Punishing America for Fareed's Mistake

I saw on the CNN summary for Fareed Zakaria's GPS show last Sunday that he had planned to have Gen. Colin Powell talk about Syria and other international issues.  The NRA and the Republicans succeeded in muffling a reasonable voice on foreign policy by putting Fareed off the air for one paragraph that may have accidentally been plagiarized.  The show was dropped and apparently will be off the air for at least a month.  Cancelling his show is sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  Candy Crowley is not bad, but by focusing on politics, she is caught up in a bunch of nasty people calling each other nasty names, while important stuff is going on overseas -- Syria, Iran, the Euro crisis -- but is not being covered by anybody, now that Fareed is barred from TV.  I hope CNN gets whatever it was they wanted from Karl Rove, maybe $100 million more in campaign ads for the Republicans.  Is Time-Warner's grovelling to the Republican establishment less culpable than Fareed's paragraph? 

Swift Boats Are Back

The Republicans have a new anti-Obama attack group, the Special Operations Opsec Education Fund, according to Reuters and the New York Times.  This is basically the same idea as the Swift Boat campaign waged by George W. Bush against Sen. John Kerry during his Presidential campaign.  The Swift Boat campaign vilified all Vietnam veterans by vilifying Kerry's military service, while the new Opsec campaign is aimed more specifically at Obama as Commander-in-Chief because he managed to kill Osama bin Laden, which the incompetent, cowardly Republicans had failed to do while George W. Bush was Commander-in-Chief. 

If the Republicans wanted to make sure that I, a Vietnam veteran, do not support Romney (or any other Republican) this is the way to do it.  It's probably coincidental, but both groups are primarily Navy veterans, the Swift boat veterans from Vietnam, and now the Navy seals from the bin Laden attack.  It makes me inclined to think that Navy officers are less patriotic than officers from other services, although that is probably not justified on the basis of the political actions of a handful of Navy personnel.  However, Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall set the standard during World War II and the years following it when he served as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, when he would not vote for any candidate because it might make it more difficult for him to serve the man he had not supported if he was elected.  Certainly soldiers should be allowed to vote, and retired officers should be allowed to campaign, but I think it is questionable when they attack the leadership of the country for being unpatriotic.  I think that makes them unpatriotic.  It's okay to attack the policies, but not to attack the Commander-in-Chief for disloyalty.  Do they want to try him for treason? 

The Republicans pursued two disastrous wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, during which they failed to capture or kill bin Laden.  Now they try to turn Obama's success in doing what they failed to do, against him.  Go back and look at what George W. Bush said and did when we found Saddam Hussein, who was not nearly as important an enemy of the United States as Osama bin Laden.  Republicans can brag, too.  What about "Mission Accomplished" blazoned across an aircraft carrier when the real Iraq war was just starting.  Was George W. Bush a traitor?  I think not; he was trying his best, but as a cowardly Vietnam draft dodger, he just didn't have it in him to fight a war well. 

Sorry for Fareed

I am so sorry that Fareed Zakaria plagiarized something from the New Yorker, according to Politico, and then got caught by the NRA.  The NRA is an unscrupulous, mean-spirited organization that lords itself over our political establishment.  That they got an intelligent liberal like Fareed will scare the less brave liberals in government.  It's like Parade Magazine's report of Grover Norquist fighting with a good man like George H.W. Bush because he went back on his pledge to not raise taxes. 

I hope that Fareed will continue to fight the good fight against the NRA and for intelligent, liberal policies to be pursued by the US Government. 

After comparing what is supposed to be plagiarized, I'm less concerned about Fareed.  Technically they got him, but in fact he gave credit to the real source of the information, a book by Adam Winkler.  The New York Times has a comparison of the texts.  He pretty much copied Ms. Lepore's summary of Winkler's book, but he didn't really copy any of her original ideas.  He could have read the book and come up with more or less the same summary.  This is sort of like "plagiarism lite," but it will be a stain on Fareed's reputation, and the NRA will be happy about that. 

In any case I will miss him in Time and on CNN. 

Did Jews Fight in Iraq?

In my opinion, the Iraq war was largely started by American and Israeli Jews who wanted to kill Saddam Hussein.  Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz led the charge aided by many Jewish colleagues at Defense and other parts of the foreign policy and defense establishment, such as Doug Feith, and Dov Zakheim. Senator Joe Leiberman was a big supporter.  Of course, President Bush II was interested in showing up or avenging his father, Bush I, and played into their hands.  Dick Cheney just wanted a war to throw some money to his defense industry buddies, but he had his own influential Jew to help him, Scooter Libby.  

So, Iraq was at least in part a war for Jews and Israel.  My question is, "Did Jews fight in it?"  I think not, although my evidence is not very scientific.  I looked up a list of the names of those buried in Section 60 of Arlington Cemetery, who were killed in Iraq.  I hoped there would be some listing of how many tombstones have stars of David on them, but I could not find out.  Looking at the names, it's hard to tell.  There are a lot of Polish and other Slavic names that could be Jewish, or could be Christians of Eastern European ancestry.  However, when I searched the list for "gold" or "stein," which appear in many Jewish names, I found no hits.  If it were an Asian war started by a Christian, e.g., Korea or Vietnam, I could understand, but this was a war in the Middle East pushed strongly by Jews.  

ObamaCare Should Have Been Single Payer

To control health care costs, we need single, public payer system.  The HCA takeover of Denver non-profit hospitals shows how profitable health care is.  Republicans kept it that way by blocking single payer and leaving insurance companies, huge medical companies, and doctors are in control.  Many doctors are working for hospitals or corporations rather than private practice because of the financial incentives.  

The obvious solution to the health care problem was Medicare for everybody, and then cost controls on what Medicare funds.  Obvious problems are the last six months of life for older people who incur huge costs that don't produce better quality of life, just longer life, as well as younger people with hugely expensive diseases, and of course the multiple unnecessary tests.  

High Speed Trading Takes Over Stock Market

This chart from Technology Review shows the growth of high speed trading over the last few years.  As the article says, at some point somebody other than insiders like Knight Capital is going to get burned, perhaps just some average investors.

You can thank 401(k)s and IRAs for a lot of this.  In many cases these are just money that is not actively managed by the people it belongs to, allowing the stock market to play with it.  They have just anted up and put a huge pot of money on the table for the hedge funds and big investors.  As this money gets churned, the big guys probably get rich (unless their computer program blows up) and the little guys get fleeced.  It's virtually (no pun intended) impossible for the SEC to police, because it's so big, so fast, and so complicated.

Al-Qaeda Still Alive

It looks like al-Qaeda is still alive.  They are somewhat active in Iraq, Syria, and Mali.  Al-Qaeda is is a radical Sunni group; most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Sunni Saudi Arabia.  Now they are one of the groups terrorizing the current Shiite government of Iraq, and one of the groups undermining the Alawite/Shiite  government of Assad in Syria.  Meanwhile they are taking over the government of Mali in central Africa.  So, the US is opposing al-Qaeda in Iraq in order for us to support the Maliki government we have set up, although Maliki is very close to Iran, our declared enemy.  We are supporting the goal of al-Qaeda in Syria of overthrowing Assad, even if we so not support al-Qaeda explicitly.  The Syrian rebels deny that they work with al-Qaeda, which may be true, but only because al-Qaeda works in Syria without identifying itself overtly.  Finally, in Mali al-Qaeda makes no bones about openly taking over the government, leading to concerns that it may become a new base of operations for al-Qaeda, as Afghanistan was before 9/11, according to CNN's Erin Burnett.

Is Ameica Still a Great Nation? 2

All the talk about the European atom smasher finding the Higgs boson adds to the perception of the decline of America.  The US was supposed to have a particle accelerator in Texas, the Superconducting Super Collider, to rival CERN's in France and Switzerland, but we decided in 1993 that we couldn't afford it.  Maybe the world doesn't need two huge accelerators, but the fact is that today Europe has one and the US doesn't.  Two generations ago, the US would have been in the lead.

Today, the US has no manned access to space.  Ironically, we have the International Space Station, but no American way to get people to or from it.  We are dependent on the Russians to transport the crew.  When I was doing science work at American embassies overseas, one of the best selling points we had was NASA.  NASA had a wonderful reputation, mainly build on manned missions like the moon landing and the Shuttle, but also on scientific missions, particular the Hubble space telescope.  The moon landing is now several generations ago, the Shuttle is in museums, and we have no way to service the Hubble, which will eventually die in orbit.  You could see how important manned space activities were when the Shuttles were flown to the various museums that will house them.  People stopped whatever they were doing to watch the Shuttles fly over on the 747 transport.  That greatness is gone.  NASA 20 years ago was what Apple was like before Steve Jobs died.  It was a world leader that caught everyone's imagination.  America has lost its Apple.

After the fall of Berlin wall, the US instituted a number of programs to help the Eastern European nations coming out of Communism.  I went to Poland to run the Maria Sklodowski Curie Fund to help Polish scientists by financing small scientific cooperative projects between American and Polish scientists.  We signed an agreement to maintain the cooperation for five years.  After two years, the Republicans took over Congress in the Newt Gingrich revolution, and cancelled funding for the cooperation years earlier than specified in the agreement.  The US did it under terms of the agreement that were put in for the Poles in case they ran out of funds, saying that the agreement could be cancelled if either party found it impossible to fund it.  The only reason it was impossible for the US was that Congress refused to do so.  It was an enormous contrast to the Marshall Plan that the US funded after World War II.  The US had relatively much more debt, still had some rationing as a result of the war, but we sacrificed to help the Europeans.  The Republican revolution was not that generous.  In large measure, the European Union stepped in where the US failed, and is largely responsible for the current day success of the Poles and other Eastern Europeans.  The contrast between the "greatest generation's" Marshall Plan, and the Gingrich Revolutions selfishness could hardly be starker.

The continual growth of a huge national debt and budget deficit is another sign of decline.  There is nothing wrong with going somewhat into debt sometimes,but going hugely into debt all the time is bad.  Although they agree there is a problem, the US is badly divided on this issue, with Democrats saying that taxes must be raised, while Republicans say expenses must be cut.  The Democrats are in general more willing to put up with debt, but responsible Democrats less so.  The US grew its social welfare programs, like Medicare and Social Security, when its economy was strong.  Now we can't afford as much social welfare as we could a generation ago, but we can't have a civilized debate about how to reduce it, or pay for it.  When you cut benefits, you hurt people.  Today, Republicans, unlike Reagan, are unconcerned about who gets hurt; the taxpayers just want their money back.  So, there is no discussion of how to reduce programs in a way that creates the least harm.  There is more discussion of how to raise taxes, but only because the huge Bush tax cuts that were limited in time have been continued long past their intended expiration date.  The "fiscal cliff" in theory will focus minds on taxes and budget cuts, but in fact Congress will probably muddle through without making a real decision.  That is not the mark of a great nation.

A personal bugaboo for me has been America's hatred of its military since Vietnam.  It's okay to hate the military as long as the nation is not threatened, but when it is, it may be hard to overcome.  A good military requires good people to serve in it.  Currently very few of the best Americans will serve.  The service academies still turn out pretty good officers, but their perspective is somewhat limited.  The military also needs outsiders who will bring a different outlook.  This means you need some good people from Harvard and Stanford, as well a more graduates of good state universities.  But today's generation grew up with parents or grandparents who avoided service in Vietnam, and who often pilloried veterans as psychotic baby killers, rather than praising them as defenders of the nation.  Vietnam veterans probably share the homecoming experiences of Confederate veterans or low-ranking German soldiers who served under Hitler. The 9/11 attack began changing this attitude, because America really was attacked, but it was not a traditional military attack.  Terrorists don't wear uniforms; The 9/11 attack was carried out by a handful of people who all died in the attack, except for Osama bin Laden and a few of his associates.  Thus, it didn't really call for a military response, although that is how we responded.  The resulting mess, getting rid of Saddam Hussein but strengthening the Iraqi regime, has not done a great deal to strengthen respect for the military, although it has helped.  The Afghan war has at best been a wash, with no clear positive result from years of fighting.  The fact that some many troops come home with mental problems has to some extend reinforced the perception that soldiers are psychotic killers, further discouraging people from joining the military.  Without a strong military, the US position in the world is weakened, because it will be less able to respond if it is threatened by another country.

Barclays Adds to Bankers' Poor Image

The revelation that Barclays Bank manipulated the LIBOR interest rate is another example of corruption among world class bankers.  Although Barclays is the only bank which has admitted guilt so far, it seems clear from emails and other documents that the manipulation was widespread among the other world class banks that Barclays did business with, probably including such big names a JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. Jamie Dimon was just on Capitol Hill testifying about loosing billions of dollars in bad investments, but the Senators and Congressmen basically gave him a pass.  With few exceptions they praised him and asked for his advice on banking regulation and the economy.  I was ashamed of my Senator, Michael Bennet, for kowtowing to Dimon by throwing him softball questions.  Now Jamie Dimon's similarly named colleague at Barclays, Robert Diamond, has resigned under pressure for rate fixing.

It is clear why the banking community, and Jamie Dimon in particular, were so opposed to Elizabeth Warren's taking over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  They were afraid that she would be a real police woman, and they knew that they were dirty.  They may not be criminals, but they are dishonest and corrupt.  They have just manipulated the Congress to make it legal to do the unscrupulous things that they do.  Their actions are often so complicated and involve such obscure financial instruments that it is very difficult to specify them as crimes, but Elizabeth Warren, as a Harvard law professor, could probably have done it.  So, Jamie Dimon and his fellow big-shot bankers paid lobbyists and congressmen and senators directly to keep her out.  He obviously got to President Obama, too, which is why I am not voting for Obama.  He sold out America for something -- money, Jamie Dimon's love?  I don't know what, but I don't like it.  It was not good for the country.

Is America Still a Great Nation?

Morning Joe on MSNBC had an excellent discussion of the Presidency this morning with several historians.  It mainly focused on recent Presidents, but they were compared to the really great Presidents of history.  Unfortunately, the recent Presidents don't measure up to Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, except perhaps for FDR.

There was a lot of praise for Reagan, JFK, Truman, Eisenhower and some others.  The best justification for Reagan was that he inspired a new conservative, Republican attitude which has continued to this day.  I think Reagan was a decent guy, but for some reason today's Republicans fail to see the full scope of his presidency.  First, his tax cuts created budget deficits which bedevil the US up to today.  He was actually too nice for many Republicans.  He surrounded himself with conservative, true believers who cut taxes drastically in anticipation of his cutting government expenditures.  However, when Reagan found that the draconian budget cuts his staffers had proposed would actually lead to widespread hardship in the US, perhaps including starvation, deaths from easily cured diseases, etc., he backed off, under pressure from Democrats.  The result was that we got the tax cuts without the budget cuts and budget deficits into the distant future.  Only Clinton eventually returned the nation to a surplus, ant then only for a few years.  To Reagan's credit, when he realized the damage his tax cuts were doing to the country, he raised taxes, a fact today's Republicans seem to overlook when they lionize him.  He was President when we won the Cold War, but that was in large part due to the containment policy that the US had instituted long before Reagan was President.

Of all the recent Presidents, I think George H.W. Bush (#41) was probably the best, but he doesn't compare to the pantheon of earlier greats.  He won the first Iraq war, handling it much better than his son, Bush 43, did the second Iraq war.  Additionally, after Bush 41 pledged not to raise taxes, he did raise them when he believed it was the best thing for the country, although he knew it would undermine his chances for re-election.  He put the country ahead of his own personal career.

The Morning Joe historians commented about how important it was to have a war in order to have a memorable presidency.  But to have a war be a positive for a president's legacy, they thought it had to be a war which the US fought all in.  World Wars I and II are the only ones that fall into that category, and Wilson's handling of the World War I aftermath, partially due to his poor health, did not help his legacy.  On the other hand, Franklin Roosevelt's handling of WW II secured his place in history.  The Vietnam War besmirched all the presidents it touched, and Bush 43's mishandling of the Afghan War and the second Iraq war only sealed his reputation as a horrible, failed President.

Clinton and Carter did not get wars.  Nobody much likes Carter, but grudgingly mentions his successful Middle East peace negotiations, which no one since him has been able to replicate, or even approximate.  Clinton had Bosnia, which I don't remember anyone mentioning.  It was a mixed bag for him; on one hand there was a lot of genocide before he did anything, on the other the Balkans have been relatively stable since the Dayton Accords.

There was a lot of sympathy for the largely ignored presidencies of Truman and Eisenhower, but they didn't rise to greatness.  Truman basically took over from FDR at the end of WW II without messing up too badly.  Eisenhower mainly presided over good times as the country recovered from WW II but fought the largely forgotten Korean War.  The historians gave Eisenhower kudos for his handling of the Korean War, but I think it was more the precursor of the recent unsuccessful wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan.  The US did not "win," and there is still no peace treaty ending it.  I think the real hero of the post-World War II decade was Gen. George Marshall. He was probably more responsible for the Allied military victory than any other American military man.  He was Eisenhower's mentor and boss.  After the war he served as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, but he would not seek public office, despite his enormous popularity at the end of the war.  He lent his name and prestige to the Marshall Plan, which was largely responsible for the prosperous Europe we have today (despite its current troubles with the Euro).  Marshall never voted because he did not want political loyalties to get in the way of his service to his country.  Eisenhower was not quite so willing to put his country ahead of his own personal career.

On the subject of military service, I am very disheartened that it has become such a badge of dishonor for political service.  No recent President has been a veteran, although a number of veterans have run for President.  Obama did not serve; he defeated McCain who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.  Bush was a coward who evaded service in Vietnam by joining a National Guard unit in Alabama for which he rarely did anything.  His Vice-President Cheney was also a coward who evaded service in the military altogether, although he was draft age during the Vietnam War.  Bush ran against Al Gore, who served in Vietnam despite his father's being a Senator.  The Gore family, unlike the Bushes, had a tradition of military service to the country.  Then Bush ran against Senator Kerry, whom he viciously attacked through the Swift Boat Veterans group, for being a Vietnam veteran.  I find it disgraceful that Bush did it, and sad that this country despises veterans so deeply that the attack worked.  Clinton, of course, ran against Bush 41, who was a decorated World War II pilot, and Bob Dole, another decorated World War II veteran who was badly wounded in Italy.  Reagan served in the military during World War II, but sort of like Bush 43 did.  Reagan stayed in California and made movies for the Army.  Jimmy Carter was a Navy officer who graduated from Annapolis, and many of the earlier presidents had some military service.

Gun Walking v. Gun Sales

The debate over the Congressional contempt citation for Attorney General Holder has obscured the debate about supplying weapons to Mexican drug gangs.  The gun lobby has done a great job of obscuring the fact that the US is supplying many weapons to the gangs without the ill-advised "Fast and Furious" operation.  This Huffington Post article about the Mexican Ambassador to the US's testimony before Congress lays out the damage that the US sale of weapons has done to Mexico.  In most cases the weapons are supplied by Americans who profit by selling them the weapons -- gun dealers and American buyers serving as shills for Mexican gang buyers.  Most of the newly supplied weapons are assault weapons.

End Filibusters

The Republicans have managed to stop the wheels of government by using the Senate filibuster process on all kinds of bills that they don't like.  According to Bloomberg, Common Cause is suing to stop the uncontrolled use of the filibuster.  Since the Democrats took over the Senate and the Republicans lost their majority there, the use of the filibuster has gone up to 276 times in 2007-10 from 130 in 2003-06.  84 filibuster motions had been used in this Congress up until May 2012.  This has effectively instituted a governing process that requires a super-majority in the Senate, and has made it difficult to the US government to function.  Currently it is blocking any progress on the budget process that is leading up to the "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year, when many programs will automatically end or begin unless the Congress takes some action that is currently blocked by the filibuster rule.

Mortgage Deduction vs. Capital Gains Tax

I am in favor of passing Bowles-Simpson, and I would defer to them how to revise tthe tax system, but the tax system is badly out of whack and needs revising quickly and thoroughly.  If people don't respect the tax code, if they perceive it as unfair, they won't pay.  Everybody will be a tax cheat, as they are in many southern European countries, like Greece and Italy.  That said, I wonder if it would be better to eliminate the mortgage deduction, which affects a broad portion or the population, or the capital gains tax rate, which lowers taxes mainly for the rich.

In 2006, the mortgage interest deduction cost the US $76 billion.  Although it affects a broad population, most of the benefit went to the moderately or conspicuously rich.  Half of the benefit went to 12% of the taxpayers, those making more than $100,000 per year.  If it was eliminated, house prices would fall probably 10-15%.  This article says it promoted the then-housing bubble.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.htm

Bowles-Simpson proposed replacing the current deduction with a 12% tax credit (so you don't have to itemize to benefit, since usually only the wealthy itemize).  A 15% credit proposed by a GW Bush panel would have produced $388 billion from 2013 to 2019, i.e., about $65 billion/year additional revenue.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-17/a-taxing-debate-the-mortgage-interest-deduction.html

A CBO analysis points out that the capital gains tax includes a tax on any change in value due to inflation, which is not real income, but is similar to any tax on interest which does not account for inflation.  On the other hand, capital gains tax is not imposed until the item is sold, which may delay taxes for years.  Capital gains over time have produced between 4-7% of revenues for individuals, although they were over 10% for the latter half of the 1990s.  Changes in tax rates affect behavior, but usually for a short time, a few years.  If capital gains taxes are going up, people will sell assets sooner to be taxed at the lower rate, but once they are sold, the spike in selling is over.  In general it is hard to predict capital gains revenues.  

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/14077

The conservative Heritage Foundation position is that raising capital gains will stifle the economy.  It implies that rich entrepreneurs will not work if they have to pay the same taxes as plumbers or engineers.  They just won't get out of bed in the morning.

A Wall Street Journal article has some specific numbers for capital gains tax receipts in fairly recent years.  In 2003, receipts were $51.3 billion.  In 2007 they were $137.1 billion.  A rough estimate is that if these rich people (and they are almost all rich) paid at the regular tax level (35%) rather than the current capital gains level (15%) the receipts would roughly double, i.e., to $100 billion in 2003 and $250 billion in 2007.  This is very rough, because rich people hold some assets for a long time, and only sell them when the capital gains tax is relatively low.  If there were no special capital gains tax, sales of assets would smooth out; with they special, lower tax they tend to bunch up either just before the rate goes up, or just after it comes down.  But it seems like you could estimate that the lower capital gains rate cost the US treasury about $100 billion per year during the first decade of the 2000s, or about $1 trillion over the last 10 years.  

Means Testing Social Security

I am interested in the extent to which Social Security is reduced by means testing, since I am a retired US government employee who also qualifies for Social Security because of years spent working in the private sector.  Because of my government retirement, my Social Security is severely reduced, by something like 2/3 or 3/4.  I get less than $50 per month, which every month when I get it seems more like a joke or an insult than social "security."  I will have to live a long time just to get back the money I have paid into Social Security, much less any "government money."

So, what about older rich people like Warren Buffett or T. Boone Pickens?  Do they face limits on the Social Security they can collect?  The Arizona Republic says Buffett collects $32,000 per year, or about $2,600 more per month than I do.  I presume the government has determined that he need the "security" more than I do.  Rep. Ron Paul admitted on Morning Joe that he gets Social Security, although he did not say how much he gets; I think he probably gets more than I do.  In 2007 Sen. John McCain reported that he collected $23,160 in Social Security, or about $1,900 per month more than I do.  It is harder to find out what Boone Pickens collects from Social Security, but this article says he and fellow Texan Ross Perot do collect it.

The main means test that rich people face now seems to be that they have to pay income tax on their Social Security.  Payments are also reduced if you continue to work after you start collecting Social Security, but the limits are reduced as you get older.  So, there are probably no limits on Buffett or Pickens, who are both over 80.

One article in the Huffington Post makes the argument that instead of means testing Social Security payments, the government should remove the limit on the amount of income that is subject to the payroll tax for Social Security, currently $110,100.  Since the payroll tax rate is almost as high as the capital gains tax that most rich people pay on their income, eliminating the limit would substantially increase the income of the Social Security trust fund and do a lot to make Social Security self-sustaining.

For me personally, however, the lesson is that as a retired US government employee, I am subject to a much stricted means test than the richest people in America.  Once again the 1% gets welfare paid by the 99%.

Bin Laden and Drones

I am not entirely happy with the way the Obama administration has handled the bin Laden killing and the frequent drone killings.  I think it was okay to kill bin Laden, but it would have been better to capture him and try him, in the US or in some international court.  If he had resisted arrest, the Seals could certainly have killed him.  I think he was killed because the US did not know what to do with him legally.  The cowardly Republicans are scared to death of bringing any terrorists in the continental US, although the chance of their escaping and harming anyone is practically nil.  The only way they could get out is if they were found not guilty of terrorism, and in that case there is no justification for holding them.

I do not like the idea of executing terrorists by drone attack.  I think it should be used very sparingly, only when there is evidence of a genuine, immediate threat to the US, and the US has to act to save lives.  On the other hand, I do not want to risk the lives of American troops unnecessarily.  The drone attacks certainly save the lives of some American troops.  But we are fighting to preserve American values of justice, honor, and the rule of law.  Destroying these values also has a significant cost.  Presumably we would not kill people willy-nilly, just because they looked suspicious.  So, somewhere there is a trade-off between saving the lives of American troops and destroying American values.  I believe Obama has erred on the side of destroying American values in order to save troops lives.

Supreme Court Coup

Americans and Egyptians have been upset at what they call a coup by the Egyptian Supreme Court in ruling on presidential candidates, etc.  They forget that we had our own coup in the US by our Supreme Court in deciding Bush v. Gore, and appointing George W. Bush President of the US regardless of what the actual vote was in Florida. The US survived this coup, although poorly, since Bush was one of the worst Presidents in American history.  Egypt may survive its little coup, but it is much more unstable than the US was.  The big issue is Islamic fundamentalism, which has been given a huge boost by America's ill-advised war in Iraq, which hugely strengthened the hand of Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East.

Fed Still Alone

Today's announcement by the Fed that it will continue the "twist" to lower long term interest rates, since it can't reduce short term interest rates below zero, shows how isolated the Fed is because the Congress can't or won't do anything.  We still have no fiscal policy, only a monetary policy.  Monetary policy can't do everything.  The Republicans complain that the Fed should not have an employment mandate in its duties, but Congress is doing nothing about unemployment.

The Republicans complain that the US looks like Greece in terms of incurring too much debt, and they have a point, but the US also looks like Greece because it has a dysfunctional government, in that our Parliament, Congress, does nothing.

One of the main reasons for a do-nothing Congress has been the introduction of the requirement of a 60% majority to pass any legislation, rather than 51%.  I don't think the founders of the United States anticipated this outcome, although when talking about the Supreme Court, the Republicans always say we should adhere to what the founders were thinking in the 1700s.  Until recently, the 60 vote requirement for cloture was only used for very important legislation where there was an actual filibuster.  The Democrats are partly to blame for not forcing the Republicans to conduct an actual filibuster speaking for hours like Jimmy Steward in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," not just saying they are conducting a virtual filibuster.

I don't think the Fed should take actions to prop up the stock market unless there is a crisis.  I guess there could be debate about whether we are currently in a crisis, but I don't think we are.  Bernanke could let the Dow drop at least 1,000 points before acting as if there were a crisis.  There is a crisis in Europe, but to some extent that is a good thing for US markets.  The Fed should work with the IMF and its European counterparts to assure liquidity, minimize bank failures, etc., but that doesn't necessarily include propping up the stock market.

Iraq and Iran

Arianna Huffington is right in her blog about the Iraq-Iran partnership made in America. The US war in Iraq vastly strengthened Iran's role in the Middle East.  The strengthened Iran already has consequences in today's Middle East because of its support for Syria's President Assad in addition to other trouble-making groups such as Hezbollah.  

Polish Death Camps

Poland has objected to Obama's reference to a "Polish death camp" while honoring a Pole who helped make the world aware of the Holocaust taking place in Nazi death camps in Poland.  The Polish objection shows their sensitivity on this issue, but certainly what Obama meant was that this was a death camp in Poland, not a death camp run by the Polish government.

Nevertheless, when I lived in Poland I was struck by the fact that they almost always referred to atrocities of the the World War II era as having been carried out by the Nazis, not by the Germans.  The Germans are still here and still next door neighbors of Poland, but the Nazi government is long gone.  So, the Poles live up to the standard that they are demanding from Obama.

Memorial Day Rembrance

Just for the record on Memorial Day, I want to remember the two men in my unit, A Battery 2/94th Artillery, who were killed at Firebase Barbara and whose names are on the Vietnam Memorial wall:
Paul Kosanke, and
Willie Austin, Jr.

Congressional Letter re Finance

I sent the following to my two Colorado Senators:

Please support Sen. Sherrod Brown's SAFE Banking Act of 2012 to rein in "too big to fail" banks.  JP Morgan's $2 billion loss announced yesterday shows how seriously out of control our banking industry is, only a few years after the 2008 Lehman debacle.  Although JP Morgan claims that its "hedging" was not in violation of the Volker rule, I think that it likely was.  JP Morgan was just gambling with its depositors' money, trying to make a quick buck, which was almost riskless, because the US taxpayers are still guaranteeing the assets of the "too big to fail" banks.

Simon Johnson of MIT and the IMF has called for Jamie Dimon to resign.


You are just throwing away America's money guaranteeing the foolish bets of fat cats on Wall Street.  I can't tell you how disappointed I am that President Obama threw Elizabeth Warren under the bus after all she did to establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  She was the only one in Washington speaking out for the middle class, and now she is gone.

I don't have much hope.  The US Congress is largely dysfunctional.  We have no fiscal policy.  Ben Bernanke has so far saved us from disaster with monetary policy, but he can't singlehandedly save the world.  You could give him a little help.

Two of the most important additional things the Congress could do are

-- Put the Bowles-Simpson proposals back on the table to address our financial crisis.  They were reasonable; they addressed the most important issue facing the US, and they have been ignored by the Congress.

-- Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.  The repeal of Glass-Steagall, led in Congress by Republican Phil Gramm and signed by President Bill Clinton, was responsible for the financial crash of 2008 and the current rogue activities of the big banks.  Banks should be banks, not gambling casinos.  

War Didn't Help

In today's NYT, Paul Krugman talks about how World War II pulled the US out of the Depression, although people back then also said that stimulus would not work.

It reminded me of the difference between World War II and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  First Roosevelt in WW II called on all of America to pay for the war, although it still ran up enormous deficits.  Bush said, "Go shopping," to support the Iraq war; you don't need to pay taxes.  If Bush had attempted to pay for the Iraq war, we probably would have had fairer, more equitable taxes, which would have done something to mitigate the perception that the current US tax system is seriously unjust.  We grew up hearing about the merits of the American progressive tax system that taxed the rich more than the poor, and now we find that we have a regressive tax system that taxes the poor more than the rich.  The Republicans argue that the rich still pay the bulk of the taxes, which is true, but only because they earn the bulk of the income.  Also, defenders of the current system seldom bring payroll taxes into the discussion, because if they did, the disparity would be even worse.  It's true that many very poor people don't pay income tax, but many more of them pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

The other disparity between the rich and the poor that the war widened is between those who defend America and those who stay home and make money while the soldiers fight.  In the old days, especially when there was a draft, the stay-at-homes were shamed as "war profiteers," but today they are hailed as "entrepreneurs."  In WW II almost everybody who was healthy fought; today almost all soldiers come from the lower classes, and disproportionately from small towns and rural areas, where there is still some feeling of patriotism.  Ironically, the 9/11 attack on the twin towers was directed at America's richest 1%, but the 1% by and large didn't fight back, it hired the 99% to fight and die for them.  Now when those soldiers come home seeking jobs, the 1% that owns everything usually turns its back on them.

The US has regressed so far back toward the old feudal system that we don't need new laws or an updated Constitution, we need a new Magna Carta.  Welcome to the 13th century!

Guantanamo Trials Are Legal Failure

The "trial" of the 9/11 terrorists in Guantanamo signals a significant failure of the American legal system.  The victims of 9/11 deserve better, because no one will believe that justice will have been done.  The prisoners may be guilty, but many victims of lynchings and other mob violence over the years have also been guilty.  The sign of civilization would be a fair trial, but Congress and the Obama administration have balked at allowing a fair rial.  The military lawyers in Guantanamo will do their best, but they have been put in an impossible situation.

25th Anniversary of MTCR

The following is a press release from the US Department of State:

Formed by the (then) G-7 industrialized countries in 1987, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is an informal political understanding among states that seek to limit the proliferation of missiles and related technology; it is not a treaty. Since its creation, 27 additional countries have joined the MTCR, and many other countries have adhered unilaterally to the MTCR Guidelines or otherwise control exports of MTCR Annex items.

Originally focused on restricting exports of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and related technology, the Regime expanded its scope in 1993 to cover unmanned delivery systems capable of carrying all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- chemical, biological, and nuclear. In 2002, the MTCR Partners (members) made terrorism an explicit focus of the Regime. Both of those steps were in direct support of the WMD nonproliferation objectives of the Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The MTCR seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of WMD by controlling transfers that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons. More broadly, the MTCR Guidelines (export control policies) and Annex (list of export-controlled items) have become the international standard for responsible missile-related export behavior. The MTCR and its Annex were implicitly endorsed in UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 of 2004, which affirms that the proliferation of WMD delivery means constitutes a threat to international peace and security and requires all UN Member States to establish domestic controls against such proliferation. The MTCR Annex also forms the basis of the list of missile-related items prohibited from being transferred to Iran under UNSCRs 1737 and 1929, and to North Korea under UNSCR 1718.

Over the course of the Regime’s 25-year history, the efforts of MTCR member countries have reduced the number of countries possessing missiles capable of delivering WMD, the global inventory of such missiles, and the number of countries interested in acquiring such missiles. The establishment by MTCR member and adherent countries of missile-related export controls has significantly reduced the availability to proliferators of support from the countries possessing the most and best technology. The export controls, information-sharing, and patterns of cooperation fostered by the MTCR also have resulted in the interdiction of numerous shipments of equipment intended for missile programs of concern. All of these measures have made it more difficult, time-consuming, and costly for proliferators to produce or acquire WMD capable missiles.

As it has done since 1987, the United States will continue to work through the MTCR to reduce the global missile proliferation threat by restraining the missile-related exports of an expanding number of countries and by increasing the pressure on proliferators to abandon their missile programs. The United States continues to encourage all non-member countries to support the MTCR’s efforts and to unilaterally abide by MTCR standards in the interest of international peace and security.

The MTCR currently has 34 members: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Liberal Education Still Important

With all the talk today about education, no one talks about the importance of a liberal education.  Despite the Conservative hatred of the word liberal, it means "free."  It is the education that free men should have in order to be able to govern themselves.  In the old days, when voting was limited to white men who owned land, they were the only ones who needed a liberal education.  Now that everybody can vote, everybody needs a liberal education.  We were close to that goal in the 1960's with the rise of cheap state universities and community colleges, but as governments have gone bankrupt, that ideal has disappeared.

Instead of seeing education as a resource that should be widely available, it is a commercial enterprise that is expensive, even for no-name colleges and universities.  Thus it has become all about money, not about learning.   All the students and the professors care about are salable skills.  Universities have become trade schools rather than centers of learning.

The Denver Post ran a front page article on higher education Sunday, but it was all about money -- funding for education.  Doing a search of the page, I did not find a single reference to the liberal arts, which was the most important role of a university a few decades ago, and certainly a hundred years ago.  Higher education has changed, and not for the better. The "bottom line" was that it's looking more and more like the State of Colorado will soon quit funding higher education entirely.

Romney VP Hopefuls Are Fiscal Failures

Two frequently discussed vice presidential hopefuls for presidential candidate Mitt Romney are Rob Portman and Mitch Daniels.  Both were the principle budget strategists for George W. Bush as heads of his Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was head of OMB from 2001 to 2003; Ohio Senator Portman was OMB director from 2006 to 2007.

Daniels oversaw the post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without raising taxes.  He publicly estimated the cost of the Iraq war at $50 to $60 billion. A recent Brown University study has estimated the direct cost of the Iraq war at around $750 billion.  Wikipedia says that on Daniels' watch, the US went from a budget surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $400 billion.  Wikipedia says that on Portman's watch the US public debt increased by $469 billion.

Both of these Republican budget directors follow in the footsteps of David Stockman, Reagan's OMB chief from 1981 to 1985.  Stockman successfully led the fight for Reagan's huge tax cuts, but after cutting revenues, he was unsuccessful in cutting federal expenditures, thus beginning the series of huge budget deficits that persist to this day.  Stockman doubled the national debt from $1 trillion to $2 trillion during his tenure.  The current national debt is about $15.5 trillion.

Jobs Bill and Facebook

I am worried that there is some connection between the recently passed Jobs bill and the Facebook IPO.  Facebook has been the poster child for huge IPOs that give preference to insiders.  Facebook was limited by the old restrictions of privately held companies.  It's not clear whether the new Jobs bill will change its situation. It may be too big, maybe not.  It's already in the situation where the number of shareholders of record is limited, but the actual number of shareholders is much higher.  Goldman Sachs counts as one shareholder, but it can hold shares for its preferred clients, raising the total well beyond 500 or whatever the limit was.  Even if this law does not directly affect Facebook, it will affect new IPOs, and while it may marginally aid new businesses, it will enormously aid rich Wall Street insiders.  At the same time, as the NYT article points out, it may increase the risks of bad investments in questionable companies by small, unsophisticated investors.  I would like to know what Elizabeth Warren thinks about the bill.  Is it good for America?  Is it good for the middle class (or what's left of it)?  Or is it just good for the super rich, especially those who live in Silicon Valley?  Unfortunately I do not trust Obama to do what is best for the middle class (and the country).  He has sold out to the super rich.

Sen. Bill Frist and Denver Hospitals

I have been upset for some time about HCA's takeover of a number of Colorado hospitals.  HCA is owned by the Frist family, whom Sen. Bill Frist represented in the Senate.  Health care is a mess; hospitals are making fortunes, and Bill Frist's is one of them.  Rather than using his expertise on health care to improve it while he was in the Senate, he used it mainly to enrich himself and his family.  Although he was Senate leader, he is remembered mainly for his provide-medical-care-at-any-cost argument to keep Terri Schiavo alive.  Frist is an example of what is wrong with the American health care system, and he was a leader in the Senate.  What is good for his wallet is not necessarily good for the country.

Now, Frist's for-profit HCA plans to take over many of Colorado's not-for-profit hospitals, creating concerns that the hospitals will no longer be run for the public benefit.

On the other hand, a Catholic-conected hospital systsem, SCL, plans to expand in Colorado, raising questions about whether the hospitals taken over will provide for the full range of women's health services that they provide now, since the Catholic church opposes contraception, abortion, etc.

Bernanke Lectures Aimed at Ron Paul

Fed Chairman Bernanke's lectures at George Washington University are aimed at Republican candidate Ron Paul, who represents a significant strain of thought about the Federal Reserve.  Paul believes that the Fed is evil because it interferes with the free functioning the American economy and most often encourages inflation.  Paul would like to see the US return to the gold standard.  Bernanke's first lecture dealt extensively with the issue, in particular recalling William Jennings Bryan's speech about "the cross of gold" on which the rich were crucifying average workers and farmers.

Bernanke correctly asked why the world economies should be restricted by the amount of gold that is mined around the world.  It's clearly better to have a money supply that can be managed to correspond the amount of goods and services being produced that the amount of gold being mined.  On the other hand, Paul is right that an irresponsible Fed can allow or encourage detrimental policies which might well increase inflation (or create deflation).  In an ideal world, however, the US would have a competent Fed which would maintain a proper money supply to facilitate growth and full employment.

One problem these days is that the US has no fiscal policy.  Congress is dysfunctional.  Republicans refuse to raise taxes; Democrats, to cut expenditures.  So, the full burden of trying to manage the American economy falls on the Fed, with some help from the Executive Branch, depending on what it can do by executive order, by the Treasury selling bonds, etc.

But Paul's gold bugs don't trust bureaucrats.  They would rather have the economy controlled by external forces, rather than the government.

I prefer to have Bernanke try to manage the economy rather than leave it hostage to South African gold miners.

Republicans Not Saving Money

In a legitimate debate about health care, Democrats would want single payer system assuring coverage for everybody.  Republicans would want a system that reduced costs.  What actually happened with Obama Care, however, was that the Republican insistence on using private heath insurance companies actually increased costs by increasing the power and profits of  insurance companies without reducing doctors' or hospitals' costs.  A single payer system would have given the government leverage to bring down costs; whether it would have actually done so will never be known.  Congress was quick to restore doctors' Medicare fees to the old, higher level when they were in danger of being reduced by some of the automatic budget reductions.  

Some doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients because Medicare pays less than private insurance.  If Congress had passed "Medicare for everybody," however, doctors would have had less opportunity to earn the high rates they currently do, although for the doctors who treat the richest "one-percent" price is irrelevant.  

In a New York Times report on the richest one percent,they found that after a general category called "managers," physicians made up the next largest portion of the one percent, with those working out of their own offices earning the most. Almost none of these rich doctors work in a world where fees are set by a free market; they are either paid by insurance companies or the government, in both cases with fees set in advance.  A patient who walks in the door of a doctor's office has no bargaining rights.  The doctors make sure up front that they are will paid.

The Republicans did nothing to insert free market principles in the health care law.  If anything, they strengthened the hands of the doctors in negotiating with the insurance companies and the government, assuring that the most expensive health care in the world will become even more expensive.  

Bankers Pay Obama for Dumping Warren

Bloomberg reports that JP Morgan and other banks are among the top donors to Obama's campaign.  Obama has sold out to the bankers.  For me Obama's  most egregious act was throwing Elizabeth Warren under the bus.  Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan led the campaign against her, and now he is paying Obama for dumping her.  It's good for Morgan, good for Obama, bad for America, and bad for the middle class.  Jamie Dimon has said that his bank does not want to do business with anyone who has less than $100,000 in his account.  Obama has sold out the majority of his supporters for Wall Street money, figuring that the middle class has nowhere else to go.  Right now the only thing that would get me to vote for Obama is for the Republicans to nominate Rick Santorum.  America is becoming the Roman Empire.  Nero start fiddling!  Caligula start partying!  Let's run a budget deficit of $5 trillion; who cares?  America ranks 34th in infant mortality according to Wikipedia.  The Republicans are against birth control and abortion because they love to kill babies after they are born.  This is NOT a great country.

Bloomberg has recently posted a story about how many payday lenders are supporting Romney, because he has pledged to overturn Dodd-Frank, which under the leadership of Elizabeth Warren, cracked down on payday lenders and other unscrupulous loan businesses through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Warren created. 

It's interesting that the big banks, like JP Morgan, have responded to the new regulations by supporting Obama for getting rid of Warren, while the little guys, like the payday lenders, have responded by supporting Romney, hoping to get rid of the regulation entirely. 

Sad That Sen. Snowe Is Leaving

It's sad that Sen. Olympia Snowe is leaving the Senate.  She has been a moderate, responsible voice there.  It's worse that she cited the worsening political stalemate as a reason for her leaving.  It's a sign of America's decline as a great nation.  She's leaving uneducated, hateful, unwashed rabble  behind in the Senate, which once used to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body.  Now it's a cesspool.  Poor America!

Obama Tax Cuts

Obama's proposal to cut the corporate income tax rate to 28% is just another present for the richest 1%. It will help more than the 1%, but most of the beneficiaries will be relatively rich, and will probably benefit more than the regular people will from their payroll tax cut. It's arguable that that the corporate rate cut will provide needed stimulus, but the rich are already pretty well stimulated.

One reason interest rates are so low is that rich have plenty of money are are not investing. Thus relatively few people are borrowing to start businesses, etc. The current wisdom is that banks are not lending, but mainly that means not lending to regular people. The rich can get loans; they just don't need or want them.

Obama's going to help them out anyway, because they will give him money if he does. Of course, they will end up making a lot more money than they contribute to his campaign, but he'll get his cut.

Syria Is Another Religious War

The article in today's New York Times and Tom Friedman's column of several days ago make it clear that Syria is yet another religious war between the Sunni and Shiite Muslim sects.  Syrian President Assad's Alawite sect is Shiite, a minority in Syria; most of the protesters are Sunni, who are the (oppressed) majority.  So the Shiite Iranians are going to help Assad, and the neighboring Sunnis are going to help the protesting rebels.  The NYT says that the Iraqi Sunnis, who used to rule Iraq, until they were overthrown by the US invasion, now support their rebelling colleagues in Syria.

In the Iraq war, the US overthrew the Sunni government and set up a Shiite government that is best friends with Iran.  Now, the Republicans, who defeated Iran's worst enemy, Saddam Hussein, want to send in American troops to die overthrowing the Iranian government that was strengthened by the US invasion of Iraq.  I guess the important thing is that the American government wants to foment sectarian warfare in the Middle East.  It may well be coming next in Egypt.

Jews for America

While I've been critical of American Jews who love Israel more than America, there are many who have done great things for America.  First comes to mind the owners of the New York Times, the Sulzbergers, where most of my information comes from.  Then there is the guy, David Rubenstein, who is contributing half of the cost of repairing the Washington Monument.  I thought that I would find that he also gave tons of money to Israel, but if he did, it's not immediately obvious on the Internet.  For some reason, it seems to be the Republican Jews, who you would think are the most patriotic, who actually seem more devoted to Israel. 

For example, The New York Times Magazine highlighted the issue of Israel's invading Iran, which I don't think is entirely favorable to Israel. 

Israel Lovers Buy Newt

Yesterday's New York Times article on Sheldon Adelson's campaign contributions to Newt Gingrich illustrated my concerns in the previous post about American Jews whose first love is Israel.  It appears that Adelson's main reason for supporting Gingrich is that Newt is a 100% supporter of Israel.  Earlier articles said that the main bond between Adelson and Gingrich was Newt's anti-union stance, but that hardly seemed worth $10 million or more.  Newt's support for Israel is a better justification for the campaign contributions. 

The article says that Adelson, who was born in America, did not get the Israel bug until middle age, but once he got it, he really got it.  It's not surprising that Adelson supports Israel, per my earlier post, but I don't know why Newt is such a fervent supporter of Israel.  Why should America base its entire foreign policy on a relatively small country?  I doubt that he subscribes to the evangelical Christian ideas about the importance of Israel for the endtime.  Newt is not Jewish, but I'm guessing that he likes all the financial and political support that the gets from Jews for espousing pro-Israel policies.  Jews have wealth and political influence far exceeding their proportional representation in the American population. 

It sounds as if Newt is willing to send thousands of young American gentiles for fight and die in Iran, because Israel feels threatened by Iran.  This from a man who was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War.  Ironically, Newt's father was apparently in the Army infantry, but Newt had no intention of following in his father's footsteps.  Although there were many reasons for the US invasion of Iraq -- 9/11, Bush II's love/hate relationship with his father, massive intelligence failures -- one was certainly the Israeli/Jewish desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who in the first Gulf War had fired Scud missiles into Israel.  There was enormous Jewish pressure to attack Iraq, led by prominent Jews such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.  Israelis were not willing to invade.  In fact, few American Jews enlisted to fight Iraq, but rich Jews paid to have poor, gentile rednecks fight there. 

Of course, now that it has come out how unjust the American income tax system is, it looks like rich Jews did not really pay that much to the rednecks.  They just got Congress to support the war, and the gentile middle class fought and financed Israel's war on Iraq.  Thank you Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin and your many Jewish political colleagues.  Of course, ironically for both Israel and the US, the Iraq War may have ended up strengthening Iran, thus further endangering Israel, rather than protecting it.  Iraq never really posed a threat to the US. 

I'm not sure, but Jews may perceive Mormons as less obsessed with Israel than other Christians, perhaps even as somewhat anti-Semitic.  Therefore there could be a Jewish movement for anybody but Romney, with Newt currently the most feasible not-Romney. 

Jews Support Israel over America

I am concerned that many Jews support Israel over America. I hesitate to say this because Jews are so belligerent and "in-your-face" that they will never admit to it. In addition, it is not true about all Jews. There are no doubt many American Jews whose first love is America, rather than Israel, but because the Israel-lovers are so vocal, it is hard to know whether there is a silent majority of America lovers, and if so, how big it is.

It is understandable that after the Holocaust, the Jews would have special relationship with Israel. Israel is sort of like Jews’ "panic room" if there is ever something else like the Holocaust. However, the world of nation states is not exactly like your own house. It is subject to certain international standards, although you are free to flout those standards if you can withstand the international pressure supporting them, e.g., the United Nations, various international courts, etc. One of the main complaints against Israel, in part because it is intended to be a safe home for Jews, is that it engages in apartheid-like discrimination against non-Jews, particularly Muslim Arabs.

In America, the main support for Israel is funneled through AIPAC, although there are many other pro-Israel organizations and publications in the US. It raises the suspicion in my mind that many Jews see the US primarily as a defender of Israel. They support the US, because the US supports Israel. Hence the huge amount of American government aid to Israel, sponsored by Jewish Congressmen and Senators, as well as by many gentile politicians. In addition to government-to-government aid, American Jews give huge private donations to Israel and Israeli charities.

The difference between Israel and the home countries of other immigrants to the US is that most American Jews did not emigrate from Israel. Many older Jews came from Europe before Israel even existed. Other immigrants, who came from other countries – European, Asian, African, Latin American – left countries that they were unhappy with for some reason, political, economic or social. Some will go back, but most will stay if America will let them. They chose to leave their birthplace. Most Jews, however, did not choose to leave Israel for America. They were born in America, or left some third country for America. Israel and America facilitate this arrangement by allowing all sorts of dual nationality possibilities that would be very unusual for other countries.

And so Jews who have become very economically and politically powerful in the US use their power to benefit Israel. They are happy to see the US embroiled in the Middle East, spending American lives and treasure on wars that mainly benefit Israel. Jews are pushing very strongly to get America to stop Iran’s nuclear program by force if necessary. If the Iraq war had gone as planned, Israel would have been the main beneficiary, but because the US mucked it up so badly, Iran has probably been the main beneficiary, to the chagrin of both Israel and the US.

I think more Jews vote Democratic than Republican, but in general Republicans seem to pride themselves on being stronger defenders of Israel than Democrats. In the Republican primaries, the candidates have delighted in saying that Obama is not a good enough friend to Israel.

I worry that because of the existence of Israel, there is a danger on issues that in any way affect Israel, from wars in the Middle East to banking regulation, there are influential American Jews who will put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s.

New Round of Tariffs

I am coming to believe that we need a new round of tariffs to protect American workers.  The article on Apple's manufacturing practices in Sunday's New York Times makes it sound like American workers don't have a chance to compete with Chinese workers.  Meanwhile an article in Technology Review points out how damaging to workers are the labor practices used by Apple's Chinese suppliers.  The only way American workers could compete is probably to subject themselves to the same miserable conditions that the Chinese workers endure.  In essence Apple is using slave labor.  It's arguable that US workers could compete in some highly mechanized robotic factory, but there is no sign that such a factory is under consideration by anybody, because it is easier and cheaper just to do it with people in China.

The Technology Review article calls for some kind of Fair Trade standard, like that used for coffee.  I think it is unlikely that such a standard would be tough enough to make any meaningful change in the electronics industry.  A tariff would have to be carefully constructed to avoid another Harley-Smoot disaster, but it could be based on protecting the health and welfare of the workers in exporting countries.  The worse the working conditions, the higher the tariff.  There could be verifiable standards, death rates of workers, hours worked per day, etc.

Instead of creating pressure to lower US working conditions to Chinese standards, such tariffs would pressure developing countries to provide better working conditions.  It would help level the playing field for developing and developed countries.  The current system unfairly benefits developing countries such as China.

Another Letter to Congressmen

The Mitt Romney discussion has made me very unhappy with the US tax code and Congress in general. Why should millionaire Mitt Romney pay a 15% tax rate, while poorer working people pay a significantely higher percentage? Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of Treasury, was just on Bloomberg Surveillance Midday, and said that the tax code is "unworthy" of the US.

Why do rich people hate America so much that they refuse to support it? And why does Congress accede to their wishes? Money! It just shows how corrupt the Congress is. Laws are up for sale to the highest bidder.

It's sad that all those graves in Arlington Cemetery were for nothing. America has become unjust and undemocratic. We are becoming the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, or something else equally bad. We have a department called "Homeland" Security, which sounds like it is straight out of Nazi Germany. Since when is "homeland" a good American word? The first thing Wikipedia says about "heimat" is that it is a German concept that has no simple English translation, although it is often expressed as "homeland." Wikipedia says, "Heimat is a German concept." I doubt that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson ever used the word "homeland," although I haven't researched it. (Searching the Washington papers in the Library of Congress, it appears to be used once, in a footnote by the editor about a Dutchman whom Washington knew.)

At the moment, I am inclined to support no candidate from a major party, Democratic or Republican, because I believe both parties are corrupt. One of the few politicians I support at the moment is Elizabeth Warren. Obama and the Democrats lost my vote when he threw her under the bus after she had worked tirelessly for the consumer protection bureau. Jamie Dimon, his fellow bank CEOs, their lawyers, their lobbyists, and their money, blocked her appointment.

This is a sad state of affairs, and you are part of it.

I hope that I won't go to jail under PIPA or SOPA for quoting from Wikipedia. Although maybe today is like the day back in 1846 when Henry Thoreau went to jail for refusing to pay his poll tax, leading to his seminal work on "Civil Disobedience." It's better to be in jail than to support a corrupt government.

Note: I am a Vietnam veteran (Army artillery) and a retired Foreign Service officer. My grandfather, a veteran of World War I, is buried in Arlington Cemetery. My father was a veteran of World War II and the Korean War. 

We need a country that is more concerned about honor than money. 

How Do We Stop the Iranian Bomb?

The Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, are all hot and bothered about stopping Iran from getting the atomic bomb.  But they never mention Israel's bomb.  And they pretty much ignore Pakistan's bomb, and India's bomb.  And they never mention America's bombs, Russia's bombs, China's bombs, Britain's bombs, etc.  The responsible way to stop Iran would be to have a genuine, functioning non-proliferation regime, not one full of loopholes for any country determined to stay outside the regime. 

The main impetus behind Iran's drive to build a bomb is Israel's bomb.  It's not clear that the Iranians actually have a dedicated bomb development program, but it is clear that they want a nuclear infrastructure that would allow them to build a bomb in a relatively short time, if they decided that they needed one.  And why would they need one, probably because they felt threatened by Israel.  Of course, Israel feels threatened by Iran.  But the cold war was basically about mutual threats between the US and Russia, and we both survived, so far. 

If we were serious, about getting Iran to back off of its nuclear program, we all have to get serious about nuclear arms.  The US and Russia both have to seriously disarm.  Israel, Pakistan, and the rest have to give up their nuclear programs.  George Bush actually increased cooperation with India's civil nuclear program, despite is military nuclear program, a step undermining non-proliferation globally, although it may have made sense bilaterally. 

If the US were to invade Iran to shut down its nuclear program, by rights it should also invade Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, India, and other problem countries.  Arguably, the older nuclear powers, the US and Russia, are grandfathered under the regime, although they are theoretically obligated to disarm, too. 

Newt Gave Up on America

Newt Gingrich gave up on America when he shut down the government in 1995.  A great country would not give up and quit.  I'm still mad because it affected me directly.  First, while I was assigned to the American Embassy in Warsaw to run the Maria Sklodowska Curie fund, named in honor Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie, the Republicans stopped funding it after two or three years, although we had signed a agreement with Poland to fund it for five years.  A great country would honor its promises.  So, don't count on the Republicans, especially Newt, to honor any promises, whether to pay interest on the national debt, make Social Security payments, or pay soldiers' salaries. 

I was in the process of transferring from Poland to Italy at the State Department's request when Newt shut the government down.  The US Embassy in Rome furloughed me, along with most employees, but it left me with no place to live.  All my worldly possessions were in storage or in my car getting ready to leave Warsaw for Rome in one hour when they called and said, "Don't leave."  But my wife and I had no place to stay in Warsaw.  It worked out, but no thanks to Newt.  The government should not send people to foreign countries and then abandon them.  Newt is totally irresponsible.  The idea that he might be President is deeply disturbing. 

Romney and Jobs

Most of the debate about whether Romney created jobs at Bain Capital misses the point.  Of course, businesses succeed and fail.  Some jobs will be created, some eliminated.  The questions is whether Romney cared about jobs, or just about maximizing profits.  For example, if it cost Bain $1,000 to keep a job that paid $25,000 to some long-term employee, would Romney do it?  That question has not been asked, but I think the answer is no.  That is a legitimate position, a purely Darwinian capitalist view.  But do you want the government to approach the jobs issue the same way?  I don't think so.  The government should take a more humanitarian approach to jobs.  And businesses could, too. 

In some cases, businesses fail because the men who started them don't have the heart to fire people who have been with them for years, although the company's hard times require it.  The Mitt Romneys of the world can come in and do it because they are heartless.  And they end up preserving some jobs, just not all of them. 

But what is Romneys view of the importance of jobs versus profits?  We don't know, and probably never will, because Romney seems to have no permanent views on anything. 

I think Romney's income taxes may be revealing, if he releases them.  He probably benefitted from all the tax breaks for rich people, particularly those in investment activities, that the lobbyists have gotten passed over the years, thanks to huge donations from rich people.  They can afford huge payments to lobbyists and campaign contributions to politicians, because the resulting tax breaks save them obscene amounts of money.  I'm guessing Mitt benefited enormously.  It will be even worse if it turns out that he is hiding income by putting assets in the Cayman Islands, or some other tax haven. 

Obama Abandons Democratic Party

Obama's proposal to break up the Commerce Department is just another example of his kowtowing to the Republicans and abandoning Democratic party ideals.  Government needs reorganization, but breaking up a long existing cabinet department is not the way to start.  The Republicans probably want him to eliminate EPA or Education, and he thinks it is smart to hit Commerce instead, but it's still a recipe for disaster.  The Department of Homeland Security has been a disaster.  The country is no safer than when the agencies in Homeland Security were under different cabinet departments, but it has been a great financial boon for private contractors, most of whom have Congress under their thumb through their lobbyists and campaign contributions.  It's government welfare for rich contractors. 

Obama is a worthless coward.  People make a big deal of his approving the raid on Osama bin Laden and continued drone strikes, but in both cases he was just saying yes to hardliners in the military and intelligence communities.  Closing Guantanamo would take guts, and he won't do it, because he doesn't have the guts.  Elizabeth Warren makes him look like a little crybaby.  It's no wonder he didn't want her anywhere near him; the comparison is devastating. 

Republican Primary as Reality Show

The Republican primaries are basically a reality show.  The candidates are more like the housewives of Orange County than commanders in chief.  That’s why somebody who was just promoting a book, Herman Cain, came to be one of the leading contenders, if only for a few weeks  The debates and campaign speeches have been in general uneducated and banal, except for Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, who have espoused reasonable positions, although I may not agree with them.  I think Ron Paul is wrong in his opposition to the Fed, but he is right that we are in serious economic trouble.  I think Huntsman is right on most important issues -- economic and foreign policy -- but too conservative on social issues like abortion and gun rights.  But Romney is campaigning as if he were a California housewife.  He may be the most intelligent housewife, but just a housewife nevertheless.  The others -- Santorum, Gingrich, Perry -- are good at puffery, but just full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  Republican voters are not voting for a commander in chief but just on who is going to be voted off the island.

USAA and the Decline of the American Military

I’m a big fan of USAA insurance, but I think it’s significant that USAA now needs to advertise, when previously it tried to limit policyholders rather than attracting them.  In the old days USAA insurance was only available to military officers.  Because of patriotism and the draft, a lot of excellent people became military officers.  Many of them did not become career officers, but left after their initial period of service to return to civilian life, where they often became successful businessmen, lawyers, doctors, and other prosperous members of society.

 Vietnam destroyed respect for the American military, but because of the draft during the first part of the war, there were still a lot of good people who became officers.  With the end of the draft and rising disrespect of the military, particularly by “good” families, fewer and fewer people who were destined to become community leaders served as officers.   As a result USAA’s pool of excellent customers has been shrinking.  Now, instead of having a favorable opinion of former officers, Americans tend to have an unfavorable opinion, making it more difficult for former officers to rise to prominence in the civilian community.

As an example, look at recent Presidential elections.  The last military officer to serve as  President was George H. W. Bush.  He was defeated for his second term by Clinton, who avoided service in Vietnam.  Clinton defeated Bob Dole, a World War II hero, to win his second term.  Al Gore, Clinton’s Vice President, served in Vietnam, probably because as the son of a senator, he inherited a now antiquated family tradition of national service.  When he ran for President, however, he was defeated by George W. Bush, who did not inherit his father’s tradition of national service, and who avoided service in Vietnam by joining the Alabama National Guard, where he seldom did anything, even in Alabama.  For his next term Bush ran against Sen. John Kerry, who served in Vietnam and was awarded a Purple Heart medal.  The Republican Swift Boat veterans ridiculed Kerry’s service, in what to me was the most egregious attack on veterans by a major political party.  In order to win Bush a second term, the Republicans defamed all veterans by attacking Kerry for being a veteran.  In a turnaround, the Republicans nominated a veteran, war hero John McCain, in the next election.  McCain was defeated by Obama, who is not a veteran but is too young to have been influenced by Vietnam and the draft.  Although he did not serve in Vietnam, Bush II was probably eligible for USAA insurance under their old rules, although none of the other Presidents would have been.

The Presidential elections illustrate how Americans have turned against those who serve in their country’s military.  The result has been a significant downgrading of the USAA customer base, from leaders of American communities to those relegated to a lower social and economic status because of their service in the military.

Predictable Iowa

There was nothing interesting about the Iowa caucuses.  Mitt Romney got more or less his expected 25%.  Rick Santorum was the not-Romney candidate of the moment, and got about the same vote.  Ron Paul got the votes he was expected to get, high for a non-mainstream candidate, but not enough to make him mainstream.  If the vote had been held 10 days earlier, the not-Romney vote would have gone to Newt Gingrich.  If it had been 20 days earlier, the non-Romney vote would have gone to Herman Cain. 

Mitt was smart to move the non-Mitt vote to Santorum instead of Gingrich, because Santorum will be a weaker challenger.  But none of the non-Mitts really had much support of their own. 

What a waste of time, energy, and money!  And how discouraging to think that this is how Americans elect a President. 

Iowa Caucuses

Based on the results I have heard, a tie between Romney and Santorum, the Iowa caucuses appear to be an enormous waste of time.  If they contribute anything to the Presidential election, it just shows how broken our electoral system is.  Part of the problem is due to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, basically making it legal for rich people to buy an election.  And part of the problem appears to be that the Republican Party is dysfunctional, offering such lousy candidates, and that Republicans in Iowa are idiots, turning out to vote for such incompetents. Poor America!

Obama's Failure on Consumer Protection

After failing to nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer protection agency, Obama proposed Cordry. See this Vanity Fair article on Warrren. However, when the Senate blocked Cordry with some filibuster trick, Obama just accepted it. He has obviously been bought by the big banks and other financial interests. Obama should at least have made a stink. He's been quiet as a mouse, hoping the public will forget and the Wall Street money will keep rolling in. The average person has no one to stand up for him, except Elizabeth Warren, whom Obama has thrown to the wolves.

Jews Need to Clean Up Their Act

In Boomerang, Michael Lewis points out the absence of Jews in the German financial community.  We all know why this is so.  But the problem now is that the American financial community is largely led by Jews, and it turns out to be corrupt, while the gentile German banking community turns out to be largely honest, if gullible.  Not all Jews are dishonest, but events like this tend to reinforce unfavorable stereotypes of Jews. If Jews want to overcome these "Shylock" stereotypes, they need to clean up their act.   Unfortunately they are dragging America down into the gutter with themselves. 

Women Leaders

At this moment in the financial crisis, the only people I trust are women:
Elizabeth Warren,
Christine Legarde, and
Angela Merkel.

When Barney Frank was discussing his legacy on PBS yesterday, one the things he emphasized was the consumer protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank law.  Elizabeth Warren was largely responsible for that, and then when push came to shove, Obama abandoned her, clearly as a result of pressure from the crooks on Wall Street, led by Jamie Dimon of Chase Bank. 

Christine Legarde did a good job as French Finance Minister and is currently sorely missed as France tries to deal with the European financial crisis.  However, she will be able to help as head of the IMF.  I trust her to do the right thing more than I did her disgraced predecessor, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. 

Angela Merkel gets a lot of bad press from financial journalists and commentators, in part because they see her Germanic honesty as a rebuke to American dishonesty.  People seldom mention that she is from the old East Germany, and grew up in conditions far different from the prosperous unified Germany that she now leads.  She, more than others, remembers the trials and sacrifices that West Germany undertook to unify with East Germany.  When they look at the sacrifices they are being called on to make for Greece, et al, the Germans can say, "Been there; done that."  However, before the sacrifices were for fellow Germans; now the sacrifices are for countries and peoples with whom the Germans share much less.  Although Europe needs to be saved, Merkel is right not to have Germany commit suicide to save its poorer partners.

Germany More Moral Than America

I just finished reading Michael Lewis' chapter in Boomerang about Germany.  His theme for Germany is "clean on the outside, dirty on the inside."  But much of what turns out to be dirty on the inside is America's subprime mortgage debt, which was sold by unscrupulous American bankers to honest, trusting German bankers.  In many ways it is the most damning portrait of the American banking system that I have read of the books I have read about the economic crisis.  According to Lewis, the Germans were honest; the Americans were dishonest.  It makes be less forgiving toward American bankers.  I am now more inclined to believe that the crisis was not something that just happened, but it was caused by Americans who knew that they were doing bad things.  I now think that somebody needs to go to jail, along the lines of the "Daily Show" last night, complaining that Martha Stewart went to jail for something that was absolutely nothing compared to what the big shots on Wall Street did, none of whom has gone to jail.  It illustrates that America has become a third rate country where you can buy your way out of jail by bribing the President and members of Congress with political contributions.

More Welfare for Millionaires

The Denver Post has had an excellent series on tax breaks for corporations.  These breaks were supposed to encourage businesses to move into poor areas called enterprise zones, but eventually enterprise zones covered most of the state and just constituted another tax break for almost any corporation doing business in Colorado, in some cases giving tax breaks to corporations that eliminated jobs, rather than creating them.

This is also an example of the "beggar thy neighbor" policies pursued by many government jurisdictions, from nations to cities.  One of the big Republican arguments for lower business taxes is that other nations have lower taxes; if we don't match their low rates, all companies will leave the US, they say.  Within the US, companies move to the states with the lowest business taxes.  Most big companies incorporate in Delaware because it has the most lenient laws governing corporations.  In the Denver area, the Aurora suburb is bidding to take the annual stock show away from Denver proper by offering all kinds of tax advantages to it and the Gaylord hotel chain which would build a new hotel near the stock show grounds. 

All of this takes money away from basic activities that governments perform, from defense to education to building and maintaining roads.  Colorado just voted down a small increase in taxes for education, but it has millions to subsidize big corporations in "enterprise zones," or to get the stock show to move ten miles out of town. 

Rich Doctors Are America's Problem

This op-ed by David Brooks says that the largest proportion of the richest 1% of Americans are doctors.  He says 16% of the wealthiest are doctors, compared with 8% being lawyers, for example.  That's why health care costs are going through the roof, why Medicare is out of control, etc. 

He doesn't break down the doctors' incomes, but it's pretty well known that the richest doctors are the specialists, the heart guys, the bone guys, etc.  Many of them getting rich on Medicare because old people have heart attacks, broken hips, etc.  The general practitioners, who keep people healthy, rather than repairing them after they are sick, don't make nearly as much. 

It's a system where the rewards are misallocated, and that threatens to destroy the whole American economy.