posted on August 21, 2003 04:49:48 AM new
STATE BUDGET DEFICITS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 ARE HUGE AND GROWING
By Iris J. Lav and Nicholas Johnson
PDF of this report
Additional Analyses
States are facing budget deficits in the range of $70 billion to $85 billion for state fiscal year 2004, which begins in most states July 1, 2003. The deficits represent between 14.5 percent and 18 percent of all state expenditures.
These new deficits are on top of the $50 billion in deficits that states closed when they enacted their fiscal year 2003 budgets. The new deficits for fiscal year 2004 are also on top of at least $17.5 billion in additional deficits that have opened up in 2003 budgets since those budgets were enacted.[1] As governors prepare their 2004 budgets and legislatures meet in early 2003, states will be faced with closing both the newly emerging gaps for the 2003 budget year and the huge new deficits for 2004.
The current state deficits are deeper than they have been any time in the last half-century. These projected deficits are at least twice as deep, for example, as the deficits states experienced in the early 1990s.[2]
Virtually all states have balanced budget requirements, so they must take actions to close these deficits. This means that states will be forced to use some combination of cuts in programs and revenue increases to close gaps that on average represent at least one dollar out of every eight dollars of expenditures in their budgets. If the deficits are closer to the upper-end $85 billion estimate, states will have to find a way to close gaps that on average equal more than one dollar in every six they spend. Moreover, some states are facing much larger deficits that amount to as much as a quarter or more of their budgets; in these states, even sharp cuts in programs and substantial tax increases may not be sufficient to close the gaps fully.
Given the magnitude of the deficits, state actions are highly likely to cut basic services such as health care and education and/or impose new tax burdens on low- and middle-income families. Such actions already are being taken throughout the country, as states slash health insurance programs, cut deeply into budgets for elementary and secondary education and child care, and force double-digit tuition increases at state colleges and universities.
The federal government can take action to help states avoid these severe cutbacks by providing fiscal relief to states. This would not only protect vital services from being cut and ameliorate the extent to which additional burdens will fall on low- and middle-income families, but also would be one of the most effective steps the federal government could take to stimulate the economy.
The Budget Gaps for Fiscal Year 2004
In some states formal estimates of fiscal year 2004 budget deficits have already been made, often in conjunction with release of the governor’s budget. In other states, this will not happen until February or March. Nevertheless, most states have at least working estimates of the gap that must be closed. The Center has compiled these working estimates from a variety of sources for 44 states, including governor’s budgets, statements of government officials, information from nonprofit organizations that work on budget issues, and press reports. While these estimates are subject to change, they provide the best available information on the magnitude of the problems states are facing for the upcoming fiscal year. In the 44 states for which some information is available, the anticipated fiscal year 2004 deficits are likely to fall somewhere between $70 billion and $85 billion. (See table.) These 44 states account for 96 percent of the general fund spending of all of the states.
State Fiscal Recovery Lags Economic Recovery
It is not unusual for state fiscal conditions to continue to deteriorate in the period after an economic recovery has begun. State fiscal recovery typically lags economic recovery by 12 to 18 months. For example, in the early 1990s, the recession ended in March 1991. Nevertheless, state deficits were larger in fiscal year 1992, when they totaled 6.5 percent of revenues, than in 1991, when they equaled 6.2 percent of revenues. In this recovery, it is unclear when to consider the 12 to 18 month clock as beginning to run, since the plummeting of capital gains income has played a substantial role in the decline in state revenues and the stock market has not yet recovered much.
[ edited by bigcitycollectables on Aug 21, 2003 06:24 AM ]
posted on August 21, 2003 05:00:08 AM new
bigC - you should start your own website news reports like drudge. I think you have a talent for this kind of thing.
posted on August 22, 2003 02:18:14 PM new
from usnews.com:
Friday, August 22, 2003
Straight talk or nothing for CNN's Dobbs
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark was a long-time CNN military analyst but there's one cable network host he didn't impress: Lou Dobbs.
Clark was a guest on Dobb's business show during the Iraq war and the host felt the former NATO boss seemed to push his own political agenda rather than provide the straight military skinny on the Pentagon plan, reports our Mark Mazzetti. The result: Dobbs, who hosts "Lou Dobbs Tonight," told a conference of reporters and military brass last week that he barred Clark from his show for the remainder of the war.
posted on August 22, 2003 02:32:36 PM new
From USATODAY.com in their [nation] section.
4/24/2003 11:33 PM Updated 4/24/2003 11:33 PM
RELATED STORIES
Budget problems
States, localities spending hits high Budgets tight, but spending seldom reduced
States' budget gaps for January, April
State budgets tight, but actual spending is seldom reduced
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Minnesota has a $4.2 billion budget shortfall. Sort of.
The state Legislature planned to increase spending 14% over the next two years. But revenue is forecast to rise only 6%. The difference: $4.2 billion.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a first-term Democrat, has angered his party by refusing to consider tax hikes. Instead, he wants to increase spending just 4% ? or $1.4 billion over two years.
"I don't know many Americans who are enjoying a 14% increase in their paychecks," Pawlenty said. "Neither should we. I'm not cutting the budget one dime. State government has to learn to live within its means."
The National Conference of State Legislatures said Thursday that states must close $75 billion in budget gaps in the next 15 months.
But the NCSL's report tells just part of the story. It examines only "general funds," which account for about half of state spending.
Other categories of state spending have grown more rapidly. These funds generally include taxes, fees and lottery proceeds that are dedicated to specific purposes such as education and roads. They also include the fastest growing source of state revenue: federal grants for Medicaid ? the health care plan for the poor ? and other programs.
The NCSL measures only how states are doing compared with their original spending forecasts. Actual spending is seldom cut from year to year.
"It's true that a budget shortfall does not mean spending will be cut," said Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst for NCSL. "But it does mean that budgets will not grow to the extent that they otherwise would."
During the mid-to-late 1990s, the booming economy allowed states to greatly increase spending. The increases were so large they more than made up for slow growth earlier in the decade.
"States as a whole increased spending quite significantly [during the 1990s] – by 28 percent, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. Put differently, state government per person increased by more than a quarter," said Don Boyd, fiscal chair of the nonpartisan Rockefeller Institute at the State University of New York, Albany.
[i]Boyd adds that this growth, though significant, was not necessarily abnormal.
"While the pace of state government growth in the 1990s was exceptional, the direction of change was not, and was part of a much longer trend of rising state and local government influence in the federal-state-local fiscal system," he said[/i].
But other analysts say this trend is precisely the problem. "States always find themselves in this same boat. They always spend, spend, spend in the good times and then say, well, we can't balance our budgets," said Stephen Moore, chairman of the Club for Growth, a political action committee that backs free-marked oriented candidates.
And I agree with the following statement by Moore.....
Moore said he believes state lawmakers should bring their budgets into balance by cutting spending, not raising taxes. Then, once budgets are balanced, he'd like to see future growth limited to a benchmark, such as population growth plus inflation, the standard in Colorado. This benchmark lets state government grow with population and inflation, but no faster.
posted on August 22, 2003 04:17:19 PM new
Im not blaming Bush for the drop in the economy. But I am blaming him for increasing the defecits and the unemployment. He isnt doing anything but making it worse with this CORPORATE WELFARE POLICIES.
THOUSANDS ARE STILL LOSING THEIR JOBS EVERY MONTH.
Democrats line up Gen Wesley Clark as their best hope of winning against Bush
By Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 24/08/2003)
In this era of the War on Terrorism, senior Democrats have decided that the best - possibly the only - way to beat George W Bush in the 2004 presidential elections is to put up a soldier against him.
A retired general, Wesley Clark, the supreme commander of Nato during its successful campaign in Kosovo, is widely expected to announce his candidacy for the White House in the next few days, backed by powerful members of the United States Congress.
In an open field, where none of the nine current Democrat candidates has established a clear lead, a late entry by Gen Clark would have an electrifying effect. The Vietnam veteran has never stood for elected office. Since his retirement, however, he has become a familiar face on CNN television, frequently criticising President Bush's policies on Iraq.
He is believed to have stood aside from summer campaigning, waiting to see if anyone emerged as an obvious winner of the party's nomination. Now, according to Donna Brazile, a top Democratic strategist and the campaign manager for Al Gore during the 2000 presidential elections, Gen Clark "will announce his plans to run for president by the end of the month".
The man who would be the first general to become president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 has little political experience, but many Democrats believe that in an election likely to be dominated by national security and terrorism, a four-star military man would be uniquely equipped to attack President Bush's foreign policy.
For his part, Gen Clark already sounds like a man in the middle of a campaign. Challenged about his political experience in a recent interview, he put up a spirited defence. "My political experience is in dealing with governments. I dealt with 19 governments in Nato. I have held high positions of authority and dealt extensively at political and diplomatic levels with major issues," he said.
In the same interview, he proved he could also talk about domestic concerns, roundly criticising President Bush's recent tax cuts and calling for fresh investment in public education. This month's Esquire magazine devotes nine pages to the former Rhodes Scholar and West Point graduate, emphasising that the 58-year-old would at least be a match for President Bush in terms of fitness. Like the President, Gen Clark exercises vigorously every day.
Behind the scenes in Washington, too, a discreet groundswell of support is building for an eleventh-hour entry. A campaign network is already in place across the United States, while a Draft Clark campaign has raised $550,000 (£350,000) and collected 30,000 signatures in anticipation of a declaration.
"In 2000, Gore was getting close to 40 per cent support at this stage," said John Hlinko, who runs the Washington branch of the Draft Clark campaign. "In this race, the frontrunners are struggling to get 20 per cent. Wesley Clark would stand every chance of getting the nomination."
Mainstream Democrats believe that Howard Dean, the current frontrunner in a field of nine Democrat candidates, is too liberal to win over the American heartlands in the first election since the September 11 attacks. The other candidates have failed to make an impact after a summer on the stump.
In Congress, the two most senior Democrats, the House of Representatives' minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate's minority leader, Tom Daschle, have both privately supported Clark.
"Howard Dean can beat up Bush on Iraq and do well among ordinary Democrats," said one Democrat official, "But he can be dismissed as a weak-kneed liberal. Wesley Clark can say the same things, but there isn't the same comeback. He would be a strong candidate and a credible opponent for Bush on national security."
So far, the Republicans claim not to be flustered by the prospect of a Clark campaign. A senior official at the Republican National Committee said: "It's interesting that a man who is not even a registered Democrat is being drafted by voters of a Democratic Party which already has nine candidates, including five sitting senators and a former governor. What does that say about the desperation of the Democrats, even at this early stage?"
A fierce critic of White House policy on Iraq, he recently said: "The case [for war] was, to put it mildly, weak. The Iraqi threat to the US was not significant. The threat was not imminent, in so far as any evidence has established."
Gen Clark has already given up his CNN role and last week said that Democrats, "have an enormous hunger for leadership. I think the Draft Clark movement is evidence that this hunger is still out there, despite the number of candidates in the race".
If he does run, Clark supporters will point to at least one happy omen. His campaign headquarters will be based in his home town, one familiar with rises to political stardom. Gen Clark comes from Little Rock, Arkansas.
posted on August 23, 2003 10:07:35 PM newWesley Clark is a pathetic liberal weenie... If it wasn't for the Clinton Administration, he would've retired a colonel.
Umm...Clinton became president in 92...Clark was promoted to Maj. General in 87, so you'd be mistaken about that.
Here's the official bio on your "liberal weenie". I would bet that when he wears a flight suit on an aircraft carrier, he can actually fly a plane
posted on August 24, 2003 05:48:15 AM new
An impressive biography, Profe!
General Clark represents an overwhelming threat to the neo-cons. That's why they congregate whenever his name is mentioned and call him, in their vernacular, a weenie.
posted on August 24, 2003 11:03:47 AM new
Democrats line up Gen Wesley Clark as their best hope of winning against Bush
By Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 24/08/2003)
In this era of the War on Terrorism, senior Democrats have decided that the best - possibly the only - way to beat George W Bush in the 2004 presidential elections is to put up a soldier against him.
A retired general, Wesley Clark, the supreme commander of Nato during its successful campaign in Kosovo, is widely expected to announce his candidacy for the White House in the next few days, backed by powerful members of the United States Congress.
In an open field, where none of the nine current Democrat candidates has established a clear lead, a late entry by Gen Clark would have an electrifying effect. The Vietnam veteran has never stood for elected office. Since his retirement, however, he has become a familiar face on CNN television, frequently criticising President Bush's policies on Iraq.
He is believed to have stood aside from summer campaigning, waiting to see if anyone emerged as an obvious winner of the party's nomination. Now, according to Donna Brazile, a top Democratic strategist and the campaign manager for Al Gore during the 2000 presidential elections, Gen Clark "will announce his plans to run for president by the end of the month".
The man who would be the first general to become president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 has little political experience, but many Democrats believe that in an election likely to be dominated by national security and terrorism, a four-star military man would be uniquely equipped to attack President Bush's foreign policy.
For his part, Gen Clark already sounds like a man in the middle of a campaign. Challenged about his political experience in a recent interview, he put up a spirited defence. "My political experience is in dealing with governments. I dealt with 19 governments in Nato. I have held high positions of authority and dealt extensively at political and diplomatic levels with major issues," he said.
In the same interview, he proved he could also talk about domestic concerns, roundly criticising President Bush's recent tax cuts and calling for fresh investment in public education. This month's Esquire magazine devotes nine pages to the former Rhodes Scholar and West Point graduate, emphasising that the 58-year-old would at least be a match for President Bush in terms of fitness. Like the President, Gen Clark exercises vigorously every day.
Behind the scenes in Washington, too, a discreet groundswell of support is building for an eleventh-hour entry. A campaign network is already in place across the United States, while a Draft Clark campaign has raised $550,000 (£350,000) and collected 30,000 signatures in anticipation of a declaration.
"In 2000, Gore was getting close to 40 per cent support at this stage," said John Hlinko, who runs the Washington branch of the Draft Clark campaign. "In this race, the frontrunners are struggling to get 20 per cent. Wesley Clark would stand every chance of getting the nomination."
Mainstream Democrats believe that Howard Dean, the current frontrunner in a field of nine Democrat candidates, is too liberal to win over the American heartlands in the first election since the September 11 attacks. The other candidates have failed to make an impact after a summer on the stump.
In Congress, the two most senior Democrats, the House of Representatives' minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate's minority leader, Tom Daschle, have both privately supported Clark.
"Howard Dean can beat up Bush on Iraq and do well among ordinary Democrats," said one Democrat official, "But he can be dismissed as a weak-kneed liberal. Wesley Clark can say the same things, but there isn't the same comeback. He would be a strong candidate and a credible opponent for Bush on national security."
So far, the Republicans claim not to be flustered by the prospect of a Clark campaign. A senior official at the Republican National Committee said: "It's interesting that a man who is not even a registered Democrat is being drafted by voters of a Democratic Party which already has nine candidates, including five sitting senators and a former governor. What does that say about the desperation of the Democrats, even at this early stage?"
A fierce critic of White House policy on Iraq, he recently said: "The case [for war] was, to put it mildly, weak. The Iraqi threat to the US was not significant. The threat was not imminent, in so far as any evidence has established."
Gen Clark has already given up his CNN role and last week said that Democrats, "have an enormous hunger for leadership. I think the Draft Clark movement is evidence that this hunger is still out there, despite the number of candidates in the race".
If he does run, Clark supporters will point to at least one happy omen. His campaign headquarters will be based in his home town, one familiar with rises to political stardom. Gen Clark comes from Little Rock, Arkansas.
"It's interesting that a man who is not even a registered Democrat is being drafted by voters of a Democratic Party which already has nine candidates, including five sitting senators and a former governor. What does that say about the desperation of the Democrats, even at this early stage?"
posted on August 24, 2003 03:44:58 PM new
It clearly reflects a united statement being heard all across the country that Bush must go. Any one of the leading candidates will be a magnificent improvement over George W. Bush. Now, less than half the American people polled say that they will vote for George W. Bush. The number of good candidates represents determination...not desperation.
posted on August 29, 2003 07:22:57 AM new
The Cuomo-Gore-Clark Hand-Off
One little noticed consequence of Al Gore's speech has been its effect on the Howard Dean surge story and the lack of oxygen in the media universe to talk about anything else. Instead of focusing on dollars or supporters or 'webbiness', people are now watching Gore's endorsement. Matthew Yglesias and Kos are both interested in this dynamic, with Kos spinning Gore's speech as an attack on the DLC and Yglesias wondering who Clinton's going to push for.
In a related note, today, Wesley Clark told his associate, very publicly, to 'Crank it up' on the Presidential front.
Are these moves related? I dunno, but it sure looks like it.
Wesley Clark has never run a political campaign, but he is not an amateur. He has been extremely savvy up until this point on his moves, and he wouldn't throw signals that he's about to spend his political capital in public the day after a major address by a Democratic power broker without first checking out that person's intentions.
The scenario going on right now is clear. Cuomo and Gore are doing a double play. Cuomo encouraged Gore to run, and Gore took that spotlight and ran with it. He's about to endorse someone, and hand the bright media glare from Howard Dean to that person.
A side note on all of this is that Clark and Gore were the among the most hawkish members of the administration on Kosovo. Another side note is that Clinton has already non-endorse endorsed Clark.
posted on September 1, 2003 02:28:35 PM new
Clark’s path similar to another Arkansan who ran for president
BY PAUL BARTON
Posted on Monday, September 1, 2003
WASHINGTON — For the second time in 12 years, little Arkansas, a state with only six electoral votes, is on the verge of supplying presidential politics with a fresh face, one some think could reshape the race for the White House just as then-Gov. Bill Clinton did when he ran in 1992.
This time, it may very well be retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Little Rock, a 58-year-old former supreme allied commander of NATO and a 1962 honors graduate of Hall High School.
Similarities in the two men’s backgrounds are beginning to get noticed as Clark’s decision draws near. Both grew up Baptists and without their natural fathers. Both were Rhodes Scholars. Both met their wives while in school on the East Coast. Both are regarded as keen intellects.
And if Clark decides to run, the political atmospheres in which both began their campaigns will bear striking similarities as well.
On Oct. 3, 1991, Clinton stood outside the Old Statehouse in Little Rock, painting himself as a champion of the middle class and telling a crowd of more than 4,000 that he would seek the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination.
By October 2003 — or perhaps several weeks sooner — Clark could be making a sim- ilar announcement. While Clark and his staff in Little Rock insist there is still a chance he won’t run, indications that he will go for it continue to mount.
The Des Moines Register last week reported that Terry McAuliffe, the national Democratic Party chairman, has told party officials in Iowa to expect Clark’s entry. The Concord Monitor in New Hampshire noted that Clark had made another call to Manchester attorney George Bruno, a leading Democratic activist and former New Hampshire state party chairman.
Contacted by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Bruno acknowledged, "There is a lot of behind-the-scenes activity."
Other sources said Friday that Clark has made it clear to those closest to him that he is going to run, and that his wife, Gert, now backs the decision. The New York Times reported similar soundings as well.
If Arkansas does end up having another candidate, people may begin referring to the state as the "mother of presidents," joked William Schneider, political analyst for the American Enterprise Institute and CNN.
Hal Bass, political analyst at Ouachita Baptist University, said it surprises him. "I thought Clinton kind of took all the oxygen out of the room," he said.
Clinton was written off as long shot by the national media in 1991. His biggest claim to fame was a nominating speech for Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic National Convention that many regarded as disastrous.
But Clinton had traveled frequently in 1990-91 to meet behind the scenes with party activists around the country, many of whom were impressed with his command of issues and his ability to sway a crowd.
As Clark considers jumping into the 2004 race, he, too, is seen as a long shot. Many political observers think his real aim is the vice presidency or a Cabinet post in a Democratic administration. Clark’s biggest claim to fame has been as a military analyst for CNN.
But Clark, as if following Clinton’s game plan, has spent much of 2002 and 2003 traveling the country, especially the East Coast, meeting with Democratic Party activists, union leaders and potential fund-raisers as well as appearing frequently on national television news shows, where he has repeatedly dodged questions about his intentions. In both races, Democrats faced the fact that the candidate they most favored wasn’t likely to enter the competition. In 1991, that was New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, one of several big-name Democrats who decided the senior Bush was unbeatable. This time around, it is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
INTANGIBLES So, just as they did with Clinton in 1991, many party activists are becoming intrigued with Clark, seeing in him a sharp mind, moderate views and a telegenic appearance that could wear well on the campaign trail.
Dominique Cano of San Diego worked on both the 1992 and 1996 Clinton campaigns and is now a regional coordinator for the DraftClark2004. com movement. "The biggest thing to me is how energized and excited people get just watching them on TV," Cano said. "I haven’t seen the ability to excite people in such a short amount of time since Clinton."
John Pouland, 49, of Fort Worth is another of those familiar with both men. Pouland was Clinton’s North Texas campaign coordinator in 1992 and is now working with the Texas branches of the draft-Wesley Clark movement.
In 1991, Pouland said, "there was nobody that drew me to the race until Clinton came along." And this year, "there was nobody who drew me to the race until Clark came along. It’s just a gut feeling that this is the one."
Many Democratic Party activists — the types "who read the paper, are on the Internet and watch the Sunday shows" — know about Clark, Pouland said.
Both Clinton and Clark have the ability to energize hardcore Democrats while attracting independent voters and suburban residents, according to Michael K. Frisby, a former White House reporter for The Wall Street Journal who covered Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 campaigns and is now working for DraftClark2004. com.
Noting Clinton’s "natural rapport" with blacks, Frisby added that he thought Clark would also poll well with them, because of his history of supporting affirmative action. "I see him with the same kind of intangibles that Bill Clinton had," Frisby said.
There are also the similarities in the political climate between 1991 and 2003, including "one big parallel. A man named Bush is in the White House," said Schneider.
Clinton ended up unseating the senior George Bush in 1992. Clark has already established himself as a major critic of the current President Bush on many issues, especially policy toward Iraq.
POLITICAL CLIMATE Further, many see the economy as potentially as big an issue for 2004 as it was in 1992. "He [George W. Bush] is in the exact same position his father was in. He is hostage to the economy," said Allan Lichtman, presidential historian at American University. "His chips are in. He is not going to get any more tax cuts from Congress." Added Bass, "It was an anxious economic time then, and it is an anxious economic time now." Others, however, see Bush’s policies of expanded defense spending and tax cuts as beginning to help the economy, as evidenced by revised second-quarter figures showing more than 3 percent growth in gross domestic product, the total market value of all goods and services the nation produces.
For his part, Clark has repeatedly criticized the Bush tax cuts as tilted toward the rich.
But just as Democrats began to wonder late in 1991 if the senior Bush could prove vulnerable due to the economy, they are now coming to believe that Iraq could be the younger Bush’s undoing in 2004.
Iraq was in the background of the 1992 campaign. It promises to be up front in 2004.
The senior Bush had presided over victory in the Persian Gulf War, a victory that many thought would make him politically untouchable in 1992. The younger Bush also has a victory in Iraq, but the occupation of the country is proving so problematic that it is seen as likely to cast a shadow over 2004.
Others see Bush minimizing any political fallout from Iraq through his efforts to form an international peacekeeping force with the United Nations. "I think this fellow is an infinitely smarter politician than his father was," said Stephen Hess, political analyst at the Brookings Institution. Clark, in numerous television appearances this year, has criticized the administration for never having developed an overarching plan for Iraq.
DIFFERENCES But there are also major differences between Clark and Clinton. Both are products of the 1960s, but Clinton was a critic of the Vietnam War and worked to avoid the draft. Clark has devoted nearly his whole life to military service.
He graduated at the head of the West Point class of 1966, the class made famous by the book The Long Gray Line by Washington Post military-affairs reporter Rick Atkinson. The 1966 class had more combat casualties than any other in West Point history.
Clark is mentioned several times in the book, including a passage that describes him as "brilliant and intense."
Clark went on to serve in Vietnam, earning several war medals, including a Purple Heart. He was wounded in four places during action near Saigon in February 1970.
Eight generals in American history have gone on to be president, but the modern Democratic Party has never had one, said Lichtman, the American University expert.
The Clarks and the Clintons are good friends, according to Democratic activist Skip Rutherford of Little Rock. Clinton has dined with Clark several times in Little Rock, and Clark attended a recent book signing for Hillary Rodham Clinton in London.
Just as Clinton met Hillary while in school at Yale, Clark met Gert in New York in the mid-1960s when he was a cadet at West Point.
posted on September 1, 2003 07:13:28 PM new
"Known by those who've served with him as the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince," he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die. An intellectual in warrior's gear. A saying attributed to General George Patton was that it took 10 years with troops alone before an officer knew how to empty a bucket of spit As a serving soldier with 33 years of active duty under his pistol belt, Clark's commanded combat units -- rifle platoon to tank division - for only seven years. The rest of his career's been spent as an aide, an executive, a student and teacher and a staff weenie.
Very much like generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland, the architect and carpenter of the Vietnam disaster, Clark was earmarked and then groomed early in his career for big things. At West Point he graduated No. 1 in his class, and even though the Vietnam War was raging and chewing up lieutenants faster than a machine gun can spit death, he was seconded to Oxford for two years of contemplating instead of to the trenches to lead a platoon.
A year after graduating Oxford, he was sent to Vietnam, where, as a combat leader for several months, he was bloodied and muddied. Unlike most of his classmates, who did multiple combat tours in the killing fields of Southeast Asia, he spent the rest of the war sheltered in the ivy towers of West Point or learning power games first hand as a White House fellow".
David H. Hackworth
April 20, 1999
I agree with Col Hackworth & Counterpunch
"A Vain, Pompous, Brown-noser
Meet the Real Gen. Clark
Anyone seeking to understand the bloody fiasco of the Serbian war need hardly look further than the person of the beribboned Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley K. Clark. Politicians and journalists are generally according him a respectful hearing as he discourses on the "schedule" for the destruction of Serbia, tellingly embracing phrases favored by military bureaucrats such as "systematic" and "methodical".
The reaction from former army subordinates is very different.
"The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994.
While Clark's official Pentagon biography proclaims his triumph in "transitioning the Division into a rapidly deployable force" this officer describes the "1st Horse Division" as "easily the worst division I have ever seen in 25 years of doing this stuff."
Such strong reactions are common. A major in the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado when Clark was in command there in the early 1980s described him as a man who "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career".
While he regards his junior officers with watchful suspicion, he customarily accords the lower ranks little more than arrogant contempt. A veteran of Clark's tenure at Fort Hood recalls the general's "massive tantrum because the privates and sergeants and wives in the crowded (canteen) checkout lines didn't jump out of the way fast enough to let him through".
Clark's demeanor to those above is, of course, very different, a mode of behavior that has earned him rich dividends over the years. Thus, early in 1994, he was a candidate for promotion from two to three star general. Only one hurdle remained - a war game exercise known as the Battle Command Training Program in which Clark would have to maneuver his division against an opposing force. The commander of the opposing force, or "OPFOR" was known for the military skill with which he routinely demolished opponents.
But Clark's patrons on high were determined that no such humiliation should be visited on their favorite. Prior to the exercise therefore, strict orders came down that the battle should go Clark's way. Accordingly, the OPFOR was reduced in strength by half, thus enabling Clark, despite deploying tactics of signal ineptitude, to triumph. His third star came down a few weeks later.
Battle exercises and war games are of course meant to test the fighting skills of commanders and troops. The army's most important venue for such training is the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, where Clark commanded from October 1989 to October 1991 and where his men derisively nicknamed him "Section Leader Six" for his obsessive micro-management.
At the NTC, army units face a resident OPFOR that has, through constant battle practice coupled with innovative tactics and close knowledge of the terrain, become adept at routing the visiting "Blue Force" opponents. For Clark, this naturally posed a problem. Not only were his men using unconventional tactics, they were also humiliating Blue Force generals who might nurture resentment against the NTC commander and thus discommode his career at some future date. To the disgust of the junior OPFOR officers Clark therefore frequently fought to lose, sending his men on suicidal attacks in order that the Blue Forces should go home happy and owing debts of gratitude to their obliging foe.
All observers agree that Clark has always displayed an obsessive concern with the perquisites and appurtenances of rank. Ever since he acceded to the Nato command post, the entourage with which he travels has accordingly grown to gargantuan proportions to the point where even civilians are beginning to comment. A Senate aide recalls his appearances to testify, prior to which aides scurry about the room adjusting lights, polishing his chair, testing the microphone etc prior to the precisely timed and choreographed moment when the Supreme Allied Commander Europe makes his entrance.
"We are state of the art pomposity and arrogance up here," remarks the aide. "So when a witness displays those traits so egregiously that even the senators notice, you know we're in trouble." His NATO subordinates call him, not with affection, "the Supreme Being".
"Clark is smart," concludes one who has monitored his career. "But his whole life has been spent manipulating appearances (e.g. the doctored OPFOR exercise) in the interests of his career. Now he is faced with a reality he can't control." This observer concludes that, confronted with the wily Slobodan and other unavoidable variables of war, Clark will soon come unglued. "Watch the carpets at NATO HQ for teeth marks."CP
He and Hillary are doing a great dis-service to their fellow democrats who have thrown their hats in the ring. While clark can't make up his mind IF he's going to run, and Hillary continues to deny a 2004 bid, their actions speak differently than their words. Meanwhile....the other democratic candidates are left 'blowing in the wind' until after 11-24 which is when they'll be required to enter [or they won't].
posted on September 1, 2003 08:28:08 PM new
Hi Linda.
Clark & M's Clinton are doing more than a dis-service to fellow Democrats.
It is a dis-service to the good people of this Nation. I have as much respect them as I do for, lets say, Jane Fonda.
posted on September 1, 2003 08:51:50 PM new
The article pasted above is clearly an effort to portray Clark as vain and pompous based on nothing but innuendo and repeated use of opinions of unidentified people. At one point, the author becomes so carried away that he claims to know what everyone thinks. He states, for example, "All observers agree that Clark has always displayed an obsessive concern with the perquisites and appurtenances of rank."
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Sep 1, 2003 09:50 PM ]
posted on September 2, 2003 07:38:06 AM new
BTW, Who can possibly be more arrogant and pompous that the Bush crew...They've snubbed ther noses at the entire world.
