The truth About Obama's Spending Habits

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.


As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.



• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor/2

American have a choice to make

Back to the Future: What's at Stake for the Economy in the Obama-Romney Contest?


Published: September 12, 2012 in Knowledge@Wharton

Share this Article

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing ServicesTo hear the two candidates tell it, the U.S. presidential election offers a dramatic choice on the economy: Vote for me, each says, if you want a robust recovery; pick my opponent, and we'll plunge back into recession.



But regardless of who wins, important economic factors will remain facts of life. Millions of American homeowners are "underwater," owing more than their homes are worth and weakening the consumer demand that is key to the economy. Employers, even if they are flush with money, won't hire more workers until they need them -- when demand rises or appears ready to.



The debt crisis in Europe resists a quick solution, and deficits and overhanging debt in the U.S. are too big to be whittled down very fast. These deficits will compete for federal revenue that could stimulate the economy through more spending or cuts in taxes.



Given the size of these problems, what is the most likely economic landscape to emerge after the election if President Barack Obama, a Democrat, wins, or if Republican challenger Mitt Romney wins?



Three Wharton faculty members say that, either way, the future is likely to look much like the present, for several years at least. "The notion in the political debate is that if you just do something a little bit differently, things will get much better. But it doesn't work like that," says Wharton finance professor Franklin Allen.



"It seems to me that one of the most depressing things about this campaign has been that it's more or less tit-for-tat, gotcha issues that have emerged, rather than any serious talk about what [the candidates] are going to do [regarding] the looming problems with the economy," says Wharton finance professor Richard J. Herring.



Whoever he is, the next president will face an immediate economic crisis, including the "fiscal cliff," tax increases and deep spending cuts that will kick in automatically unless Congress and the White House can agree on an alternative. The cliff is a result of a standoff in 2011 over raising the debt ceiling. "I think once the election's over, that's going to be the big issue," says Allen.



What if the Democrats, who support tax increases on the wealthy, and the Republicans, who do not, cannot agree, and the automatic provisions kick in? "I think it's quite likely that would lead to recession," Allen states, predicting that tax hikes and cuts in government spending would reduce gross domestic product by about 3%.



While both candidates say their policies would speed job creation, the problems run too deep to be resolved quickly, Allen adds. "It's become a much more serious problem than we have ever had in this country before," he says, arguing that many of today's unemployed will remain so unless they are retrained, a lengthy and expensive process that he says is currently inadequate.



Indeed, according to Allen, the current economic problems are unique in American history. The clearest analogy is Japan, which has been struggling for many years. What's the solution? "I don't think anybody really knows," Allen says.



A Divided Government



Obama proposes a continuation of the policies of his first term, which included efforts to stimulate the economy through federal spending and modest tax reductions focused mainly on people with low and middle-class incomes. He would allow the Bush-era tax cuts to lapse for people earning more than $250,000 a year, but would keep them for people earning less. He would stay the course with his health care overhaul -- the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare -- and would keep most of the regulations imposed on the financial services industry after the financial crisis.



Romney's most dramatic economic proposal is to reduce tax rates even below the Bush levels in effect today, while making up for the lost revenue by eliminating some unspecified deductions and tax loopholes. Romney wants to repeal parts of Obamacare and many of the financial regulations. He would loosen environmental regulations and, compared to Obama, place heavier emphasis on exploiting coal and oil.



While the candidates' economic philosophies and positions are dramatically different, neither is likely to engineer a sweeping policy change, says Herring. The reason: divided government.



Polls predict a close election, with neither contender's coattails long enough to ensure massive wins by his party's congressional candidates. The odds thus seem to favor a continued division in government, with neither party getting a veto-proof majority in Congress or a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate.



"We have to recognize the fact that whoever wins isn't going to get a huge, sweeping mandate to do whatever they want," Herring says. Severe problems undermining the economy are therefore likely to remain unsolved, including the decay of roads, bridges and other infrastructure, debt problems, the eventual insolvency of Medicare and American students' lagging educational achievements compared to other developed countries.



"The question is, what are they going to do on the margins?" Herring asks.



Federal tax policy is, as most agree, far too complex and confusing, Herring says. But neither candidate is likely to have the mandate it would take to change this, given the vested interests that would resist. While Romney, who has emphasized tax overhaul more than Obama, says he would strip out many deductions and loopholes, he has not said which ones, but has indicated he would not go after popular ones like the income tax deduction on mortgage interest.



'The Worst Possible Consequence'



The presidential campaign has also focused on two health care issues with significant impact on the economy: Obamacare, the 2010 law that overhauled medical insurance, and Medicare, the financially troubled health care entitlement program for the elderly.



Obama considers the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act his greatest achievement and has promised to preserve it, while Romney wants to repeal much of it and replace it with a plan that he has not fully detailed. With a continuation of divided government, Obamacare will likely survive, Herring predicts. "Romney has not clearly articulated a workable alternative, though heaven knows we don't really understand the thing we've got."



From an economic perspective, a key problem with Obamacare as written, says Herring, is the requirement that businesses with 50 or more workers provide health insurance. That has dampened the creation and growth of small businesses, which are the primary source of new jobs, he argues. Unemployment stands at just over 8%.



In the long run, problems with Medicare will have more economic impact than issues surrounding Obamacare, says Mark V. Pauly, professor of health care management at Wharton. By providing insurance to the previously uninsured, Obamacare will "give you a clean conscience," he jokes, "but Medicare will clean out your bank account. So, from an economic point of view, Medicare is much more consequential."



Both issues, Pauly says, create uncertainties that weaken business confidence, which in turn helps stifle economic growth. Many business people favor the Republican promise to repeal Obamacare, but worry about what would come next, while Obamacare's business mandates are a known quantity for now. "If Republicans win and I'm a business providing health insurance, I have a hard time knowing what to expect," Pauly notes.



In a similar way, Republicans have a more aggressive plan for reducing the Medicare funding shortfall by subsidizing participants who would shop for health insurance on the free market. But polls show that many Americans worry they would then end up shouldering more of their own health care costs in retirement, so it is unclear Republicans would push for all the changes they have proposed even if they swept the election.



On the other hand, says Pauly, Democrats have yet to propose a clear plan for preserving the current Medicare system for the long term, making the outlook unclear for future beneficiaries. "That kind of uncertainty, in the short run, is about the worst consequence of all the debate about health care," he says.



Divided government would also make it difficult, if not impossible, to resolve problems with the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which has business-dampening features like heavy reporting requirements to multiple agencies, Herring says. One of that law's key goals was to prevent the need for future bailouts of financial services companies deemed "too big to fail," but there are serious questions about whether the Dodd-Frank safeguards would work, he adds.



The stock market, after plunging in 2008 amid the financial crisis, has recouped nearly all of its losses. But Herring notes that a key factor in this rebound was the Federal Reserve's efforts to keep interest rates low. Stocks may not do as well after these efforts end, as they must at some point. "We're clearly relying much too much on monetary policy," he says. "The Fed has basically been turning cartwheels" to bolster the markets and economy.



The alternative -- better fiscal policy to reduce the danger from factors like the federal government's huge deficits and debt -- seems unlikely given divided government, according to Herring. As things stand now -- and are likely to stand after the election -- major problems like the deficits, debt, growing health care costs and eventual insolvency of Medicare will be kicked down the road to be dealt with later, after they have become worse and the solutions more costly, he predicts. "If we actually wait until there's no choice, it's going to be very painful."



http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3076

Michael Moore's Warning about a President Romney

Ammerica take this warning to heart or there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth and there will be no where to turn, no one to blame but the choices you make at the next election.  Do you want to move forward with President Barack Obama or do you want to return to the old way of doing business with Mr. Romney?
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/president-romney-why-those-two-words-should-scare-you-action-election?

America - go forward with President Obama

What are the American virtues? What kind of President can best reflect those virtues of honesty, caring, open, compassionate, wanting more for Americans that for himself? It does not look like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney could do that for America.
Let President Obama conclude his vision for his country and his people - the American people. He is a great guy who has brought America back from the brink of disaster, brought the head of one of America's greatest enemy Bin Laden and a decent health care system that meet the need of the poorest in the nation.
This is not the time to jump ship.  It is the time to think about now and who can best deliver and that continue the next four year of progress.


http://www.alternet.org/paul-ryan-unleashes-his-terrifying-vision-america?

Annie Mchon Interview

An interesting Video interview: 'Deep State' Annie Machon: MI-5 Whistle-blower. It is about 58 mins long but it is worth watching,




http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31960.htm#.UAx8cgR9JvE.mailto

Uban Leadership Awards 2012

June 2012 - Toronto, Ontario – Dr. Joseph Du of the Winnipeg Chinatown Development Corporation and the Winnipeg Chinese Cultural and Community Centre will join eleven individuals and groups that have been chosen as the winners of this year’s Urban Leadership Awards program for making Canada’s cities healthier, safer, and more dynamic places to live and work.Ranging from a project aimed at providing education to remanded youth to a centre that cultivates technology entrepreneurship, to individuals who have dedicated years to revitalizing the core of their cities or building the capacity of their communities, the winners this year once again demonstrated creativity, resourcefulness, and persistence to improving quality of life in cities across Canada. Selection of this year’s winners was done by a cross-disciplinary jury, under the chairmanship of CUI Board Member Rupen Seoni. “We had impressive nominations from all across the country to select from” said Mr. Seoni. “We ended up with recipients that represent Eastern, Western, and Central Canada which is wonderful because it demonstrates that no matter where you live, there are amazing people out there who are applying their passion to making their communities and cities better places to live.”
The jury also awarded a City Champion award in recognition of Stephen Dupuis’s legacy of leadership, community and vision for the home building and development industry in the GTA. The award acknowledges his impact on the many issues that affect the industry and their numerous consumers across the region, including his passionate advocacy for affordable homeownership.
The awards ceremony to honour this year’s exceptional urban leaders will be held on June 8th from 11:30 am-2:30-pm at the Toronto Board of Trade. (First Canadian Place) Join us for lunch at this downtown location before seeing the following awards presented:
2012 Urban Leadership Award Winners

City Soul
Ruth Howard, Jumblies Theatre: for inspiring creative community-building and fostering social connections through Jumblies’ distinctive blend of art and community development.Local Hero

Dr. Joseph Du, Winnipeg Chinatown Development Corporation: for his sustained leadership to revitalize both the Winnipeg Chinatown and the Winnipeg Chinese Community, which has attracted investment, development, and new families back to Winnipeg’s core area.Global City

Waterloo Accelerator Centre: for cultivating technology entrepreneurship and transforming the Waterloo region into a recognized cluster for innovation and commercialization within the high-technology and information communications technology (ICT) industriesInnovation

STEP Home: for bringing together a collaborative of 12 programs through 10 agencies at 19 sites to provide options and supports to end persistent homelessness in Waterloo RegionProsperity

Attainable Home Calgary Corporation: for expanding the supply of affordable, adequate housing while retaining and recruiting the skilled workforce essential to the sustainability and growth of CalgaryRenewal

Andy Fillmore, Halifax Regional Municipality: for bringing about a unique collaborative approach to city building projects in HalifaxSafety and ResilienceAmadeusz and The Look at My Life Project: for providing remanded young people with the support and opportunity to positively change their lives through education
Youth
Hibaq Gelle, Youth Health Action Network (YHAN) with Toronto Public Health: for mobilizing youth around the globe with her passionate advocacy and leadership in support of the Somalian community both in Africa and CanadaDavid Crombie Award

Joseph Mancinelli: in recognition of his significant contribution to the public realm over many years in his role with LiUNA (Labourers’ International Union of North America)
Jane Jacobs Lifetime Achievement Award

Anne Golden: for her long-standing leadership in public policy, her academic work and her varied leadership experience in business, not-for-profit and government sectors
For more information about this year’s Urban Leadership Awards Program and to buy tickets for the ceremony, please visit our website here.About the Urban Leadership Awards Program

Since its inception in 2004, the Urban Leadership Awards program has been paying tribute to individuals, groups and organizations that have made a profound and lasting impact on the quality of life in Canada’s cities and urban regions.
The awards program is also a fundraiser for the Institute in support of our internship program, dedicated to providing undergraduate scholars with practical work experience.Members of the JuryMembers on the ULA Jury panel include:

Mr. John Kim Bell, Founder, National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation and energy executive leading the Aboriginal Affairs effort for Brookfield Renewable Power; Dr. Catherine Chandler-Crichlow, Executive Director at the Centre of Excellence for Financial Services Education, Toronto Financial Services Alliance; Ms. Helen Cooper, Former Mayor of Kingston and Head of the OMB, Manager, Ministry of Community and Social Services; Mr. Rupe Seoni, CUI Board Member and Vice President and Practice Leader, Environics Analytics; and Ms. Claudette Toupin, Regional Director, Canada School of Public Service, Manitoba.

Malcolm Gladwell unmasked

 Digging a little under the skin of this popular pop-intellectual gurn, author of The Blink. Check out what some have uncovered - have an open mind. There are many sides to one story, remember that.
http://www.alternet.org/story/155770/is_malcolm_gladwell_america%27s_most_successful_propagandist_and_corporate_shill?page=entire

Modern Day Inquisition proves the Church has changed very little

How long does the Roman Catholic Church thinks it can go on with the archaic policies that shut women out of leadership. The Church would not have been around if women did not rally around this dying institution.  Instead of listening to women and try to understand, the male hierarchy has used their powerful clamp to silence the voice of progressive nuns in the Church.
It is no secret that the Catholic Church is all but a hollow institution of rituals and ceremonies that is far removed from practical lives of people living in today's world. On any given Sunday most Churches are empty. Those who go to Church take their bodies there and go through the motion and then return to their lives of birth controls, divorces and separations and other so called sins. There is hardly any connection left between the spirit of the Church and its members. 
The Pope better wake up from his Tower and look outside his window. There are real people with real lives and those who want to make a difference. Women who want to contribute in more meaningful ways because they believe that they can do more. They want more.
http://www.alternet.org/story/155696/why_the_pope_hates_nuns?page=entire

On April 28, nearly 33 years after Theresa Kane's unprecedented challenge to the pope, the Vatican delivered a verdict against LCWR, the nuns' group led by Kane in 1979: Its members were defying Catholic doctrine, Vatican investigators said, by promoting "radical feminist themes," as well as contradicting church teaching on homosexuality and the no-girls-allowed priesthood. Further, as Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times reported it, "The sisters were also reprimanded for making public statements that 'disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the church's authentic teachers of faith and morals.'"


As punishment, Cardinal William Levada, who now occupies Ratzinger's old job at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, appointed Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to oversee LCWR for up to five years, giving him final say on every speaker at the group's conference and every public utterance made in its name. He'll also revise LCWR's governing statues and oversee the revision of a handbook that, according to the Times, was "used to facilitate dialogue on matters that the Vatican said should be settled doctrine." Links between LCWR and two liberal Catholic groups will also be investigated.

Speaking on CBS This Morning [video] last week, Sister Maureen Fiedler, host of the public radio program, Interfaith Voices, said, "If this were the corporate world, I think we'd call it a hostile takeover."


LCWR Board Meets to Review CDF Report



..June 1, 2012


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[Washington, DC] The national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) held a special meeting in Washington, DC from May 29-31 to review, and plan a response to, the report issued to LCWR by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.


The board members raised concerns about both the content of the doctrinal assessment and the process by which it was prepared. Board members concluded that the assessment was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency. Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission. The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization.

The board determined that the conference will take the following steps:

•On June 12 the LCWR president and executive director will return to Rome to meet with CDF prefect Cardinal William Levada and the apostolic delegate Archbishop Peter Sartain to raise and discuss the board’s concerns.


•Following the discussions in Rome, the conference will gather its members both in regional meetings and in its August assembly to determine its response to the CDF report.


The board recognizes this matter has deeply touched Catholics and non-Catholics throughout the world as evidenced by the thousands of messages of support as well as the dozens of prayer vigils held in numerous parts of the country. It believes that the matters of faith and justice that capture the hearts of Catholic sisters are clearly shared by many people around the world. As the church and society face tumultuous times, the board believes it is imperative that these matters be addressed by the entire church community in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity.






Contact: Sister Annmarie Sanders, IHM – LCWR Director of Communications - 301-588-4955 (office) - 301-672-3043 (cell) - asanders@lcwr.org






June 1, 2012

Garner neat business ideas

Special Report




Strategic Management

Transformative Times: New Opportunities for Business in an Era of Upheaval

In the 20 articles that make up this special report, students from the Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management & International Studies explore the many ways that the business community has responded to changes in our global economy. They look at individual companies and industry trends, and analyze how startups as well as established firms are taking advantage of transformative events around the world.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=viewFeature&id=2923

_________________________________________________________________



Asia



The Groupon Effect in China

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2899



Talent Management at Multinational Firms in China

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2903



Louis Vuitton and the Traveling Chinese Consumer

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2901



The Trials and Tribulations of Japan's Energy Policy

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2900



Uncorking China's Wine Market

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2898



'Thanks But No Thanks' to Made in China?

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2902

Business versus Ethics: The India Tradeoff?

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2897

Europe



Born in the USA, Made in France: How McDonald's Succeeds in the Land of Michelin Stars

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2906



In Germany, the Oxymoron of Mr. Du

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2907



Small Businesses in Russia: Drowning in a Sea of Giants

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2908



Globalization and the French Horse Racing Industry

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2905



Spain No Longer Battling the Windmills

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2909



Microcultures: Cultural Sustainable Development in France

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2904

The Middle East



The Unexpected Early Winners of the Arab Spring

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2915



Saving Vocational Education in a New Arab World

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2916

Latin America



Are Colombian Flowers Experiencing a U.S. Drought?

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2913



Will a Shortage of Qualified Labor Derail the Brazilian Economy?

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2911



Open for Business: The Pacification of Brazil's Favelas

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2910

From Terrorism to Tourism: Waving the Flag of Development in Colombia

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2914

Building Blocks: The Bright Future of Colombia's Cement Industry

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2912


_________________________________________________________________



Knowledge@Wharton High School

Considering Cutting Class? TruantToday May Be Watching

http://kwhs.wharton.upenn.edu/2011/12/considering-cutting-class-truanttoday-may-be-watching/



http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2923

Robert Fisk's Year End Blast

Bonfire of the Dictators
Robert Fisk

How come they lasted so long?

We are so keen to analyse the revolutions that tore the Middle East's dictatorships apart this year that we have forgotten the record of endurance of these vicious men and their sheer, dogged, ruthless power to survive.

European autocrats could sometimes manage a few decades: Hitler lasted only 12 years, Mussolini 21; Franco at 39 years, Salazar at 36 and Stalin at 31 years were exceptions. But Gaddafi survived for 42 years, Ali Abdullah Saleh 33 (and counting), Mubarak 30, the Assad family 41 years (also counting), the House of Saud – as rulers of Saudi Arabia – has so far lasted 69 years and the al-Khalifa family (rulers of modern Bahrain) a mere 228 years. How do these guys cling on?

A patriarchal society, a religion that speaks of submission, a refusal to rebel when Western enemies are "at the gates", tribalism? Or is this just a reflection of our own "civilisation"? "People will endure their tyrants for years," that old fraud Woodrow Wilson told his chief propagandist George Creel as they set sail for the Paris Peace Conference in 1918, "but they tear their deliverers to pieces if a millennium is not created immediately." Just so in Egypt, already in Libya, we fear, and quite possibly in Syria; speak it not in Yemen. Only brave little Tunisia has held its post-revolutionary nerve.

But oh how they clung on, these little men. Their Arab peoples were infantilised, turned into schoolchildren who must obey the beneficent headmaster – Mubarak actually called his people "children" in his last broadcast – and given fake newspapers, fake ministers, fake elections; until, with education, foreign travel and technology, the people suddenly grew up and realised that their own dictators were children. But it's more than that.

So here's a year-end column for followers of Arab revolutions; it's really a manual of Middle East tyrants and their habits, although those with an interest in Putinism might find a few useful hints. The Arab Tyrant Manual is the invention of one "Iyad al-Baghdadi" who proclaims his residence in Dubai but insists he is neither Syrian nor Libyan, which leaves little to be guessed, and whose work has now been publicised by writer Rania Massoud in the Lebanese newspaper L'Orient Le Jour.

It comes in the form of Tweets (something in which this writer does not indulge) but it makes fascinating reading. Provided by Massoud from al-Baghdadi, therefore, it is sound if ultimately deadly advice for dictators past and present (Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saleh, Assad and kings galore).

Firstly, insist that your country is not "X" ("X" experienced a revolution just before yours). Blame everything on al-Jazeera then close their office in your country. Say that you "support youth" (while your security forces are killing the same young people). Condemn Islamists; start at the bottom rung (Muslim Brotherhood) then work your way straight up to the evil al-Qa'ida. At the beginning (of social unrest), pretend that nothing is going on, and, when you learn of the seriousness of the crisis too late, address your nation at midnight. Warn against sectarianism, tribalism and other 'isms' that get people frightened. Blow up a church and blame Islamists. Announce that your remaining in power is synonymous with stability.

Get the point? This is picture-perfect stuff, TS Eliot-like in its specificity, photographic in its image of every, repeat every Middle East dictator. But there is more: announce a new government, and then another one. Burn down police stations and blame it on protesters. Insist that all is going fine. Once the situation gets worse, cut all telephone lines and block access to social media. When things get really bad block the internet. Insist that protesters represent only a very small minority of the people. Remind everyone of the last election results. Declare that change is indeed necessary, and promise many cheerful things if young people will just stay at home. Order the Interior Minister to kill the lot, and then fire him for excessive use of force.

All this proves of course, just how dismal is the sense of originality among the dictators of the Middle East. Al-Baghdadi's list just goes on and on, and gets funnier and funnier: organise demonstrations in favour of your own regime. "Agree to be interviewed by a well-known journalist; Christiane Amanpour will be fine. Forbid protesters' funerals. If Westerners criticise you, denounce their interference, adding that they don't understand the culture of your country. Warn about the economy – young people are destroying their nation – but whatever you do, don't mention the economic state of the nation before the revolution began." And, just in case, reserve a hotel suite for yourself in Saudi Arabia.

Another list of advice for autocrats, sometimes painfully identical, comes, quite by chance, from the pen of Lebanese writer Melhem Chaoul. A dictator's power is personal and absolute, he says. Laws exist only to protect the system of domination. Whoever is in power must be surrounded by a loyal family circle. Terror, corruption and propaganda are the triple pillars of this power. Citizens who object become "rats" (Gaddafi), "monstrous criminals" (Assad), "earthworms" according to Saddam. Everyone is invited to participate in the "comic opera" of corruption, from the small customs officers to the great merchants of Cairo, Damascus, Aleppo, Sanaa and Tripoli. "If there is one right under an Arab dictatorship," Chaoul says, "it is the right to be corrupt. Everyone is implicated, everyone is an accomplice. Those who refuse to play this game are suspects and traitors ... Watch out! Honesty is suspect."

Chaoul agrees with al-Baghdadi, that "It's us or chaos!" is a common theme of dictators under pressure; stability at any price. The aim of Arab dictators is to create fear of civil war. "When these regimes pretend to struggle against 'terrorism', especially the Islamist-fundamentalist version, they are fighting against groups that they themselves have created," Chaoul says. The "ultimate rampart" of the regime are the tribes (Alawites of Syria, the tribes of Tripolitania, tribes allied to Saleh, the Sunnis of Tikrit under Saddam) who become militias, under-trained and over-armed, keeping watch over the regular army and police.

I have watched these dictators for almost 40 years and I understand their ways. They must know how to talk with crowds and walk with kings. Sadat of Egypt was never so happy, so he used to tell us, as when he holidayed in his humble Delta village, Saddam would dress in Kurdish peasant costume, Gaddafi enjoyed his wretched tent, the emerald princes of the Gulf would constantly repeat the mantra of desert purity. Yet presidents, prime ministers and secretaries of state would feel at ease in their palaces. And in one sense the masters of the West and the masters of the Desert could feel at home; they all knew, after rendition and the mutual exchange of torture techniques, that beneath the throne lay the forceps, the pliers and the electrode.

And thus a form of civil war (civil war-blood or civil war-lite) is the only way to overthrow regimes – Egypt in the second bracket, Libya and Yemen in the first – but the two lists of behavioural traits above have an unstoppable power to convince.

Oddly, no Arab appears to have traced the parallel behaviour of western leaders when their dictator-acolytes run into trouble - or added relevant advice. Perhaps I can help. Continue supporting the "moderate" dictators you pay or who abandon "terrorism' or protect their nations from "Islamist terror" (Mubarak/Ben Ali/Gaddafi) until it's too late when – in the final days, and when the people are clearly going to topple the local nabob – you call for their overthrow in the hope that the people will think you were on their side all along.

If the local Genghis Khan appears to be winning, and especially if he's got lots of oil, then you can militarily help the rebels by trying to kill your former ally. This is especially useful if you have previously slobbered all over him in your desire to steal his country's natural resources.

The Blair-Cameron Punch-and-Judy show with the author of the Green Book is a text-book example. No wonder one of Gaddafi's acolytes messaged a British go-between after the attack on Gaddafi's home in Tripoli with the simplest of questions, "What are you doing?"

There is, of course, another pre-planned path for Western leaders: rage against oil-poor dictators who kill their fellow countrymen, but call for them to "step aside" rather than "step down" (Assad) if you or your local ally (Israel) fear that their replacement might prove a lot worse. If, on the other hand, they are immensely wealthy and also strategically useful (Bahrain), you may criticise them, but under no circumstances call for their overthrow. Ditto for Saudi Arabia and all the other glittering kingdoms of the Gulf.

And advice for both Arabs and the Western leaders who rule them by proxy. Be patient. The Bahrainis rose up too soon. The Egyptians rather late. But revolutions are often followed by counter-revolutions (Field-Marshal Tantawi and the Muslim Brotherhood versus the revolutionaries of Tahrir Square, for example, soon to be followed by Tantawi versus the Brotherhood) and they go on for a long, long time. We journalists like to have neat, date-packaged stories, to wrap up revolutions by edition times when in fact – oh, woe betide all editors – the Arab Awakening will continue long after we have died of old age.

So this is a column to cut out and keep over the next year. Read, learn and inwardly digest. And if you really can't make out right now whose side to support or desert, call for "both sides to exercise restraint" until you've made up your mind. Touche.