favor expanded drilling in U.S. waters, but support has slipped from earlier this year (74% in February).

And Josh Nelson noted the political implications of a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:

One of the topics they included in this question was offshore drilling. Specifically, they asked how voters felt about candidates who ‘Favor continuing oil drilling off the U.S. coast.’ Notice that they did not ask about candidates who favor increased drilling, they asked about candidates who favor continuing drilling. The results are astounding: 48% of voters are either very uncomfortable or have reservations about Congressional candidates who ‘favor continuing’ offshore drilling. Just 41% are comfortable or enthusiastic about candidates taking that position

The public opposes new offshore drilling, the voters are uncomfortable with candidates who merely support continuing offshore drilling, and the Coast Guard, DHS, and the NOAA are preventing both scientists and the public from having access to information that could further solidify these opinions, not to mention possibly help solve the multitude of problems.

Why?

Does the Obama Administration really not want people to know the full facts about what is happening in the Gulf?

Why?