Saturday, March 21, 2009

Rape in the US Military and the Subic Rape Case

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: Note: Bold and/or Underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked postings/articles. Forwarding the postings to relatives and friends, especially in the homeland, is greatly appreciated.

To write or read a comment, please go to http://www.thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to the bottom of the current post (or another post you read and may want to respond) and click on "Comments."

The recent recantation by the Filipina in the much publicized Subic Rape Case (updated) is sadly understandable.
When a country such as our homeland becomes a bottomless pit for the native majority, desperation drives one to take the easier way out; nobody seems to care for his/her daily and future life anyway.

In our homeland as in many countries, the double-standard between men and women is still strong; and being raped is oftentimes blamed on the woman; note the reactions by some of us so-called educated during the early days of the Subic Rape Case against that young American soldier.

Rape by US servicemen is on the rise. From the stories below, one can easily infer the modus operandi within the US military on sexual assaults committed by its members. If such crimes are committed by American soldiers (many of whom are no more than high school graduates with adolescent --if not racist-- minds) against their fellow American citizens; what more towards our Filipino women, who come from a poor, regressive, underdeveloped country and ruled by selfish and thieving traitors to the native majority.

- Bert


The first priority for any underdeveloped country, before it can begin the economic and social development most appropriate to the needs of its people, is the seizure of power by the masses and the total destruction of the control and influence of the foreign power and local exploiting elite. Without this, nothing is possible.” – Felix Green, British Author, 1970

“The true Filipino is a decolonized Filipino.” – Prof. Renato Constantino (1919-1999)


“In the long-run every Government is the exact symbol of its People, with their WISDOM and UNWISDOM; we have to say, Like People like Government. “ - Thomas Carlyle, 1795-1881, Scottish Philosopher, Author

“Nations, whose NATIONALISM is destroyed, are subject to ruin.” - Colonel Muhammar Qaddafi, 1942-, Libyan Political and Military Leader

"Upang maitindig natin ang bantayog ng ating lipunan, kailangang radikal nating baguhin hindi lamang ang ating mga institusyon kundi maging ang ating pag-iisip at pamumuhay. Kailangan ang rebolusyon, hindi lamang sa panlabas, kundi lalo na sa panloob!" --Apolinario Mabini, La Revolucion Filipina (1898)



*******************

Rape in the U.S. military

How a fraternal culture and a habit of blaming the victim leave sexual violence unexamined and unpunished.
By Lucinda Marshall, Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2008

Anne K. Ream's
recent Op-Ed sheds much needed light on how the U.S. military continues to trivialize rape and sexual assault committed by members of the armed forces. Writing about whether a man who is convicted of rape in a civilian court should still be entitled to a traditional military funeral, Ream points out that although barring full honor burials in such a situation is largely a symbolic act, "the military policy of allowing honors burials for veterans convicted of rape sends a chilling message to victims: Even the most heinous sexual violence does not trump prior military service."

The case Ream refers to is not an isolated incident of fraternal militarism being used to excuse sexual violence. In a
recent court case in Lebanon, Penn., an Army Reserve sergeant was convicted of indecent assault after rape charges were dropped when fellow soldiers who were present at the incident refused to cooperate with police. Responding to the verdict, the defendant's attorney said she thought he should have been cleared of all charges. "After all, he did serve his country." Unfortunately, this mind-set is consistent with the Pentagon's very poor record of prosecuting sexual assault and rape within the ranks while at the same time disregarding and further victimizing those who report these heinous crimes.

To put these cases in perspective, there were
2,947 reports of sexual assaults in the military in 2006, an increase in reports of 24% over 2005. However, very few of these cases tend to be prosecuted. A Pentagon report [PDF] in March 2007 found that more than half of the investigations dating back to 2004 resulted in no action. When action was taken, only one third of the cases resulted in courts-martial. Indeed, in many cases, the military seems more intent on intimidating and harassing the victims than investigating and prosecuting the charges.

In 2004, after Lt.
Jennifer Dyer reported being raped by a fellow officer at Camp Shelby, Miss., she said she was held in seclusion for three days, read her Miranda rights and threatened with criminal prosecution for filing a false report. After finally being given two weeks leave, she was threatened with prosecution for being AWOL when she would not report for duty to the same location where the man she had accused — who was later acquitted on assault charges — was still posted.

Lance Cpl. Sally Griffiths was also accused of lying after she reported being raped by a fellow Marine while stationed in Okinawa, Japan. It wasn't until she got access to her case file and found a statement by the Marine that confirmed her story that she was able to obtain the discharge she sought. The Marine she accused was never prosecuted. He continued to serve in the military and was promoted several times.


After Army Spc.
Suzanne Swift went AWOL instead of staying in the same unit as the soldiers who she accused of sexually harassing her, the Army court-martialed her when she refused a deal that would have forced her to remain in the military and sign a statement saying she had not been raped.

More recently, there have been the well-publicized cases of
Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, who was murdered after accusing another Marine of rape, and Jamie Leigh Jones, who says that she was gang-raped while working for Halliburton/KBR in Iraq. Jones claims that after she reported her rape, the company put her in a shipping container and warned her that she would lose her job if she left Iraq for medical treatment. The rape kit collected by military medical personnel was lost after it was turned over to Halliburton/KBR. The Pentagon has refused to investigate or to testify before Congress.

In allowing convicted rapists to be buried with full honors, the military continues to perpetuate the culture of impunity that allows soldiers to commit sexual violence with little worry of being brought to justice. As Ream concludes, it is sadly ironic that even though rape and sexual violence are now considered war crimes, our own military persists in practices that perpetuate those crimes.

Unfortunately, this is merely one more example of the misogyny implicit in military culture. Women's bodies and lives have always been considered the spoils of war. The military's continuing disregard and disrespect for the safety of women's lives even within their own ranks, and in disregard of international law, should give us pause to wonder just whose freedom we are protecting.


Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer, activist and founder of the
Feminist Peace Network.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-marshall30jan30,0,510658.story



******************************
Reports of Sexual Assaults in US Military Increased in 2008
, , 18 March 2009

Ritchey report - Download (MP3) audio clip
Ritchey report - Listen (MP3) audio clip


The U.S. military says the number of sexual assaults reported in America's armed forces increased by eight percent in 2008, and more than half of these cases involved rape.

Defense Department officials say more than 2,900 reports of sexual assault across the 1.4 million active military members were recorded in the year ending in September 2008. The annual report is required by Congress and tracks sexual assaults of service members against service members, civilians against service members and vice versa. Incidents reported range from wrongful sexual contact to rape.

Kaye Whitley, Director of the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (undated photo)
Kaye Whitley, Director of the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (undated photo)
Kaye Whitley, Director of the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, says the majority of the victims are women and many feel uneasy about coming forward to report sexual misconduct.

"Given the fear and stigma associated with the crimes, sexual assault remains one of our nation's most underreported crimes in both the military and civilian communities," she said.

The Pentagon noted an increase of about 25 percent in reports in combat zones, including 22 cases in Afghanistan and 143 in Iraq.

Whitley points out that the rise in reported incidents does not necessarily mean sex crimes are increasing, but that victims might be less hesitant to come forward.

Whitley says the Defense Department has had success in raising awareness and education about sexual assault.

"Our goal is to strengthen the knowledge and the skills of service members, and empower them to identify and safely intervene in situations that may be leading up to a sexual assault," she said.

Whitley, an expert on counseling and human development, added that military commanders referred 38 percent of cases to trial last year - eight percent more than in 2007. But critics of the military's handling of sexual assaults say prosecutions remain too low.

Several members of Congress have harshly criticized the report, which was released earlier this week. Representative Louise Slaughter of New York issued a statement saying, "enough is enough." She argued that the statistics prove that sexual violence in the military not only persists, but has gotten worse.

Defense Department officials acknowledge that the numbers are stark and that about 80 percent of rapes go unreported, making it one of the most undocumented crimes in the military.

Source: http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-18-voa70.cfm

***************************

Another KBR Rape Case

By Karen Houppert, April 3, 2008

Editor's Note: This article has been updated since it was originally posted. A previous version used the pseudonym Lisa Smith for Dawn Leamon at her request. Leamon testified April 9 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Additional reporting by Te-Ping Chen. Research support provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.

KBR's Rape Problem
  • Karen Houppert: Three women contractors raped in Iraq testify before a Senate committee: why has the Justice Department failed to prosecute crimes like these?

  • Another KBR Rape Case

    Karen Houppert: In the wake of Jamie Leigh Jones's highly publicized charges, a woman comes forward with new allegations of a brutal sexual assault and cover-up at a KBR camp in Iraq.

It was an early January morning in 2008 when 42-year-old Dawn Leamon, a paramedic for a defense contractor in southern Iraq, woke up to find her entire room shaking. The shipping container that served as her living quarters was reverberating from nearby rocket attacks, and she was jolted awake to discover an awful reality. "Right then my whole life was turned upside down," she says.

What follows is the story she told me on Monday in a lengthy, painful on-the-record interview, conducted in a lawyer's office in Houston, Texas, while she was back from Iraq on a brief leave this week.

That dawn, naked, covered in blood and feces, bleeding from her anus, she found a US soldier she did not know lying naked in the bed next to her: his gun lay on the floor beside the bed, she could not rouse him and all she could remember of the night before was screaming and screaming as the soldier anally penetrated her while a colleague who worked for defense contractor KBR held her hand--but instead of helping her, as she had hoped, he jammed his penis in her mouth.

Over the next few weeks Leamon would be told to keep quiet about the incident by a KBR supervisor. The camp's military liaison officer also told her not to speak about what had happened, she says. And she would follow these instructions. "Because then, all of a sudden, if you've done exactly what you've been instructed not to do--tell somebody--then you're in danger," Leamon says.

As a brand-new arrival at Camp Harper, she had not yet forged many connections and was working in a red zone under regular rocket fire alongside the very men who had participated in the attack. (At one point, as the sole medical provider, she was even forced to treat one of her alleged assailants for a minor injury.) She waited two and a half weeks, until she returned to a much larger facility, to report the incident. "It's very easy for bad things to happen down there and not have it be even slightly suspicious."

Over the next month and a half, she says, she faced a series of hurdles. She would be discouraged from reporting the incident by several KBR employees, she says. She would be confused by the lack of any written medical protocol for sexual assault (as the only medical person on site, she treated herself with doxycycline). She would wander through a tangled maze of interviews with KBR and Army investigators about the incident without any clear explanation of her rights. She would be asked to sign several documents agreeing not to publicly discuss the incident, she says. She describes having her computer--which she saw as her lifeline, her main access to the outside world--confiscated by KBR staff as "evidence" within hours of receiving her first e-mail from a stateside lawyer she had reached out to for help.

And eventually she would find herself temporarily assigned to sleeping quarters between two Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) officials, who, she says, assured her that it was for her own safety, since her alleged assailants were at the same camp for questioning; they roamed freely. When she wanted to move about the camp to get meals etc., she was escorted.

Leamon felt very alone. But she was not.

In fact, a growing number of women employees working for US defense contractors in the Middle East are coming forward with complaints of violence directed at them. As the Iraq War drags on, and as stories of US security contractors who seem to operate with impunity continue to emerge (like Blackwater and its deadly attack against Iraqi civilians on September 16, 2007), a rash of new sexual assault and sexual harassment complaints are being lodged against overseas contractors--by their own employees. Todd Kelly, a lawyer in Houston, says his firm alone has fifteen clients with sexual assault, sexual harassment and retaliation complaints (for reporting assault and/or harassment) against Halliburton and its former subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root LLC (KBR), as well as Cayman Island-based Service Employees International Inc., a KBR shell company. (While Leamon is technically an SEII employee, she is supervised by KBR staff as a KBR employee.)

Jamie Leigh Jones, whose story made the news in December--when she alleged that her 2005 gang rape by Halliburton/KBR co-workers in Iraq was being covered up by the company and the US government--also initially believed hers was an isolated incident. But today, Jones reports that she has formed a nonprofit to support the many other women with similar stories. Currently, she has forty US contractor employees in her database who have contacted her alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents--and claim that Halliburton, KBR and SEII have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them.

Most of these complaints never see the light of day, thanks to the fine print in employee contracts that compels employees into binding arbitration instead of allowing their complaints to be tried in a public courtroom. Criminal prosecutions are practically nonexistent, as the US Justice Department has turned a blind eye to these cases.

Jones's case was the subject of a House Judiciary hearing in December. Right now, Jones's lawyers are awaiting a decision on whether she will get her day in court or be forced to submit to binding arbitration, which KBR is insisting on. Likewise, the company is pressuring Dawn Leamon into pursuing her claims against the company through its Dispute Resolution Program based on the contract she signed before she went to Iraq. Critics argue that the company's arbitration system allows it to minimize bad publicity and lets assailants off the hook.

Leamon, who retained a lawyer only two weeks ago, is weighing her options.

KBR attorney Celia Ballí, responding to a letter from Leamon's lawyer, wrote in a letter dated March 17, "The Company takes Ms. Leamon's allegations very seriously and has and will continue to cooperate with the proper law enforcement authorities in the investigation of her allegations to the extent possible." Ballí noted that the matter has been turned over to the CID and said that Leamon has been "afforded with counseling and referral services through the Company's Employee Assistance Program." Ballí wrote in the letter that there are "inaccuracies" in the description Leamon has put forward regarding her treatment after the alleged sexual assault. "Therefore, the Company requests that you fully investigate all the facts alleged by Ms. Leamon as the Company intends to pursue all available remedies should false statements be publicized."

Such "investigation" may prove difficult for her attorney. In the next sentence, the company says it is "not in a position to release any personnel or investigative records regarding Ms. Leamon's allegations at this time." In response to a request for comment on this story, a company spokesperson wrote in an e-mail that Leamon's "allegations are currently under investigation by the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Therefore, KBR cannot comment on the specifics of the allegations or investigation." The spokesperson added, "Any allegation of sexual harassment or assault is taken seriously and investigated thoroughly." The trouble, however, is that "appropriate law enforcement authorities" have not proved willing to address this type of crime committed by contractors in Iraq.

For her part, Leamon can't quite call herself a victim yet. In the course of several conversations over several days, she never once says the word "victim" out loud. Let alone "rape." Let alone "gang rape."

She simply describes what happened, moving through the course of events as if this had happened to someone else, as if the recitation of details were an act of contrition she was compelled to perform.

Like many rape survivors, she feels guilty. In this case, Leamon confesses that she broke company policy the evening of the incident by having a drink (alcohol is expressly forbidden). She had landed at Camp Harper only a week earlier, when she returned from a stateside R&R with her family. Since arriving in Iraq six months earlier, she had been at a larger facility, Camp Cedar. But her new posting at Camp Harper put her in a smaller outpost of sixty people: part US military, part KBR employees, part SEII workers. When some KBR colleagues invited her to join them for a drink after work, she did.

Leamon says she had only one drink--and she asked someone to hold it after a few sips while she went outside for a smoke. Leamon's attorney, Daniel Ross, speculates that someone slipped the date-rape drug Rohypnol in her drink.

Leamon's memory of the evening is fuzzy, and the only thing she remembers clearly about the events surrounding her assault is the aforementioned moment of oral and anal penetration. She also remembers screaming.

The morning after the incident, Leamon says, she was called into the office of her supervisor, who was Camp Harper's KBR manager; he appeared to know--at least in part--what had happened. She would later learn from an Army investigator that her supervisor had been in the room where the drinking and alleged rape had taken place at least twice that evening. Leamon, who appears to have blacked out, has no direct knowledge of his participation--or indeed of who else among the crowd initially gathered in the room may have been involved. "He was one of the people involved in saying, 'Don't say anything,'" Leamon says of her conversation with the KBR camp manager the morning following the incident. "Then he said, 'This will never happen again.'"

Leamon offered to pack up and go home. But he sent her back to work. First, though, he responded to Leamon's plea to get the soldier she still had not been able to rouse out of her bed by contacting the military's Special Forces liaison at Camp Harper. The liaison, whom Leamon knew only by his nickname, DJ, was direct. "He told me not to speak of this to anyone and that he would take care of it," Leamon says.

Leamon sat tight for a few days but then contacted a friend at Camp Cedar, where her permanent assignment was, and asked if the Employee Assistance person for KBR was back from her R&R yet. She was not. Leamon was worried about even discussing the incident, since she knew that none of her conversations were confidential. "Camp Harper has only three phones," she says. "One is in the camp manager's office. One is in the Operations Office. And one is in a hallway." She wavered. A few days later, when she knew that the Employee Assistance person for KBR would be back, Leamon called her on the phone. The Employee Assistance woman was a friend of hers and, without getting too specific about the details of the incident, Leamon sought her advice. "We had worked other situations together in the past, and I talked to her and she was like, 'I don't know if I'd report that. You know what happens when you report things.' And I did. I'd seen it."

Despite Leamon's silence, rumors were circulating at the camp. Two and a half weeks after the incident, she was questioned by someone from the KBR Employee Relations office, who appeared to be investigating a series of improprieties at the camp, Leamon says. Fearful, she denied knowledge of any wrongdoing at the camp.

When Leamon returned to her original posting at Camp Cedar, a larger facility with a human resources person and more friends she could approach for advice, she recontacted the man from Employee Relations who had been investigating "improprieties" and told him her story.

This set the wheels in motion for a series of interviews, most of which concluded with Leamon being asked to sign a nondisclosure statement by representatives of the company, she says.

Eventually, shortly before she was slated to return to the United States for R&R, one of the investigators for KBR suggested that Leamon get tested for STDs, hepatitis, HIV, etc. and took her to the nearby military Combat Support Hospital. "The doctor took me into her office, and we talked a long time before she did an exam," Leamon says. "We talked about the assault and the details and she was actually very, very kind and encouraged me to report it to the military. She tried convincing me that it wasn't my fault [for having a drink]. She was just a really kind lady--and that was the first time I had given any of the whole details of all that had happened."

In fact, military protocol compelled the doctor to report the incident; Leamon was immediately contacted by the Army Criminal Investigation Division and questioned. The CID had not responded to requests for comment by the time this article went to press.

A few days later, shortly after contacting an attorney in the United States to advise her on her rights, the attorney sent her a draft letter he was sending to KBR on her behalf, notifying the company that he was representing her and briefly summarizing her accusations. KBR came to her office within hours, she alleges, and confiscated her computer as "evidence," effectively limiting her access to the outside world.

Many victims of sexual assault find themselves without meaningful recourse when they work for US defense contractors that are powerful companies on foreign soil. "It's one big battle over where to fight the battle," said Leamon's attorney Ross, who is considering if and how and against whom to file charges on behalf of his client.

Take Jamie Leigh Jones's case, for example.

Since Jones alleged she was gang raped in 2005, while KBR was still a Halliburton subsidiary, her case is covered by an extralegal Halliburton dispute-resolution program implemented under then-CEO Dick Cheney in 1997. The program has all the hallmarks of the Cheney White House's penchant for secrecy. While Halliburton declared the program's aim was to reduce costly and lengthy litigation (and limit possible damage awards in the process), in practice it meant that employees like Jones signed away their constitutional right to a jury trial--and agreed to have any disputes heard in a private arbitration hearing without hope of appeal. (While two lower courts declared the tactic illegal, in 2001, the Texas Supreme Court overturned those rulings.)

Accordingly, Jones faces two major roadblocks in the fight for justice. The first is the battle to have the perpetrators prosecuted in criminal court--which, because of Order 17, may be nearly impossible. According to the order, imposed by Paul Bremer, US defense contractors in Iraq cannot be prosecuted in the Iraqi criminal justice system. While they can technically be tried in US federal court, the Justice Department has shown no interest in prosecuting her case. In fact, for more than two years now, the DOJ has brought no criminal charges in the matter. Representative Ted Poe, a Texas Republican who has taken up Jones's cause, reports that federal agencies refuse to discuss the status of the investigation; meanwhile, in December, the DOJ refused to send a representative to the related Congressional hearing on the matter.

Even more appalling, the Justice Department, which can and should prosecute most of these cases, has declined to do so. "There is no rational explanation for this," says Scott Horton, a lecturer at Columbia Law School who specializes in the law of armed conflict. Prosecutorial jurisdiction for crimes like the alleged rape of Jones is easily established under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Patriot Act's special maritime and territorial jurisdiction provisions. But somebody has to want to prosecute the cases.

Horton wonders what the 200 Justice Department employees and contractors stationed in Iraq do all day, noting that there has not been a single completed criminal conviction against a US contractor implicated in a violent crime anywhere in Iraq since the invasion.

"We have a complete process in place for solving military criminal violations when soldiers commit crimes, but for the 180,000 employees of private contractors over there, there is nothing," says Horton. "It's like Texas west of the Pecos in 1890 over there!" It's just common sense that you're going to have some violent crimes when you throw this many people together, he says. "Think about it. You have 180,000 people over there, you're going to have a few crimes. I don't know how anybody could fairly view this as a partisan issue. Crimes happen when you bring people together anywhere, and in a war setting, without adult supervision, crimes are going to increase. That is just a fact. And if you eliminate law enforcement, the crimes are going to get worse because people will quickly learn they can get away with it."

Things don't look a whole lot rosier when it comes to seeking relief in the civil courts.

For example, KBR is fighting tooth and nail to make sure Jones's case stays in private arbitration, as per her contract. And given that in February, a federal district court ruled that Tracy Barker--another KBR employee who says she was sexually assaulted--couldn't present her case in open court, prospects for the civil suit Jones brought last May look dim.

And that's particularly troubling, according to Jones's attorney Todd Kelly, because the clandestine nature of arbitration allows corporate malfeasance to go unchecked. Trials serve a purpose above and beyond pronouncing verdicts. "It's like the Enron trial here in Houston," he says. "Where every day in the Houston Chronicle there was a story exposing what egregious things go unchecked in the corporate culture. The United States got to peek into the corporate underwear drawer and saw it was not as pretty as it looked from the outside." Kelly argues that Halliburton and KBR ought to be similarly exposed to public scrutiny via jury trials. These civil remedies arranged in a secretive manner have repercussions beyond the dollar figures. "It allows for future rapes to occur," he says, arguing that these defense contractors have been able to quietly settle and compel victims to remain silent: the public remains oblivious to the crimes, no one is punished and a hostile and violent workplace continues unchecked.

In the future, the sole recourse for victims like Jones may be through Congress. Last October the House overwhelmingly passed legislation that requires the FBI to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and permits all US contractors to be tried under American jurisdiction. The Senate has yet to vote on the legislation.

For her part, Jones intends to persevere. "Part of the reason I'm going forward with this case is to change the system," she says. "Who knows how many of us rape victims are out there?"

Leamon, who is now back in the United States on two weeks R&R, is uncertain what the future holds for her. "I don't think I've been able to make any decisions or plans or goals yet," she says. First of all, there is the fact that she arrived home from Iraq to learn that her husband had been rushed to the hospital earlier that day after a partial stroke. She needs her job with SEII because she is the one who gets health insurance--vital not only for the two teenage daughters still living at home but for her husband, with his health problems. She worries, "Human Resources made me sign statements saying that I'm supposed to be back in Dubai on April 7 at 10 p.m., and if I'm not there I will not be reimbursed my $1,600 airfare or for my two weeks' vacation."

And indeed, the March 17 letter her attorney received from KBR attorney Celia Ballí says that Leamon can be placed on medical leave "pending resolution of the investigations related to this matter" but warns, "However, per Company policy, [her] leave will be unpaid." She is welcome to apply for workers' comp, the lawyer states.

Can she return to her old job as a paramedic in Lena, Illinois?

"Yes, my license is in good standing, and I've never had a problem," she says. "But it means a difference of about $6,000 a month in salary and no health insurance. My biggest reason for working for KBR in the first place was so I could get insurance for my husband and girls..." Leamon's sentence trails off. She begins a new one. Stops midway. She tries again to organize her thoughts. "I've been trying to figure out how I'm going to go back to work. How am I going to make myself do this?" she says, manifesting the confused indecisiveness and sense of a "foreshortened future" that are hallmarks of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Has she seen a rape crisis counselor?

Not yet, Leamon says. "Someone from KBR Employee Assistance gave me a flier to call someone in Houston," she says, but it turned out to be for general financial or emotional problems during deployment. They referred her to a website. "I'm 9,000 miles away in Iraq and the website says, 'Please put in your zip code and we'll refer you to a rape crisis counselor in your zip code area.'"

Leamon, who says she cannot sleep, appears exhausted. She tells her story without affect, little inflection and tamped emotion. She only tears up twice, most visibly when speaking about one of her sons, a 22-year-old US soldier who served in the Middle East recently. While she was in the process of debating whether--and how--to go about reporting her assault, she contacted him to see what his feelings were on the matter. "I didn't want him upset with his mom," she says, explaining that she was very loyal to the mission in Iraq and that he was similarly loyal to his service. "I was assaulted by somebody who was wearing the same uniform as him, and I just didn't want him to think bad of me. My children are pretty much my world." Leamon's eyes fill with tears, and she pauses to collect herself. "I didn't want him to be upset because I was calling out somebody who was wearing his same uniform. They're supposed to be proud of what they do. And I'm proud of my sons. And in my mind, I live that war every day. I can make all sorts of excuses under the sun for bad behavior."

Her son advised her to make the formal complaint.

"He was like, 'Of course you're going to talk to CID, Mom. Of course you are.'" Leamon smiles. "He doesn't think people should be allowed to wear his uniform and act like that. He's been in the war too and says it's no excuse. They're better trained than that. That's what my son thought. And he's not angry at his mom."

About Karen Houppert

Karen Houppert, special correspondent for The Washington Post Magazine and frequent Nation contributor, is the author of Home Fires Burning: Married to the Military—for Better or Worse (Ballantine). more...




Sunday, March 15, 2009

John Stewart & Jim Cramer - Financial Meltdown March 12, 2009

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: Note: Bold and/or Underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked postings/articles. Forwarding the postings to relatives and friends, especially in the homeland, is greatly appreciated.

To write or read a comment, please go to http://www.thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to the bottom of the current post (or another post you read and may want to respond) and click on "Comments."


"The chief business of America is business" - President Calvin Coolidge, 1925

"The glory of the United States is business" - Wendell L. Willkie, 1936

"What else do bankers do -- walk-in and turn-off the lights in the country." - William Slee, 1978


"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain" - Thomas Jefferson, 1809


"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson, 1816



****************

Did you lose a significantly amount of your retirement money from the current financial crisis triggered by the Housing Price Bubble? Watch this exchange. It is obvious that our Media (especially TV) is essentially a rah-rah tool for business, the corporatocracy.

This corporatocracy comprised of the biggest corporations, most of which are American multinationals, are the real forces that now heavily influence, if not control, governance in America and American foreign policies geared to ultimately support these corporate interests.

BTW, Peter Hartcher's 2006 book "Bubble Man," is a good read. It is a highly critical and analytical look at Alan Greenspan, who Peter claimed apparently has enabled and thus knew where the economy was headed since 1996, i.e. the Dot-com Bubble/IT Bubble to today's Housing Bubble, the largest federal deficit and officially cause a worldwide recession. He wrote that Alan Greenspan did not perform his responsibilities but played along to keep his powerful job, satisfy his ego and public image, which he valued more than the country he was supposed to serve; all the while being able to be a "Teflon" guy like Ronald Reagan, i.e. create a facade and avoid blame.

Lest I start going much off-target, let's watch The Daily Show below - if you want to watch Comedy Central with a serious and timely topic about our retirement losses. Please see and share attached Link/URL (copy or cut and paste on Google Search to connect):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533

or click:

Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer (Mad Money)


- Bert


"People who are greedy have extraordinary capacities for waste - they must, they take in too much" - Norman Mailer, 1968


"You show me a capitalist, I'll show you a bloodsucker" - Malcolm X, 1965


“Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot coexist in the same man or in the same society" - Ayn Rand, 1961


"The chief business of America is business" - President Calvin Coolidge, 1925


"The glory of the United States is business" - Wendell L. Willkie, 1936






Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Strengthening the American Worker's Retirement Security

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: Note: Bold and/or Underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked postings/articles. Forwarding the postings to relatives and friends, especially in the homeland, is greatly appreciated.

To write or read a comment, please go to http://www.thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to the bottom of the current post (or another post you read and may want to respond) and click on "Comments."


******************

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.


“Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot coexist in the same man or in the same society" - Ayn Rand, 1961


“To be poor and independent is very nearly an impossibility.” - William Corbett, 1830



Strengthening Worker Retirement Security

Strengthening Worker Retirement Security Testimony of Dean Baker Before the House Committee on Education and Labor Hearing on Strengthening Worker Retirement Security

March 10, 2009

By Dean Baker
Source: CEPR


(February 24, 2009) -- Thank you, Chairman Miller, for inviting me to share my views on the problems of the current system of retirement income, and ways to improve it, with the committee. My name is Dean Baker and I am the co- director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). I am an economist and I have been writing about issues related to retirement security since 1992.

My testimony will have three parts. The first part, which will be the bulk of the testimony, will explain how the current crisis has jeopardized the retirement security of tens of millions of workers. The second part will briefly reference some of the longstanding inadequacies of our system of retirement income, reminding members of problems with which they are already quite familiar. The third part will outline some principles that may guide the committee in constructing legislation to improve retirement security.

How the Current Crisis has Jeopardized Retirement Security

The collapse of the housing bubble, coupled with the plunge in the stock market, has exposed the gross inadequacy of our system of retirement income. CEPR's analysis of data from the Federal Reserve Board's 2004 Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF), indicates that the median household with a person between the ages of 45 to 54, saw their net worth fall by more than 45 percent between 2004 and 2009, from $150,500 in 2004, to just $82,200 in 2009 (all amounts are in 2009 dollars).1

This figure, which includes home equity, is not even sufficient to cover half of the value of the median house in the United States. In other words, if the median late baby boomer household took all of the wealth they had accumulated during their lifetime, they would still owe more than half of the price of a typical house in a mortgage and have no other assets whatsoever.2

The situation for older baby boomers is similar. The median household between the ages of 55 and 64 saw their wealth fall by almost 38 percent, from $229,600 in 2004 to $142,700 in 2009. This net worth would be sufficient to allow these households, who are at the peak ages for wealth accumulation, to cover approximately 80 percent of the cost of the median home, if they had no other asset.

Even prior to the recent downturn, the baby boom cohorts were not well prepared for retirement. Most members of these cohorts had been able to save far too little to maintain their standard of living in retirement. They would have found it necessary to work much later into their lives than they had planned, or to accept sharp reductions in living standards upon reaching retirement.

The situation of the baby boomers has been made much worse by the economic and financial collapse of the last two years. Ironically, the sharpest decline in wealth took place in an asset that many were led to believe was completely safe, their house. Real house prices have fallen by more than 30 percent from their peak in 2006 and will almost certainly fall at least another 10-15 percent before hitting bottom.3

The plunge in house prices has been especially devastating, both because it was by far the largest source of wealth for most baby boomers, and also because of the high leverage in housing. The fact that housing is highly leveraged is, of course, a huge advantage to homeowners in times when prices are rising. If a homeowner can buy a $200,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, and the house subsequently increases 50 percent in value, the homeowner gets a very high return, earning $100,000 on a down payment of just $40,000.

However, leverage also poses enormous risks. In this case, if the home price falls by 20 percent, then the homeowner has lost 100 percent of her equity. This is exactly the sort of situation confronting tens of millions of baby boomers at the edge of retirement. They just witnessed the destruction of most or all of the equity in their home. Our analysis of the SCF indicates that almost one fourth of late baby boomers who own homes have so little equity that they will need to bring cash to settle their mortgage at their closing. In a somewhat more pessimistic scenario, almost 40 percent of the home-owning households in this cohort will need to bring cash to a closing.

The collapse in the housing equity of the baby boom cohort in the last two years will have enormous implications for their well-being in retirement. Instead of having a home largely paid off by the time they reach their retirement years, many baby boomers will be in the same situation as first time home buyers, looking at large mortgages requiring decades to pay down.

Furthermore, the loss of equity in their current homes will make it far more difficult for baby boomers to move into homes that may be more suitable for their needs in retirement. Millions of middle class baby boomers will find it difficult to raise the money needed to make a down payment on a new home.

While the focus of pension and retirement policy has usually been pensions and Social Security, it is important to recognize the role of housing wealth for two reasons. First, the massive loss of housing wealth due to the collapse of the housing bubble is likely to be a factor that has an enduring impact on the living standards of the baby boom cohorts in their retirement years.

The other reason why Congress should recognize the importance of housing wealth is that this pillar of retirement income is not as secure as it has often been treated. In other words, the risks associated with housing wealth have generally not been fully considered in evaluating the security of retirement income. While it is reasonable to hope that the economy will not see the same sort of nationwide housing bubble for many decades into the future, if ever, there will nonetheless be a substantial element of risk associated with homeownership, since there will always be substantial fluctuations in local housing markets. This means that workers who have much of their wealth in their home already face substantial risks to their retirement income even before considering their financial investments.

Here, also, the baby boom cohorts have received a very unpleasant surprise in the last two years as stock market has plunged by more than 40 percent from its peak in November of 2007.4 While the data does not yet allow us to determine exactly how badly the baby boom cohorts have been hit by this decline, it is virtually certain that they felt the biggest impact, simply because they had the most wealth to lose. The Fed's data show that at the end of 2007, more than 70 percent of the assets in defined contribution pension plans were held either directly or indirectly in the stock market.5

The baby boomers' losses on their stock holdings will compound the losses incurred on their homes. Of course, most baby boomers had managed to accumulate relatively little by way of stock wealth even prior to the market collapse of the last year and half. In 2004, the median household headed by someone between the ages of 55 to 64 had accumulated less than $100,000 in financial assets of all forms, including holdings of stock and mutual funds. Median financial wealth for this age group had fallen to just over $60,000 in 2009 following the collapse of the stock market. The younger 45 to 54 cohort had median financial wealth of just $40,000 in 2004. This had fallen to less than $30,000 in 2009.

To summarize, our system of retirement income security was completely unprepared for the sort of financial earthquake set in motion by the collapse of the housing bubble and its secondary impact on the stock market. Older workers were already inadequately prepared for retirement even prior to these events. The events of the last two years now leave most of the baby boom cohorts facing retirement with very little to depend on other than their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

While a full picture of retirement income would also incorporate estimates of the income that these workers will receive from defined benefit pensions, the vast majority of workers in these age cohorts will receive little or nothing from traditional defined benefit pension plans. Defined benefit plans have been rapidly declining in importance for the last quarter century. This pace of decline is increasing with the downturn as many companies that still have defined benefit plans lay off workers and others freeze benefit levels to conserve cash.

Other Problems with the Defined Contribution Pension System

The prior discussion highlights the problem of risk for which the current defined contribution system was completely inadequate. I will just briefly note some of the other problems that have been frequently raised in prior years.

Inadequate coverage - In spite of efforts to simplify the process for employers, most businesses still do not offer workers the opportunity to contribute to a pension at their workplace. Almost half of private sector workers are not currently contributing to a pension plan at their workplace. The primary reason that workers do not contribute is because their employer does not offer the option. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a take-up rate of 83 percent in their most recent survey.6

The lack of coverage is overwhelmingly a small business issue. Two thirds of the workers employed in firms with more than 100 workers are contributing to a pension. Just one-third of the workers in workers employing less than 50 workers are contributing to a pension.

Lack of portability - In the modern economy, workers change jobs frequently, either by choice or necessity. When workers leave a job with a pension, they generally cannot simply roll over their accumulated funds into a plan operated by their new employer (if there is one). While recent legislation has sought to promote rollovers into IRAs, it is still too early to know how effective these rules will be. Until we have a fully portable pension system, changing jobs still provides an opportunity for leakage of funds from retirement accounts.

High Fees - While some pension plans are very efficient, many plans charge annual fees in excess of 1.5 percentage points. These fees can substantially reduce retirement savings. For example, a 1.0 percentage point difference in fees can reduce retirement accumulations by almost 20 percent over a thirty-five year period. Private insurance companies will charge between 10 percent and 20 percent of the value of an accumulation to convert it into an annuity. This further reduces workers' retirement income.

Principles for a New Pension System

The events of the last two years have brought home the extent to which the current pension system exposes workers to risk both in the value of their pension and also their housing wealth. The federal government has the ability to shield workers from this risk, at very little cost to taxpayers.

Before discussing principles for expanding retirement security, it is important to note the security that the government already does provide through Social Security and Medicare. With the collapse of retirement savings over the last two years, as well as the plunge in housing equity, the baby boom cohorts will be hugely dependent on these two social welfare programs. It is, therefore, more essential than ever that Congress maintain the integrity of these programs and ensure that the baby boom cohorts can at least count on the benefits that they have been promised.

The main lesson of the last two years is that, in addition to the problems stemming from inadequate coverage and high costs, the current pension system subjects workers to far more risk than has been generally recognized. The government can solve all three problems by allowing workers the option to contribute to a government run pension system that would provide a modest guaranteed rate of return.

The system would be a universal system like Social Security, however it would be voluntary. To try to maintain high rates of enrollment, there can be a default contribution from all workers of 3 percent, up to a modest level, such as $1,000 a year. Workers could be allowed to contribute some additional amount, for example an additional $1,000 per year, that would also earn them the same guaranteed rate of return.

The system should also be structured to encourage workers to take their payouts in the form of annuities, except in the case of life threatening illness. For example, a nationwide system could easily offer free annuitization, while charging a modest penalty (e.g. 10 percent) to workers who take their money out of the account in a lump sum.

Ideally, there would be tax subsidies for low- and moderate-income workers that would make it easier for them to put aside 3 percent, or more, of their wages. However, if budget limitations make subsidies impractical, there is no reason that Congress could not move ahead to establish a structure and consider adding subsidies at some future date.

The guaranteed return should be set at a level that is consistent with a long-term average return on a conservatively invested portfolio. Such a guarantee should pose little new risk to the government. As recent events have shown, in extreme cases, the government will step in to protect savings, as it did when it opted to guarantee money market funds, even where it has no legal obligation to make such a commitment. Guaranteeing a modest rate of return over a long period of time should present very little additional risk to the government.

The funds in this system would be kept strictly separate from the general budget. The investment would be carried through by a private contractor in a manner similar to the way in which the Federal Employees Thrift Saving Plan current invests the savings of federal employees.

Even a modest contribution could make a large difference in the retirement security of most workers. For example, at a 3 percent rate of return, a worker who saved $1,000 a year for 35 years would be able to get an annuity of $4,200 a year at age 65. This would be 14 percent of the wage of a worker who earned $30,000 a year during their working lifetime. Such a sum would be a substantial supplement to their Social Security benefits. A contribution of $2,000 a year would be sufficient to provide an annuity that is almost equal to 30 percent of this worker's earnings during their working career.

The formulas for this sort of plan can be altered in any number of ways, but the point is that Congress can enormously increase the retirement security of tens of millions of workers simply by making a system with a defined rate of return available to them. This could be done at no cost to the taxpayers.

Conclusion

The events of the last two years have shown how exposed workers' retirement income is to market risk. The collapse of the housing bubble has called attention to the fact that the value of not only their pensions, but also their homes, fluctuate with the market, while their homes are an even more important asset for most workers.

While fully restoring the lost wealth of the baby boom cohorts may not prove feasible, Congress can take effective steps to create a better retirement system for future generations. This can be done at no cost to taxpayers, simply by having the government assume market risk by averaging returns over time. There are no economic or administrative obstacles to going this route, it is simply a question of political will.

End Notes

1 We used the 2004 SCF, because the micro data from the 2007 is not yet available. This analysis, by my colleague David Rosnick and myself, is availabe at http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/baby-boomer-wealth-2009-02.pdf.


2 These calculations exclude wealth in defined benefit pensions.

3 This is based on data from the Case-Shiller 20 City index. The peak level was reached in May of 2006. Most data is from November of 2008. These data are based on sales prices, which means that they reflect contracts that were typically signed 6 to 8 weeks earlier. This means that the most recent data is close to 5 months out of date at present. With prices in the index falling at a rate of more than 2 percent monthly, house prices may already be close to 10 percent lower than the level indicated in the November data.

4 This refers to the decline as measured by the S&P 500, which is a much broader measure than the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

5 This is taken from the Flow of Funds Table, L.118c, lines 12 plus 13, divided by line 1, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1r-6.pdf.

6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employee Benefits in the United States, 2008," available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.


Source: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20835