Since January 20th, when President Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, we have all watched with some degree of interest to see what the Republican Party would do to regroup. First we saw them vote NO on anything of substance that came across the floor of congress. They quickly established themselves as a true opposition party, determined to undermine any attempts at bi-partisan cooperation.
Then in an attempt to show how they were "reaching out" beyond their narrow base, they named Michael Steele as the first African-American Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He proceeded to appropriately rebuke Rush Limbaugh's insane assertion that it would be good for President Obama to fail, regardless of the impact on our country, reminding the clown prince of the right wing that he was not the leader of the party, but simply a talk show host. Less than a week later, under pressure from inside the party, he apologized to him, rendering him powerless to impact the party.
Then you have the economic brain trust of Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Eric Cantor. Boehner is the House Minority leader, Cantor has the same role in the Senate. After the presentation of President Obama's budget, it's renouncing by the right wing, and a challenge to actually produce an alternative, they produced a pamphlet disguised as an alternative. The only problem was it had no numbers in it. A budget with no numbers is like a chocolate cake with no chocolate. After being called out on it, they went back to the drawing board and came back with ineffective tax cuts and unrealistic spending freezes diguised yet again as a budget. I have spent 17 years in management creating, implementing and struggling with budgets. While the formats may vary slightly, this "budget alternative" does not qualify as a budget at all.
Around this same time, after the Presient's first national address, the GOP rolled out their hot young star, Gov. Bobby Jindal, to offer their response. In a performance that was part Howdy Doody, part Otis from Mayberry, Gov. Jindal rambled on about a Hurricane Katrina story that showed not only why Americans voted to remove them from office, but showed his inability to even share a personal story with actual facts. Turns out he was not even in the city he claimed to be in at the time this story of his leadership took place. The highlight of this "speech" was Gov. Jindal indicating President Obama wants you to rely on the government to fix the current economic crisis. "Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts." The humor is, in attempting to attack the new administration, he once again highlighted the shortcomings in leadership within his own party.
Now after a break from Republican stumbling, we get Sen. Arlen Specter. Specter, a lifelong Republican and 27 year member of congress, announced he was leaving the party to become a Democrat because his previous party had gone so far right he could no longer support their ideals. Following his party change, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine indicated how this conversion was indicative of a deeper problem within the party. What deeper problems could she mean?
Enter Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. Testifying before congress during debate on expansion of the hate crime bill originally named for Matthew Shepherd, who was targeted, kidnapped, tortured, and ultimately killed in 1998, in large part because he was a homosexual, Foxx claimed that the murder was not necessarily motivated by the fact that he was gay and the portrayal as such was a "hoax". This while Judy Shepherd, Matt's mother, was in attendance. The revision to the bill was to add sexual orientation to the list of things that would qualify a crime as a "hate" crime. The revision passed in spite of Rep. Foxx, and the isolation of the Republicans continued.
Finally, we have Paul Broun, who now tries to tie the Swine Flu outbreak to illegal immigrants. Nevermind the fact that the first reported cases here was a group of Catholic school kids from New York who had been on a trip in Cancun. It is accepted that the Swine Flu most likely originated at a pig farm in Mexico, but to use this fact for your racist rantings is just foolish. Illegal Immigration is a problem that must be addressed, but more people travel across that border legally than do illegally. "Mr. Broun, this is reality calling, can you hear me?"
When you put all of this together, you get a political party that has completely lost touch with a growing majority of this country, yet continue to almost go out of their way to further alienate any segment of the population that does not fit their mold (master race anyone?). A once proud party representing conservative values has become an isolationist organization, fueled by hatred of anything inclusionary or progressive.
The problem we face with the lack of an effective conservative opposition is the risk of driving too far to the left. It's the erosion of the center that provides an opportunity for Constitutional Moderates to step in and begin to influence policy toward a return to the Rule Of Law. Not in my lifetime have I seen a party so much in need of elimination, but shifting to the far left presents us with the potential for as many problems as the far right has.
You may have heard of a group of Democrats being called the "Blue Dog Coalition", or "ConservaDems". These are labels referring to what amount to Moderates, people who believe you can be progressive without driving fully left. These people are the start of what could be a new party. There are currently 49 members of this forging new party in the House alone. Sen. Specter's change of party shows that to be even a Moderate, you have to align yourself with the Democrats because the Republicans have grown to fear even the center. Sen. John McCain built his career being a "Moderate Republican", but, in this last election, immense pressure from an increasingly desperate Republican Party forced him further to the right, forced him into choosing Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate, and cost him any realistic shot at the Presidency. You can see the list of these Moderate leaders by clicking on the members tab at their website:
www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/
We need to not only support these leaders, but look for more of these when the 2010 elections come around. You can count on the fact that as I find them, I will let you know who they are and how to help as the revolution grows.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Collateral Damage?
It's August 1990, and I'm a 22 year old punk kid trying to figure out how to be an adult without growing up, and Saddam Hussein decided he wanted to expand his empire and invaded Kuwait. Being born in 1968, Vietnam was a selection of songs, some cool movies, and brief sections in history classes I remembered from high school. As I watched the buildup of troops and war seemed imminent, I heard person after person telling me that war in the Middle East would be just another Vietnam. But what does that mean? The predominant explanation I heard was fighting a war in a country where trying to differentiate your enemy from your ally was brutal, where your enemies don't fear killing themselves or their countrymen to kill you, and where the terrain does not allow for traditional warfare. Then the draft talk started, along with talk of a long, drawn out war. This was all new to me, and I found myself glued to the news.
January 16, 1991, Operation Desert Shield becomes Operation Desert Storm. Despite numerous attempts to get the madman to withdraw from Kuwait, he insists on ignoring diplomatic efforts and ignoring economic sanctions. The ensuing aerial assault was like nothing I could have ever imagined. President George W. Bush used ther term "Shock and Awe" when we began the invasion of Iraq, but it was this military, under his father, that truly showed "Shock and Awe". It was a constant assault that robbed our enemy of not only their ability to fight, but their will as well. Even the vaunted Republican Guard, Saddam's elite fighting machine, was relieved to surrender to our ground troops when they began marching on Iraq. 12 countries sent naval forces, 8 countries sent ground forces (ah, a true coalition) and the costs of the war were actually shared.
During this process, I worked in the meat department of a local grocery chain. I quickly became the "store correspondent" for all matters Gulf War, as sleep was not even a thought when I could sit up and watch Wolf Blitzer and Bernard Shaw break down the day's events, and when I could watch Gen. Schwarzkopf give those brilliant briefings with that purely American swagger of confidence in a plan well designed and even more beautifully executed. I would come in each day and "brief" my co-workers on the precision bombing of strategic targets, and, when necessary, on casualties suffered by our coalition heroes. I was so proud inside that we had obviously learned so much from the debacle in Vietnam that we would NEVER put our troops in that situation again. I thought of this conflict not as a war in any sense, but rather an object lesson to those in the Middle East who would challenge our allies or innocent nations anywhere in the world.
A little over a month later, it was all over. The white flag went up and Kuwait was free again. 293 American soldiers gave their lives, 458 more were injured. A tremendous sacrifice no matter how you measure it, but compared to the horror stories I had heard leading up to this conflict, it left me wondering if people just underestimated the power of our new military. I was left feeling like these "third world" nations were good at killing each other, and good with suicide attacks, but when it comes to war, they were no match for "civilized" nations.
"The cost of the war to the United States was calculated by the United States Congress to be $61.1 billion. About $52 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around the world: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf States; $16 billion by Germany and Japan (which sent no combat forces due to its constitution). About 25% of Saudi Arabia's contribution was paid in the form of in-kind services to the troops, such as food and transportation. U.S. troops represented about 74% of the combined force, and the global cost was therefore higher." Wikipedia "Operation Desert Storm"
Fast forward now to September 11th, 2001. Like most of you, I watched in utter horror and complete sadness as our nation was brutally attacked by cowards using commercial jets as their weapons of choice. Over 3,000 civilians from over 90 countries lost their lives in these attacks. It was quickly determined that Osama Bin Laden was responsible, with his network of coward terrorists, Al Qaeda. This savage group of sub-humans was headquartered in Afghanistan. President Bush wasted no time. It was on now. Remembering how we dismatled this type of "fighting force" in 1991, I watched eagerly to see us bring these animals to justice, dead or alive. The "War On Terrorism" was declared. On October 7th, 2001, military action began in Afghanistan as "Operation Enduring Freedom". It's mission, "capture Osama bin Laden, destroy Al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to Al-Qaeda."
From the beginning this was clearly a different type of conflict. It was not a blow by blow of a complete onslaught of military force. We were capturing some high ranking Al Qaeda operatives, including some who had allegedly been part of the plot to carry out the attacks on 9/11. But Osama Bin Laden? Nowhere to be found, still broadcasting messages. Al Jazeera could get footage of him, but we couldn't find him anywhere. Coalition forces removed the Taliban from power, and a new democratic government was formed by the end of 2001. Okay, this is more like it. It should be all downhill from here.
2002 saw predominantly diplomatic work being done in the heart of Afghanistan, as the Taliban and Al Qaeda had retreated to the Pakistan border to take refuge in the deep caves of the vast mountain ranges. The idea was if we could establish a strong democracy in Afghanistan, and train a free military there, we would have a powerful ally in the region. Seemed logical enough.
In 2003, Americans began hearing of another threat in this War on Terror, a name we were pretty familiar with, Saddam Hussein and our good friends in Iraq. "He is an imminent threat to our way of life", "He possesses weapons of mass destruction, and must be stopped from using them." I thought to myself that Hussein must really be an idiot. Here we are 12 years removed from pummeling him into submission with minimal resistance, still reeling from the loss of 9/11, and he wants to go another round? My thought at the time was, let's not leave him in control this time, let's finish this. The United Nations did not see it this way. Many of our allies did not see it this way. There were reports that no hard evidence of weapons existed, that there was no substantially confirmed link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. We all knew, however, that this guy was a lunatic who had killed his own people, a tyrant who saw himself as the potential ruler of the world. The U.N. sought stronger sanctions, requiring Iraq to allow inspectors to resume their routine inspections. This was not enough for us. It was a "with or without you" moment for us. President Bush determined we were going to war in Iraq, and on March 20, 2003, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began. "We will be greeted as Liberators", and "This will be quick and efficient" were a couple of the statements made by senior officials at the time.
Let's fast forward one more time, to today, April 23, 2009. The Taliban have increased their insugency in Afghanistan, but more troubling is their expansion of power in Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and if Al-Qaeda is neutralized, it is because our intelligence is better and our guard is now always up, not because of our brillaint military strategy in Afghanistan. And what about Iraq? Almost 6 years since President Bush made the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, we are essentially an occupying force in daily danger. The tribal feuds have escalated, and Al-Qaeda, basically non-existent in Iraq when the war started, has a presence there, albeit limited. Iran, always a nuisance, has become a legitimate threat now that it's mortal enemy, (aside from us) Iraq, has been divided and weakened. It is estimated that 4,276 American soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, with 4,137 of those occurring AFTER the "Mission Accomplished" speech. Officially, 31,193 additional soldiers have been injured since the war began. By comparison, 679 American soldiers have given their lives in Afghanistan. That brings the total American (this doesn't count our coalition brothers and sisters) casualties for the "War on Terror" to 4,955. That is 66% MORE lives lost than on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is still free, and the Middle East has become more volatile than ever. Those who defend this "strategy" will say that we have not been attacked in over 7 years. I argue that we have not been attacked because we have foiled the attacks through intelligence, not through military victory. And what of the attacks on our allies, like Spain and England? Is not an attack on our allies the same as an attack on us?
How about cost? As of October, 2008, the Congressional Research Service estimates that the AMERICAN cost for this war is $831,000,000,000. That's right, 831 BILLION DOLLARS.
I supported strongly, with vengeance and arrogance in my heart, the invasion of Iraq. To some extents, I could have been told we needed to invade Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or even Kuwait, and after the horrors of 9/11, I may have signed on. I was so, so wrong. The difference is I was not leading this nation at the time. I could afford to be wrong. How much of what has happened since 9/11 would we consider "collateral damage"?
To our soldiers, including my own nephew, awaiting his next tour, I can only say I am deeply sorry, knowing all the while you don't ask for my apologies. I can only hope that soon you will be home for good, knowing all the while you go willingly when asked. YOU ARE ALL HEROES!!
Over 18 years have passed since I first heard people warning of a "Vietnam in the Middle East". I no longer ask what they mean. Now I wonder how we could possibly have done it again.
January 16, 1991, Operation Desert Shield becomes Operation Desert Storm. Despite numerous attempts to get the madman to withdraw from Kuwait, he insists on ignoring diplomatic efforts and ignoring economic sanctions. The ensuing aerial assault was like nothing I could have ever imagined. President George W. Bush used ther term "Shock and Awe" when we began the invasion of Iraq, but it was this military, under his father, that truly showed "Shock and Awe". It was a constant assault that robbed our enemy of not only their ability to fight, but their will as well. Even the vaunted Republican Guard, Saddam's elite fighting machine, was relieved to surrender to our ground troops when they began marching on Iraq. 12 countries sent naval forces, 8 countries sent ground forces (ah, a true coalition) and the costs of the war were actually shared.
During this process, I worked in the meat department of a local grocery chain. I quickly became the "store correspondent" for all matters Gulf War, as sleep was not even a thought when I could sit up and watch Wolf Blitzer and Bernard Shaw break down the day's events, and when I could watch Gen. Schwarzkopf give those brilliant briefings with that purely American swagger of confidence in a plan well designed and even more beautifully executed. I would come in each day and "brief" my co-workers on the precision bombing of strategic targets, and, when necessary, on casualties suffered by our coalition heroes. I was so proud inside that we had obviously learned so much from the debacle in Vietnam that we would NEVER put our troops in that situation again. I thought of this conflict not as a war in any sense, but rather an object lesson to those in the Middle East who would challenge our allies or innocent nations anywhere in the world.
A little over a month later, it was all over. The white flag went up and Kuwait was free again. 293 American soldiers gave their lives, 458 more were injured. A tremendous sacrifice no matter how you measure it, but compared to the horror stories I had heard leading up to this conflict, it left me wondering if people just underestimated the power of our new military. I was left feeling like these "third world" nations were good at killing each other, and good with suicide attacks, but when it comes to war, they were no match for "civilized" nations.
"The cost of the war to the United States was calculated by the United States Congress to be $61.1 billion. About $52 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around the world: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf States; $16 billion by Germany and Japan (which sent no combat forces due to its constitution). About 25% of Saudi Arabia's contribution was paid in the form of in-kind services to the troops, such as food and transportation. U.S. troops represented about 74% of the combined force, and the global cost was therefore higher." Wikipedia "Operation Desert Storm"
Fast forward now to September 11th, 2001. Like most of you, I watched in utter horror and complete sadness as our nation was brutally attacked by cowards using commercial jets as their weapons of choice. Over 3,000 civilians from over 90 countries lost their lives in these attacks. It was quickly determined that Osama Bin Laden was responsible, with his network of coward terrorists, Al Qaeda. This savage group of sub-humans was headquartered in Afghanistan. President Bush wasted no time. It was on now. Remembering how we dismatled this type of "fighting force" in 1991, I watched eagerly to see us bring these animals to justice, dead or alive. The "War On Terrorism" was declared. On October 7th, 2001, military action began in Afghanistan as "Operation Enduring Freedom". It's mission, "capture Osama bin Laden, destroy Al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to Al-Qaeda."
From the beginning this was clearly a different type of conflict. It was not a blow by blow of a complete onslaught of military force. We were capturing some high ranking Al Qaeda operatives, including some who had allegedly been part of the plot to carry out the attacks on 9/11. But Osama Bin Laden? Nowhere to be found, still broadcasting messages. Al Jazeera could get footage of him, but we couldn't find him anywhere. Coalition forces removed the Taliban from power, and a new democratic government was formed by the end of 2001. Okay, this is more like it. It should be all downhill from here.
2002 saw predominantly diplomatic work being done in the heart of Afghanistan, as the Taliban and Al Qaeda had retreated to the Pakistan border to take refuge in the deep caves of the vast mountain ranges. The idea was if we could establish a strong democracy in Afghanistan, and train a free military there, we would have a powerful ally in the region. Seemed logical enough.
In 2003, Americans began hearing of another threat in this War on Terror, a name we were pretty familiar with, Saddam Hussein and our good friends in Iraq. "He is an imminent threat to our way of life", "He possesses weapons of mass destruction, and must be stopped from using them." I thought to myself that Hussein must really be an idiot. Here we are 12 years removed from pummeling him into submission with minimal resistance, still reeling from the loss of 9/11, and he wants to go another round? My thought at the time was, let's not leave him in control this time, let's finish this. The United Nations did not see it this way. Many of our allies did not see it this way. There were reports that no hard evidence of weapons existed, that there was no substantially confirmed link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. We all knew, however, that this guy was a lunatic who had killed his own people, a tyrant who saw himself as the potential ruler of the world. The U.N. sought stronger sanctions, requiring Iraq to allow inspectors to resume their routine inspections. This was not enough for us. It was a "with or without you" moment for us. President Bush determined we were going to war in Iraq, and on March 20, 2003, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began. "We will be greeted as Liberators", and "This will be quick and efficient" were a couple of the statements made by senior officials at the time.
Let's fast forward one more time, to today, April 23, 2009. The Taliban have increased their insugency in Afghanistan, but more troubling is their expansion of power in Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and if Al-Qaeda is neutralized, it is because our intelligence is better and our guard is now always up, not because of our brillaint military strategy in Afghanistan. And what about Iraq? Almost 6 years since President Bush made the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, we are essentially an occupying force in daily danger. The tribal feuds have escalated, and Al-Qaeda, basically non-existent in Iraq when the war started, has a presence there, albeit limited. Iran, always a nuisance, has become a legitimate threat now that it's mortal enemy, (aside from us) Iraq, has been divided and weakened. It is estimated that 4,276 American soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, with 4,137 of those occurring AFTER the "Mission Accomplished" speech. Officially, 31,193 additional soldiers have been injured since the war began. By comparison, 679 American soldiers have given their lives in Afghanistan. That brings the total American (this doesn't count our coalition brothers and sisters) casualties for the "War on Terror" to 4,955. That is 66% MORE lives lost than on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is still free, and the Middle East has become more volatile than ever. Those who defend this "strategy" will say that we have not been attacked in over 7 years. I argue that we have not been attacked because we have foiled the attacks through intelligence, not through military victory. And what of the attacks on our allies, like Spain and England? Is not an attack on our allies the same as an attack on us?
How about cost? As of October, 2008, the Congressional Research Service estimates that the AMERICAN cost for this war is $831,000,000,000. That's right, 831 BILLION DOLLARS.
I supported strongly, with vengeance and arrogance in my heart, the invasion of Iraq. To some extents, I could have been told we needed to invade Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or even Kuwait, and after the horrors of 9/11, I may have signed on. I was so, so wrong. The difference is I was not leading this nation at the time. I could afford to be wrong. How much of what has happened since 9/11 would we consider "collateral damage"?
To our soldiers, including my own nephew, awaiting his next tour, I can only say I am deeply sorry, knowing all the while you don't ask for my apologies. I can only hope that soon you will be home for good, knowing all the while you go willingly when asked. YOU ARE ALL HEROES!!
Over 18 years have passed since I first heard people warning of a "Vietnam in the Middle East". I no longer ask what they mean. Now I wonder how we could possibly have done it again.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
To Prosecute or Not To Prosecute
Most of you have by now heard at least cursory details about alleged torture of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and other CIA "Black Sites" (detention facilities run by the CIA whose locations are unknown). The Red Cross released a report indicating their belief that the detainees had indeed been tortured, as defined by The Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions "consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns. These four treaties are the basis for humanitarian law across the world." It's not necessarily a compelling read, but I urge you to at least familiarize yourself with it.
Most recently, President Obama released previously confidential CIA memos regarding the authorization and basis under which "questionable" interrogation techniques could be employed as a means to get information from senior Al Qaeda operatives, specifically Abu Zubaydah and Kahlid Shaykh Muhammad. Following are some of the "Interrogation Techniques" that were discussed and, ultimately, utilized;
1. Attention Grasp - Grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening in a quick, controlled motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator.
2. Walling - The detainee wears a thick collar, or rolled towel, which the interrogator uses to throw him against a "flexible wall." This "false wall" is meant to be constructed in such a way that impact creates a loud sound. The Red Cross report indicates that detainees were actually "walled" against concrete walls.
3. Facial Hold - The facial hold is used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face. The fingertips are kept well away from the individual's eyes.
4. Facial Slap (Insult Slap) - The interrogator slaps the individual's face with fingers slightly spread. ... The purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation.
5. Cramped Confinement - Involves the placement of the individual in a confined space, the dimensions of which restrict the individual’s movement. The confined space is usually dark.
6. Wall Standing - Used to induce muscle fatigue. The individual stands about four to five feet from a wall. ... His arms are stretched out in front of him, with his fingers resting on the wall.
7. Stress Positions - These positions are not designed to produce the pain associated with contortions or twisting of the body. ... They are designed to produce the physical discomfort associated with muscle fatigue.
8. Sleep Deprivation - Generally, a detainee undergoing this technique is shackled in a standing position with his hands in front of his body, which prevents him from falling asleep but also allows him to move around within a two- to three-foot diameter.
9. Confinement With Insects - This one uses the Cramped Confinement technique and introduces a foreign element. Zubaydah was apparently phobic of insects, so he was told they were placing "stinging" insects in the confined space, but allegedly placed caterpillars instead.
10. Waterboarding - The detainee is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As the water is applied, the cloth is lowered over the nose and mouth. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic,’ i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches. ... The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated.
The details of these techniques were taken from the CIA memos regarding the "increased pressure phase" of interrogation. These memos indicate that "Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002 and Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003, the month he was captured. Additionally, a May 30, 2005 memo says waterboarding was conducted "with far greater frequency" and with larger quantities of water than authorized." 83 times in 31 days means 2.68 times a day, and 183 times in 31 days equals an amazing 5.91 times A DAY. This raises the question, how many times do you have to be waterboarded before it is effective? I haven't seen that in the guidelines.
It is pretty clear at this point that these events took place, not just with these two individuals, but it is suspected that "enhanced interrogation" techniques were used on as many as 33 detainees. The question now has shifted to what to do about those who authorized this, who ordered it, and even those who carried it out. Despite the appalling realization that, by torturing prisoners of war, we became what we are fighting, the answer is just not that simple.
A violation of the Geneva Conventions is equal to a War Crime. When we think of war crimes, the most common reference point are the Nuremberg Trials involving the Nazi regime after World War II. These trials lasted over 4 years at the time, but the impact of the decisions and the contoversy went on for years. Prosecution of American officials for War Crimes would likely stretch out over the better part of a decade with today's slowed justice system. It would send a strong message to our allies and our enemies that we do not take War Crimes lightly, regardless of who is accused. It would also be a major distraction during a time when our country does not need additional major distractions. Republicans would see it as a personal attack on their party, and would certainly begin looking for ways to prosecute prominent Democrats for actions in the past. Democrats would find it a just opportunity to further pile on Republicans and their "moral high ground". It's easy to see how this can be a lose lose scenario.
Not prosecuting war criminals can easily be viewed as condoning the behavior, or giving preferential treatment due to the political damage or for those who have influence. It could have the effect of galvanizing in our enemies' minds the view of us as "the devil" or "the true terrorists". It also sends a message to people in our government that they are "above the law". President Obama has released this information, in part, to "pull back the veil" on these issues, so the public can no longer be deceived by what has gone on in the past. If we know the names, the odds of them getting back into power and having the opportunity to repeat these crimes is eliminated, right?
As with most of these issues, the truth, or in this case, the right answer, lies somewhere in the middle. The Rule Of Law calls for accountability when a law is broken, but it does not dictate how that accountability has to be carried out. I believe these individuals should be banned from ever holding any position in public office at any level that allows them to even have the slightest influence on policy. I believe they should be made to answer for their action before a congressional committee, to come clean on the crimes committed. This has the effect of ending any possible politcal career as well as forever tarnishing their legacy. I would also stipulate that none of these individuals be able to profit in any way from the stories or opinions of these events via books, movies, interviews, etc.
Of the 24 people charged in the original Nuremberg Trial 12 were sentenced to death for their roles. In subsequent trials, 142 of 185 tried were convicted, with 24 given life imprisonment or the death penalty. There is no comparison at all between what occurred during those times and what has happened in these issues, so I don't think Dick Cheney should fear the death penalty. Not having to hear him, on any network that will listen, defend these techniques, or spew about how our nation is less safe now because we have strictly forbidden these things to continue would be a good start for me.
President Obama summed it up when he spoke recently at CIA headquarters in Langley, VA and said "I believe our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values, including the rule of law".
Most recently, President Obama released previously confidential CIA memos regarding the authorization and basis under which "questionable" interrogation techniques could be employed as a means to get information from senior Al Qaeda operatives, specifically Abu Zubaydah and Kahlid Shaykh Muhammad. Following are some of the "Interrogation Techniques" that were discussed and, ultimately, utilized;
1. Attention Grasp - Grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening in a quick, controlled motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator.
2. Walling - The detainee wears a thick collar, or rolled towel, which the interrogator uses to throw him against a "flexible wall." This "false wall" is meant to be constructed in such a way that impact creates a loud sound. The Red Cross report indicates that detainees were actually "walled" against concrete walls.
3. Facial Hold - The facial hold is used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face. The fingertips are kept well away from the individual's eyes.
4. Facial Slap (Insult Slap) - The interrogator slaps the individual's face with fingers slightly spread. ... The purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation.
5. Cramped Confinement - Involves the placement of the individual in a confined space, the dimensions of which restrict the individual’s movement. The confined space is usually dark.
6. Wall Standing - Used to induce muscle fatigue. The individual stands about four to five feet from a wall. ... His arms are stretched out in front of him, with his fingers resting on the wall.
7. Stress Positions - These positions are not designed to produce the pain associated with contortions or twisting of the body. ... They are designed to produce the physical discomfort associated with muscle fatigue.
8. Sleep Deprivation - Generally, a detainee undergoing this technique is shackled in a standing position with his hands in front of his body, which prevents him from falling asleep but also allows him to move around within a two- to three-foot diameter.
9. Confinement With Insects - This one uses the Cramped Confinement technique and introduces a foreign element. Zubaydah was apparently phobic of insects, so he was told they were placing "stinging" insects in the confined space, but allegedly placed caterpillars instead.
10. Waterboarding - The detainee is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As the water is applied, the cloth is lowered over the nose and mouth. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic,’ i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches. ... The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated.
The details of these techniques were taken from the CIA memos regarding the "increased pressure phase" of interrogation. These memos indicate that "Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002 and Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003, the month he was captured. Additionally, a May 30, 2005 memo says waterboarding was conducted "with far greater frequency" and with larger quantities of water than authorized." 83 times in 31 days means 2.68 times a day, and 183 times in 31 days equals an amazing 5.91 times A DAY. This raises the question, how many times do you have to be waterboarded before it is effective? I haven't seen that in the guidelines.
It is pretty clear at this point that these events took place, not just with these two individuals, but it is suspected that "enhanced interrogation" techniques were used on as many as 33 detainees. The question now has shifted to what to do about those who authorized this, who ordered it, and even those who carried it out. Despite the appalling realization that, by torturing prisoners of war, we became what we are fighting, the answer is just not that simple.
A violation of the Geneva Conventions is equal to a War Crime. When we think of war crimes, the most common reference point are the Nuremberg Trials involving the Nazi regime after World War II. These trials lasted over 4 years at the time, but the impact of the decisions and the contoversy went on for years. Prosecution of American officials for War Crimes would likely stretch out over the better part of a decade with today's slowed justice system. It would send a strong message to our allies and our enemies that we do not take War Crimes lightly, regardless of who is accused. It would also be a major distraction during a time when our country does not need additional major distractions. Republicans would see it as a personal attack on their party, and would certainly begin looking for ways to prosecute prominent Democrats for actions in the past. Democrats would find it a just opportunity to further pile on Republicans and their "moral high ground". It's easy to see how this can be a lose lose scenario.
Not prosecuting war criminals can easily be viewed as condoning the behavior, or giving preferential treatment due to the political damage or for those who have influence. It could have the effect of galvanizing in our enemies' minds the view of us as "the devil" or "the true terrorists". It also sends a message to people in our government that they are "above the law". President Obama has released this information, in part, to "pull back the veil" on these issues, so the public can no longer be deceived by what has gone on in the past. If we know the names, the odds of them getting back into power and having the opportunity to repeat these crimes is eliminated, right?
As with most of these issues, the truth, or in this case, the right answer, lies somewhere in the middle. The Rule Of Law calls for accountability when a law is broken, but it does not dictate how that accountability has to be carried out. I believe these individuals should be banned from ever holding any position in public office at any level that allows them to even have the slightest influence on policy. I believe they should be made to answer for their action before a congressional committee, to come clean on the crimes committed. This has the effect of ending any possible politcal career as well as forever tarnishing their legacy. I would also stipulate that none of these individuals be able to profit in any way from the stories or opinions of these events via books, movies, interviews, etc.
Of the 24 people charged in the original Nuremberg Trial 12 were sentenced to death for their roles. In subsequent trials, 142 of 185 tried were convicted, with 24 given life imprisonment or the death penalty. There is no comparison at all between what occurred during those times and what has happened in these issues, so I don't think Dick Cheney should fear the death penalty. Not having to hear him, on any network that will listen, defend these techniques, or spew about how our nation is less safe now because we have strictly forbidden these things to continue would be a good start for me.
President Obama summed it up when he spoke recently at CIA headquarters in Langley, VA and said "I believe our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values, including the rule of law".
Monday, April 13, 2009
"Four Points of the Compass"
In the second edition of my blog here, I discussed the reason why I started this blog, the renewal of America, and her restoration to a true Republic, as our Founding Fathers intended. Today, a friend of mine forwarded the transcript of a speech given to the Heritage Foundation in 1997 by a Hungarian pianist named Dr. Balint Vazsonyi. The speech was titled "Four Points of the Compass." As I read this document, I was struck at how this Hungarian immigrant, who learned to speak english at the age of 22, intimately understood the foundation of what America is, how it has changed over it's history, and what is needed to return her to her original course. I then started reading some of his other articles and speeches, starting back in 1991. Dr. Vazsonyi passed away in 2003, but his articles and speeches could well have been written today. As with just about anyone you hear or read, I do not agree with everything he says or believes. That does not take away from the impact of his foundational positions regarding American Renewal. I will post a link to his index of work at the end, but for this blog, I want to focus on the "Four Points" speech and it's relevance today.
"As we contemplate the future, it is essential that we keep in mind that America, indeed, is one of a kind. Some believe with all their hearts that people, and their aspirations, are the same everywhere. This may be so. But the nation established here more than 200 years ago has neither precedent nor a parallel in the known history of this planet. Not its capacity for success; not its capacity for strength; not its capacity for goodness. It is one of a kind."
I thought this paragraph was such a great introduction to the body of this speech, again remembering that it comes from a Hungarian immigrant who spent time as a refugee in Austria after fleeing from Russian occupation in Hungary. I think it is important for those of us who were born and raised here to be reminded just how unique our country is.
"One of a kind. A big term. You hear it and think of Shakespeare. Or Beethoven. Or George Washington. We look at their work and try to understand what makes it so. It is a hopeless endeavor. But with America, there are definite ingredients we can identify quite easily: the rule of law, individual rights, guaranteed property, and so forth. A funny thing, ingredients. We acknowledge their importance in all sorts of scenarios, yet ignore them when it comes to matters of life and death. If we eat something memorable, we want the recipe. With food, we know without the shadow of a doubt that the ingredients make the thing.
Chocolate ice cream, for example, takes chocolate, cream, and sugar. If, instead, you use ground beef, mustard, and A-1 Steak Sauce, you don't expect chocolate ice cream to come out of the process. Whatever else is the end creation, chocolate ice cream it will not be. Ice cream comes in many varieties. America is one of a kind. Do we honestly expect it to remain America if the ingredients are changed?"
Hard to make an explanation simpler than that, eh? When you look at the founding document of our nation, The Constitution, you find the ingredients for our nation. Does changing the Constitution, then, change America? Look at how Dr. Vazsonyi explains it....
"Over the past decades, rule of law has been displaced by something called "social justice." Group rights and arbitrary privileges make a mockery of the constitutional rights of the individual. And the greatest variety of assaults is launched against something I have come to refer to as "national identity." Now, I realize that some people might have a reaction to that phrase because the term has been used by others as a wedge. I use it as a magnet. As such, it is a necessity. Something needs to bind people together, especially when they have converged, and continue to converge, upon a place from every corner of the globe.
Identity is about being similar or being different. Since our differences have been amply provided for by nature, we have to agree about those aspects of our lives that will make us similar. For the shared history that other nations have, Americans have successfully substituted a shared belief in, and adherence to, certain principles. A common language took the place of a shared culture. No state religion was established, but a Bible-based morality is taken for granted. Add to this a certain work ethic, an expectation of competence in your field of work (whether you split the atom or sweep the floors), a spirit of voluntary cooperation, insistence on choice, a fierce sense of independence -- and you have the ingredients of the American identity. And, if you prefer to call it American character or, as George Washington did, "national character," it will serve our purpose so long as we remain agreed about the ingredients. For it is these ingredients that have distinguished us from other societies, and enabled those who sweep the floors today to split the atom tomorrow."
Two incredibly important and polarizing concepts are shared here. The first is the understanding that the foundational laws of our nation were written to apply to ALL individuals, not to select groups in a different degree than they apply to other groups. It is pretty clear no matter what side of the aisle you fall on that the laws today do not apply equally to the individual in all cases. Instead, groups with more influence, (money, political power, celebrity) find a better group of laws that suits their interests. And if their interests change, so do the laws. This is fundamentally contrary to the Constitution.
The second is the concept of "National Identity". It would be easy to look at this concept and label it as "racist" or "protectionist". But if you read it carefully (as I did several times), you will see that Dr. Vazsonyi is saying that while our identity is developed from many cultures, in America, there still must be ONE identity. I like to use a couple of different axioms to further illustrate this concept. "You cannot serve two masters" is a phrase you hear mostly associated with religion, and the choice to serve a god or a devil, but in the same way, our country cannot cater to a multi-cultural population without losing it's identity. The second axiom is "A house divided against itself cannot stand.". You see the struggle Israel has, as with many Middle Eastern nations, trying to develop a country with more than one National Identity. It's not about differing nationalities or cultures, it's about how to bring them all together under one identity, and sticking to that identity.
"Today, our nation's leaders are engaged in choosing a path to pursue. Yet, all along, we have had a path to follow. It is clearly pointed in the Declaration of Independence and our founders complemented it with a superb road map they called the Constitution of the United States. Add to this the glossary we know as The Federalist Papers and it is hard to see why and how we could have lost our sense of direction. But lost it we have. That is why we need a compass - the compass in the title of these remarks.
Between 1776 and 1791, our compass was calibrated to keep us on the path of betterment - as individuals and as a nation. We even had a kind of "North Star," a magnetic North, in what we call the Rule of Law. But instead, we now have rule by the lawmaker. Every member of the Executive, every member of the Judiciary has become a potential lawmaker and in most cases they use the potential to the hilt.
Yet the Rule of Law stands for the exact opposite. As its basic property, it places the fundamental tenets beyond the reach of politics and politicians. Whereas it confers legitimacy upon subsequent laws that spring from its eternal well, it denies legitimacy to all legislative maneuvers that corrupt its purpose. It holds the makers, executants and adjudicators of the law accountable at all times. Above all, it demands equal application to every man, woman and child. Within its own framework, a prescribed majority may amend the law. But as the law stands in any given moment, it must be applied equally. If accomplished, nothing in the history of human societies can match the significance and magnificence of equality before the law."
This is one of the fundamental flaws in our society today. "The rule of lawmakers", as he refers to it, has unjustly punished or hampered the progress of some segments of society while enabling others to circumvent the same laws. When you look at the problems in our current economy, you can trace so much of it to personal greed, driven by an ability to do what they want when they want, so long as they have the influence to remain above the law. This is true with corporate executives, politicians, lobbyists, etc. Adherence to the Rule of Law would create an environment that deters the types of activities that have pushed our country to the edge.
"The rule of law, our only alternative to the law of the jungle, came under attack just as it was about to triumph. The attacker displayed the irresistible charm of the temptress, the armament of the enraged avenger, dressed itself in intoxicating clichés, and wore the insigniae of the highest institutions of learning. It called itself "social justice."
Let me make it clear: I do not speak of social conscience. That is a frame of mind, a noble sentiment, a measure of civilization. Precisely for that reason, while it has everything to do with our conduct, it has nothing whatever to do with laws. "Social justice," on the other hand, aims at the heart of our legal system by setting an unattainable goal, by fueling discontent, by insinuating a permanent state of hopelessness.
But above all, social justice is unacceptable as the basis for a stable society because, unlike the Law, it is what anyone says it is on any given day. We need only to move back a few years, or travel a few thousand miles, and one is certain to find an entirely different definition of social justice. At the end of the day, it is nothing more than an empty slogan, to be filled by power-hungry political activists so as to enlist the participation of well-intentioned people.
The Rule of Law and a world according to "Social Justice" are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it both ways."
The simple difference between the rule of law and social justice is consistency and stability. Social justice as a means of governance is like trying to hit a moving target while blindfolded. Any time a group feels slighted, we have to review the laws. Any time the corrupt with influence feel pressure, they lobby for a change in laws.
"What have the Rule of Law and the pursuit of "social justice" respectively spawned over time? The Rule of Law gave birth to a series of individual rights. In other words, rights vested solely in individuals. Only individuals are capable of having rights, just as only individuals can be free. We say a society is free if the individuals who make up that society are free. For individuals to be free, they must have certain unalienable rights, and others upon which they had agreed with one another.
Social justice has spawned an aberration called group rights. Group rights are the negation of individual rights. Group rights say in effect, "you cannot and do not have rights as an individual - only as the member of a certain group." The Rule of Law knows nothing about groups, therefore it could not provide for, or legitimize rights of groups. Groups have no standing in the eyes of the Law. And, since their so-called rights are invariably created and conferred by persons of temporary authority, they are "subject to change without notice," as the saying goes, just like the definition of social justice itself.
Individual rights recognize and promote similarity. Group rights promote differences and stereotypes. Individual rights and group rights are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it both ways."
Seems straight forward enough, right? You still with me? Okay, so now that Dr. Vazsonyi has laid out the basics, how do we get back on track? Glad you asked......
"We asked you to hear me today, because the Center for the American Founding has a proposal to submit. We call it "Four Points of the Compass" because these points provide direction, because - in a manner of speaking - they constitute a re-calibration of our compass which the events of the past thirty years have distorted. They are the Rule of Law, Individual Rights, the Sanctity of Property, and the sense of National Identity. As you have seen, they are interconnected, they literally flow from one another, just as the false compass-points which have come to displace them - social justice, group rights, redistribution and multi-culturalism - are interconnected and flow from one another. What is multi-culturalism if not a redistribution of cultural "goods?" What is redistribution if not a group right? What is a group right if not the implementation of some political activist's version of "social justice?"
For 30 years, we have acquiesced in a steady erosion of America's founding principles. The time has come to reverse the movement. Rather than contending with countless individual issues, all we need to do is take the debate down a few notches, closer to the core. Let me repeat: we need to take the debate down a few notches, closer to the core. We submit that all future policy and legislative initiatives be tested against the four points of the compass. Does the proposed bill negate the Rule of Law? Does it violate individual rights? Does it interfere with the sanctity of Property? Does it constitute an assault on National Identity? Only if the answer is "No" in each case, would the proposal proceed. In other words:
Only if the answers are "NO" is the bill a "GO."
"A few items need tidying up. How do we know what the Rule of Law can accommodate, and how far do we take individual rights? The answer, in both cases, comes from Article VI of the Constitution. "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..." It is as uncomplicated as that."
This simple concept, applied to every decision, bill, law, or action by our nation's leaders, can easily restore us to a place of great prosperity, of shared responsibility, of increased accountability, and most importantly, to our rightful place as the most respected nation in the world.
This closing statement kind of sums up why I started this blog, and why I feel so passionate about American Renewal.
"We are heirs to a remarkable group of men who, two hundred plus years ago, had every reason to feel similarly overwhelmed by the number of decisions they had to make. Their response was to make very few laws, for they knew that the fewer the laws, the broader the agreement. They knew people find it hard to agree on everything. So they sought agreement on core principles they held to be non-negotiable.
Today, we propose the four that ought to be non-negotiable. They are, as we have seen, inseparable. We call them the four points of the compass. Together, they can and will restore America's sense of direction."
I promised I would give the link to Dr. Vazsonyi's site, where you can read countless articles from a simple man promoting a simple concept that could have a lasting effect on our nation for generations to come. Here it is......
http://balintvazsonyi.org/
"As we contemplate the future, it is essential that we keep in mind that America, indeed, is one of a kind. Some believe with all their hearts that people, and their aspirations, are the same everywhere. This may be so. But the nation established here more than 200 years ago has neither precedent nor a parallel in the known history of this planet. Not its capacity for success; not its capacity for strength; not its capacity for goodness. It is one of a kind."
I thought this paragraph was such a great introduction to the body of this speech, again remembering that it comes from a Hungarian immigrant who spent time as a refugee in Austria after fleeing from Russian occupation in Hungary. I think it is important for those of us who were born and raised here to be reminded just how unique our country is.
"One of a kind. A big term. You hear it and think of Shakespeare. Or Beethoven. Or George Washington. We look at their work and try to understand what makes it so. It is a hopeless endeavor. But with America, there are definite ingredients we can identify quite easily: the rule of law, individual rights, guaranteed property, and so forth. A funny thing, ingredients. We acknowledge their importance in all sorts of scenarios, yet ignore them when it comes to matters of life and death. If we eat something memorable, we want the recipe. With food, we know without the shadow of a doubt that the ingredients make the thing.
Chocolate ice cream, for example, takes chocolate, cream, and sugar. If, instead, you use ground beef, mustard, and A-1 Steak Sauce, you don't expect chocolate ice cream to come out of the process. Whatever else is the end creation, chocolate ice cream it will not be. Ice cream comes in many varieties. America is one of a kind. Do we honestly expect it to remain America if the ingredients are changed?"
Hard to make an explanation simpler than that, eh? When you look at the founding document of our nation, The Constitution, you find the ingredients for our nation. Does changing the Constitution, then, change America? Look at how Dr. Vazsonyi explains it....
"Over the past decades, rule of law has been displaced by something called "social justice." Group rights and arbitrary privileges make a mockery of the constitutional rights of the individual. And the greatest variety of assaults is launched against something I have come to refer to as "national identity." Now, I realize that some people might have a reaction to that phrase because the term has been used by others as a wedge. I use it as a magnet. As such, it is a necessity. Something needs to bind people together, especially when they have converged, and continue to converge, upon a place from every corner of the globe.
Identity is about being similar or being different. Since our differences have been amply provided for by nature, we have to agree about those aspects of our lives that will make us similar. For the shared history that other nations have, Americans have successfully substituted a shared belief in, and adherence to, certain principles. A common language took the place of a shared culture. No state religion was established, but a Bible-based morality is taken for granted. Add to this a certain work ethic, an expectation of competence in your field of work (whether you split the atom or sweep the floors), a spirit of voluntary cooperation, insistence on choice, a fierce sense of independence -- and you have the ingredients of the American identity. And, if you prefer to call it American character or, as George Washington did, "national character," it will serve our purpose so long as we remain agreed about the ingredients. For it is these ingredients that have distinguished us from other societies, and enabled those who sweep the floors today to split the atom tomorrow."
Two incredibly important and polarizing concepts are shared here. The first is the understanding that the foundational laws of our nation were written to apply to ALL individuals, not to select groups in a different degree than they apply to other groups. It is pretty clear no matter what side of the aisle you fall on that the laws today do not apply equally to the individual in all cases. Instead, groups with more influence, (money, political power, celebrity) find a better group of laws that suits their interests. And if their interests change, so do the laws. This is fundamentally contrary to the Constitution.
The second is the concept of "National Identity". It would be easy to look at this concept and label it as "racist" or "protectionist". But if you read it carefully (as I did several times), you will see that Dr. Vazsonyi is saying that while our identity is developed from many cultures, in America, there still must be ONE identity. I like to use a couple of different axioms to further illustrate this concept. "You cannot serve two masters" is a phrase you hear mostly associated with religion, and the choice to serve a god or a devil, but in the same way, our country cannot cater to a multi-cultural population without losing it's identity. The second axiom is "A house divided against itself cannot stand.". You see the struggle Israel has, as with many Middle Eastern nations, trying to develop a country with more than one National Identity. It's not about differing nationalities or cultures, it's about how to bring them all together under one identity, and sticking to that identity.
"Today, our nation's leaders are engaged in choosing a path to pursue. Yet, all along, we have had a path to follow. It is clearly pointed in the Declaration of Independence and our founders complemented it with a superb road map they called the Constitution of the United States. Add to this the glossary we know as The Federalist Papers and it is hard to see why and how we could have lost our sense of direction. But lost it we have. That is why we need a compass - the compass in the title of these remarks.
Between 1776 and 1791, our compass was calibrated to keep us on the path of betterment - as individuals and as a nation. We even had a kind of "North Star," a magnetic North, in what we call the Rule of Law. But instead, we now have rule by the lawmaker. Every member of the Executive, every member of the Judiciary has become a potential lawmaker and in most cases they use the potential to the hilt.
Yet the Rule of Law stands for the exact opposite. As its basic property, it places the fundamental tenets beyond the reach of politics and politicians. Whereas it confers legitimacy upon subsequent laws that spring from its eternal well, it denies legitimacy to all legislative maneuvers that corrupt its purpose. It holds the makers, executants and adjudicators of the law accountable at all times. Above all, it demands equal application to every man, woman and child. Within its own framework, a prescribed majority may amend the law. But as the law stands in any given moment, it must be applied equally. If accomplished, nothing in the history of human societies can match the significance and magnificence of equality before the law."
This is one of the fundamental flaws in our society today. "The rule of lawmakers", as he refers to it, has unjustly punished or hampered the progress of some segments of society while enabling others to circumvent the same laws. When you look at the problems in our current economy, you can trace so much of it to personal greed, driven by an ability to do what they want when they want, so long as they have the influence to remain above the law. This is true with corporate executives, politicians, lobbyists, etc. Adherence to the Rule of Law would create an environment that deters the types of activities that have pushed our country to the edge.
"The rule of law, our only alternative to the law of the jungle, came under attack just as it was about to triumph. The attacker displayed the irresistible charm of the temptress, the armament of the enraged avenger, dressed itself in intoxicating clichés, and wore the insigniae of the highest institutions of learning. It called itself "social justice."
Let me make it clear: I do not speak of social conscience. That is a frame of mind, a noble sentiment, a measure of civilization. Precisely for that reason, while it has everything to do with our conduct, it has nothing whatever to do with laws. "Social justice," on the other hand, aims at the heart of our legal system by setting an unattainable goal, by fueling discontent, by insinuating a permanent state of hopelessness.
But above all, social justice is unacceptable as the basis for a stable society because, unlike the Law, it is what anyone says it is on any given day. We need only to move back a few years, or travel a few thousand miles, and one is certain to find an entirely different definition of social justice. At the end of the day, it is nothing more than an empty slogan, to be filled by power-hungry political activists so as to enlist the participation of well-intentioned people.
The Rule of Law and a world according to "Social Justice" are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it both ways."
The simple difference between the rule of law and social justice is consistency and stability. Social justice as a means of governance is like trying to hit a moving target while blindfolded. Any time a group feels slighted, we have to review the laws. Any time the corrupt with influence feel pressure, they lobby for a change in laws.
"What have the Rule of Law and the pursuit of "social justice" respectively spawned over time? The Rule of Law gave birth to a series of individual rights. In other words, rights vested solely in individuals. Only individuals are capable of having rights, just as only individuals can be free. We say a society is free if the individuals who make up that society are free. For individuals to be free, they must have certain unalienable rights, and others upon which they had agreed with one another.
Social justice has spawned an aberration called group rights. Group rights are the negation of individual rights. Group rights say in effect, "you cannot and do not have rights as an individual - only as the member of a certain group." The Rule of Law knows nothing about groups, therefore it could not provide for, or legitimize rights of groups. Groups have no standing in the eyes of the Law. And, since their so-called rights are invariably created and conferred by persons of temporary authority, they are "subject to change without notice," as the saying goes, just like the definition of social justice itself.
Individual rights recognize and promote similarity. Group rights promote differences and stereotypes. Individual rights and group rights are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it both ways."
Seems straight forward enough, right? You still with me? Okay, so now that Dr. Vazsonyi has laid out the basics, how do we get back on track? Glad you asked......
"We asked you to hear me today, because the Center for the American Founding has a proposal to submit. We call it "Four Points of the Compass" because these points provide direction, because - in a manner of speaking - they constitute a re-calibration of our compass which the events of the past thirty years have distorted. They are the Rule of Law, Individual Rights, the Sanctity of Property, and the sense of National Identity. As you have seen, they are interconnected, they literally flow from one another, just as the false compass-points which have come to displace them - social justice, group rights, redistribution and multi-culturalism - are interconnected and flow from one another. What is multi-culturalism if not a redistribution of cultural "goods?" What is redistribution if not a group right? What is a group right if not the implementation of some political activist's version of "social justice?"
For 30 years, we have acquiesced in a steady erosion of America's founding principles. The time has come to reverse the movement. Rather than contending with countless individual issues, all we need to do is take the debate down a few notches, closer to the core. Let me repeat: we need to take the debate down a few notches, closer to the core. We submit that all future policy and legislative initiatives be tested against the four points of the compass. Does the proposed bill negate the Rule of Law? Does it violate individual rights? Does it interfere with the sanctity of Property? Does it constitute an assault on National Identity? Only if the answer is "No" in each case, would the proposal proceed. In other words:
Only if the answers are "NO" is the bill a "GO."
"A few items need tidying up. How do we know what the Rule of Law can accommodate, and how far do we take individual rights? The answer, in both cases, comes from Article VI of the Constitution. "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..." It is as uncomplicated as that."
This simple concept, applied to every decision, bill, law, or action by our nation's leaders, can easily restore us to a place of great prosperity, of shared responsibility, of increased accountability, and most importantly, to our rightful place as the most respected nation in the world.
This closing statement kind of sums up why I started this blog, and why I feel so passionate about American Renewal.
"We are heirs to a remarkable group of men who, two hundred plus years ago, had every reason to feel similarly overwhelmed by the number of decisions they had to make. Their response was to make very few laws, for they knew that the fewer the laws, the broader the agreement. They knew people find it hard to agree on everything. So they sought agreement on core principles they held to be non-negotiable.
Today, we propose the four that ought to be non-negotiable. They are, as we have seen, inseparable. We call them the four points of the compass. Together, they can and will restore America's sense of direction."
I promised I would give the link to Dr. Vazsonyi's site, where you can read countless articles from a simple man promoting a simple concept that could have a lasting effect on our nation for generations to come. Here it is......
http://balintvazsonyi.org/
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Loan Modification or Profit Modification?
290,631 - That's the number of foreclosure filings in February nationwide. Nevada, Arizona, California and Florida make up 53% of the nation's foreclosures right now. We look at these numbers and, unless you see the signs on your block, or you have a family member affected by it, it just doesn't sink in how real it is.
Recently, I have had 1 home in my circle (cul-de-sac) foreclosed on, and one neighbor who has been negotiating with the bank for some time now. Having 2 homes of the 7 in my circle potentially in foreclosure is unnerving. But that was nothing compared to having my parents going through it.
My parents were one of the millions of homeowners who were sold a bill of goods when the housing market was being artificially inflated due to bad loan after bad loan making anyone and everyone a homeowner. They had bought their home previously, but saw this boom as an opportunity to get ahead and take advantage of the low rates. They were talked into an adjustable rate mortgage (commonly known as an ARM). That was great before this huge bubble of paper wealth went POP!!! They watched as their rate climbed up and up, to a point where their house payment had nearly matched their income. They knew they had to do something. They were introduced to a company who "specialized" in "loan modifications". It was a pretty good proposal, pay this company what you would pay for a month's mortgage, they negotiate with your bank and reduce your payments and get you into a fixed rate loan. Only they never so much as talked to the bank. Last month, the FBI raided the California headquarters of this fine organization, hauling the leader off to jail. So, now what are they to do? A friend stepped in and began ACTUAL negotiations with the bank. At that time, we were 4 months into this process.
One of the MAJOR reasons for the Troubled Assests Relief Program (TARP) was banks and other creditors had frozen lending, making it difficult for homeowners to escape some of these merciless loans they had been sold. So banks like Bank of America and Wells Fargo cashed in on some TARP money in exchange for freeing up credit lines and working to modify mortgages so homeowners would not continue on the path to foreclosure. The outrage over how the first 350 billion of TARP money was handled prompted the current Administration to look at how we could be sure these institutions would survive, with or without bailout assistance. These tests were referred to as "Stress Tests" for the financial institutions. The New York Times today reported that "Regulators say all 19 banks undergoing the exams will pass them." This essentially means that as long as we are willing to prop them up if necessary, all 19 banks will rebound from this disaster.
Also in today's financial news, Wells Fargo estimated that it's first quarter profits may exceed 3 billion dollars, making investors on Wall Street giddy. 3 BILLION DOLLARS PROFIT FOR 3 MONTHS.
Back to my parents now. Their friend began working with the bank to modify their loan about a month ago. Yesterday, they made their proposal - Pay $10,000, then resume the normal mortgage payment. I had to have my mom tell me a second time, because when I heard it the first time it sounded like their payments would NOT go down, AND they would have to come up with $10,000. That is exactly what they said, and so now they have until June 28th to vacate the house, as there was no way they were accepting that "modification". As sad as this entire situation has been, there is a sense of relief that we finally know where we stand. We will find them a good rental property for now, closer to all of us, and the bank can take their loan and "modify" it!!
With all the negative press over TARP money, and bank greed, and predatory lenders only interested in their bottom lines, you might ask at this point "What bank would do this to them?"...................
WELLS FARGO - 3 BILLION AND COUNTING...........
Recently, I have had 1 home in my circle (cul-de-sac) foreclosed on, and one neighbor who has been negotiating with the bank for some time now. Having 2 homes of the 7 in my circle potentially in foreclosure is unnerving. But that was nothing compared to having my parents going through it.
My parents were one of the millions of homeowners who were sold a bill of goods when the housing market was being artificially inflated due to bad loan after bad loan making anyone and everyone a homeowner. They had bought their home previously, but saw this boom as an opportunity to get ahead and take advantage of the low rates. They were talked into an adjustable rate mortgage (commonly known as an ARM). That was great before this huge bubble of paper wealth went POP!!! They watched as their rate climbed up and up, to a point where their house payment had nearly matched their income. They knew they had to do something. They were introduced to a company who "specialized" in "loan modifications". It was a pretty good proposal, pay this company what you would pay for a month's mortgage, they negotiate with your bank and reduce your payments and get you into a fixed rate loan. Only they never so much as talked to the bank. Last month, the FBI raided the California headquarters of this fine organization, hauling the leader off to jail. So, now what are they to do? A friend stepped in and began ACTUAL negotiations with the bank. At that time, we were 4 months into this process.
One of the MAJOR reasons for the Troubled Assests Relief Program (TARP) was banks and other creditors had frozen lending, making it difficult for homeowners to escape some of these merciless loans they had been sold. So banks like Bank of America and Wells Fargo cashed in on some TARP money in exchange for freeing up credit lines and working to modify mortgages so homeowners would not continue on the path to foreclosure. The outrage over how the first 350 billion of TARP money was handled prompted the current Administration to look at how we could be sure these institutions would survive, with or without bailout assistance. These tests were referred to as "Stress Tests" for the financial institutions. The New York Times today reported that "Regulators say all 19 banks undergoing the exams will pass them." This essentially means that as long as we are willing to prop them up if necessary, all 19 banks will rebound from this disaster.
Also in today's financial news, Wells Fargo estimated that it's first quarter profits may exceed 3 billion dollars, making investors on Wall Street giddy. 3 BILLION DOLLARS PROFIT FOR 3 MONTHS.
Back to my parents now. Their friend began working with the bank to modify their loan about a month ago. Yesterday, they made their proposal - Pay $10,000, then resume the normal mortgage payment. I had to have my mom tell me a second time, because when I heard it the first time it sounded like their payments would NOT go down, AND they would have to come up with $10,000. That is exactly what they said, and so now they have until June 28th to vacate the house, as there was no way they were accepting that "modification". As sad as this entire situation has been, there is a sense of relief that we finally know where we stand. We will find them a good rental property for now, closer to all of us, and the bank can take their loan and "modify" it!!
With all the negative press over TARP money, and bank greed, and predatory lenders only interested in their bottom lines, you might ask at this point "What bank would do this to them?"...................
WELLS FARGO - 3 BILLION AND COUNTING...........
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Impact of Loss
Friday night my wife was coming home after holding a Bunco event to raise money for the American Cancer Society's Relay For Life when she received a call informing her that we had lost our friend, Sal Caffarello. Sal had been in a car accident days prior, was in the hospital recovering, then suddenly collapsed and passed. Sal was the lead singer and bass player for a great local blues band called Honeyboy Dupree & The Smokehouse Players. (www.honeyboydupree.com) To those who were lucky enough to call him friend, however, Sal was so much more. Sal was a big man, but he had to be to contain his heart, which was as big as anyone I know. It seemed fitting that the last time we saw him, less than a week before he left us, he was buying a ticket for the Bunco fund raiser. Not for him, mind you, but in his typical words "so someone who can't afford it can go." This was Sal in a nutshell. He was a kind soul who cared more about others than he ever did himself. In a world that so often looks for ways to divide, Sal saw past superficial categorizations and saw brothers and sisters.
Soon his body will be laid to rest, but his spirit and impact will live on with those of us lucky enough to have been touched by this gentle giant. I have to smile knowing that he is sitting with Robert Johnson, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and so many others that touched him musically, and knowing that they are now getting to share what we all loved in our Honeyboy. We mourn not for his passing as much as for our loss. Rest in Peace my friend, and know that your life on this earth, tragically shortened as it was, made a difference.
Soon his body will be laid to rest, but his spirit and impact will live on with those of us lucky enough to have been touched by this gentle giant. I have to smile knowing that he is sitting with Robert Johnson, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and so many others that touched him musically, and knowing that they are now getting to share what we all loved in our Honeyboy. We mourn not for his passing as much as for our loss. Rest in Peace my friend, and know that your life on this earth, tragically shortened as it was, made a difference.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
The Path To American Redundancy
Yesterday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R) from Wisconsin revealed the GOP's Alternative Budget (again), and while this version had actual figures (which I think is mandatory in an actual budget), it raised any many questions as it provided answers. Since the overwhelming voter decision to reject the policies and direction of the Republican Party in November's election, there has been significant question as to what direction the party will go in the future. This budget proposal gives us a bit of an insight into the thinking of the leaders (?) of the House GOP.
The first piece of this "plan" is to repeal most of the Stimulus Bill recently enacted. This would cut off funding to all states for items such as unemployment benefits, healthcare benefits, infrastructure projects and education. In a period where revenues have been dramatically reduced by the elevated unemployment or underemployment figures, this seems logical, if further stagnation is your goal.
Second, there is a huge tax benefit for corporations and those wealthy enough to see Capital Gains Taxes. This is obviously a continuation of the time rotted "trickle down" theory that has plagued the right wing for decades now. The concept, if you are not familiar with it, is that if you allow the wealthiest, most influencial people to keep more of their money, they will personally spread that wealth in job creation, higher wages, better benefits, etc. In reality, it just improves their bottom line, and does virtually nothing for the average person. If you want businesses to expand, send them customers spending money they make because they have jobs and can afford their house payments, etc. This will drive employers to hire, driving the unemployment rate lower, causing employers to battle for the most qualified employees, requiring them to look at improved benefits and other incentives to draw these employees. The reality is that economic growth begins at the bottom, not at the top. The only thing that has trickled down over the last decade is misery. Many people also have no idea what a "Capital Gain" is. In simple terms, a Capital Gain is the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a lower price. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property. The current tax rate of 15% is scheduled to end after 2010. President Obama has proposed returning that rate to the pre 2001 rate of 20%. In simple terms again, an increase of $5 for every $100 you make on the sale of your asset.
The one area of their tax proposal I find intriguing is the simplification of the tax code. The income tax code in this country is a joke, and further enables those most able to pay their fair share to avoid it through loopholes requiring a well paid CPA or firm to find the loopholes. Their proposal is pretty simple. For individuals, their first $50,000 of income would be taxed at 10%. This does not necessarily equate to a tax cut for all in that bracket, but it is fair and consistent, unlike the current code. This rate would also apply for couples filing together up to $100,000 of income. Above that level, the rate rises to 25%. Where these changes may not impact lower income families, there would be an increase in the personal deductions and exemptions that would really benefit these lower income families. I have to admit, this is one of the better proposals I have seen from the GOP in some time. I have been a long time advocate of elimination of the income tax in favor of a National Sales Tax. Sales taxes are inherently propoortionate to your ability to spend. If you can afford a yacht, you can afford the sales tax that goes with it. If on the other hand, you can only afford the monthly necessities, you will only be taxed on those. Some argue this would discourage consumer spending by those with a higher income. I couldn't disagree more.
Now on to the spending plan. This is where there has been MASSIVE disagreements in policy and approach. When an economy recesses as fast and as deep as ours has, and when a huge segment of that is in the financial sector (banks, investment firms, mortgages, etc.) the only organization capable of injecting the necessary capital into the system is the government itself. Ideally, we would not be doing that at a time when our budget deficit (the difference between what we spend and what we bring in, in negative terms) and National Debt (essentially money we have borrowed to cover the deficits over a period of time) have risen to record rates, but we have little choice right now. By injecting capital and investing in projects such as infrastrcture and energy, extending benefits for unemployed and propping up state budgets, you minimize job losses in some sectors of business, increase employment in areas like construction and technology, and overall stabilize consumer spending, which then boosts numbers for other businesses who had lost customers and then jobs because of it. It is not a magical elixir, but the fundamental principals are sound. I'm not going to tell you that I think every dollar of the Stimulus Bill is money well allocated, but the overall impact of the Bill is 100% necessary. In addition to the Stimulus, the President and his economic team have increased spending in the budget for areas that have taken a back seat for far too long, such as education, healthcare, and renewable energy. The GOP proposal includes a spending freeze for all areas aside from National Defense and Veterans Affairs. This so far beyond unrealistic, it is hard for me to put in words. Gen. Colin Powell echoed that sentiment last night on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC when he said "spending freezes just don't work." His question, as with most logical thinking people is "what are you going to cut first? Not to mention that as of 2006, 19.7 million people work for the government on some level, a number that almost certainly has exceeded 20 million by now. How many of those do we want to join the unemployment ranks? We only saw another 742,000 jobs lost in March, meaning 5.56 million people are currently unemployed nationwide, not even mentioning those who are underemployed. Again, the economy will begin to improve when we employ people, enable people to spend, and enable our government to resume normal collection of revenues from increased employment, not from further job losses, reduced spending and reduced revenues. Hello? Can you hear me?
Then there's the graph that showed the projected spending difference between the two budgets from now until approximately 2080. 2080? Really? It indicates that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is the source, yet the CBO only projects out to 2019 right now. Just another exaggeration from a party that has become known more for imposing fear and paralyzation than hope and stimulation.
Another way this proposal lags behind any true vision for this country is in energy. There has never been a more critical time for us to become energy independent than right now, for a couple of different reasons. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, produced for the most part by countries who are not our biggest fans, reduces our potential for being held hostage by these same countries. Renewable energy development in this country would require job creation, and good paying jobs in a field that could NEVER be outsourced, no matter how bad our trade agreements are. And let's not forget the impact on our environment. Argue all you want on either side of the climate change debate, there is no question that the constant pouring of toxins into our air, our water, and our soil is just simply unhealthy, and needs to stop. The GOP proposal eliminates President Obama's Cap and Trade policy. Cap and Trade essentially places a cap on the amount of a company's polluting emmisions, and if they wishe to exceed those standards, they pay for the excess pollution. That is a crude explanation of the process, but in essence covers the concept. House Republicans, specifically Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, would have you believe this Cap and Trade program would increase the typical family's utility costs by approximately $3,100 per year. Here's what Reid Detchon, of the Energy Future Coalition says - "The surprising secret is that a carbon cap would be an economic stimulus for low and middle-income consumers. If the revenue from a carbon cap is returned to the public, most consumers will come out even, and consumers whose energy use is below average will come out ahead - their rebate checks will be larger than the increase in their energy costs. " Now, I am a realist, and believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Projections I have seen would mean maybe an $80 per year increase in energy costs in a typical household, or $6.67 per month. The trade off for significantly reduced toxic emissions is a bargain. They also want to expand offshore drilling, continuing to fall back on the "drill baby, drill" that was so influential during the recent campaign. Renewable, clean energy should be our focus, our priority, and our mandate.
There is also an aspect of their proposed budget that covers healthcare and entitlements (Social Security, i.e.), but I am going to leave that for another blog, as I will have enough trouble limiting that one subject into a short diatribe.
The bottom line is this "proposal" does not create the deficit reduction or debt reduction even in it's projections to offset the setbacks it would impose on so many areas of our country that simply cannot afford more setbacks. The Republicans have been labeled "the party of NO" since the election for their unwillingness to suppport anything they haven't proposed, but maybe now that they have proposed something, we can change it to "the party of NO NEW IDEAS".
The first piece of this "plan" is to repeal most of the Stimulus Bill recently enacted. This would cut off funding to all states for items such as unemployment benefits, healthcare benefits, infrastructure projects and education. In a period where revenues have been dramatically reduced by the elevated unemployment or underemployment figures, this seems logical, if further stagnation is your goal.
Second, there is a huge tax benefit for corporations and those wealthy enough to see Capital Gains Taxes. This is obviously a continuation of the time rotted "trickle down" theory that has plagued the right wing for decades now. The concept, if you are not familiar with it, is that if you allow the wealthiest, most influencial people to keep more of their money, they will personally spread that wealth in job creation, higher wages, better benefits, etc. In reality, it just improves their bottom line, and does virtually nothing for the average person. If you want businesses to expand, send them customers spending money they make because they have jobs and can afford their house payments, etc. This will drive employers to hire, driving the unemployment rate lower, causing employers to battle for the most qualified employees, requiring them to look at improved benefits and other incentives to draw these employees. The reality is that economic growth begins at the bottom, not at the top. The only thing that has trickled down over the last decade is misery. Many people also have no idea what a "Capital Gain" is. In simple terms, a Capital Gain is the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a lower price. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property. The current tax rate of 15% is scheduled to end after 2010. President Obama has proposed returning that rate to the pre 2001 rate of 20%. In simple terms again, an increase of $5 for every $100 you make on the sale of your asset.
The one area of their tax proposal I find intriguing is the simplification of the tax code. The income tax code in this country is a joke, and further enables those most able to pay their fair share to avoid it through loopholes requiring a well paid CPA or firm to find the loopholes. Their proposal is pretty simple. For individuals, their first $50,000 of income would be taxed at 10%. This does not necessarily equate to a tax cut for all in that bracket, but it is fair and consistent, unlike the current code. This rate would also apply for couples filing together up to $100,000 of income. Above that level, the rate rises to 25%. Where these changes may not impact lower income families, there would be an increase in the personal deductions and exemptions that would really benefit these lower income families. I have to admit, this is one of the better proposals I have seen from the GOP in some time. I have been a long time advocate of elimination of the income tax in favor of a National Sales Tax. Sales taxes are inherently propoortionate to your ability to spend. If you can afford a yacht, you can afford the sales tax that goes with it. If on the other hand, you can only afford the monthly necessities, you will only be taxed on those. Some argue this would discourage consumer spending by those with a higher income. I couldn't disagree more.
Now on to the spending plan. This is where there has been MASSIVE disagreements in policy and approach. When an economy recesses as fast and as deep as ours has, and when a huge segment of that is in the financial sector (banks, investment firms, mortgages, etc.) the only organization capable of injecting the necessary capital into the system is the government itself. Ideally, we would not be doing that at a time when our budget deficit (the difference between what we spend and what we bring in, in negative terms) and National Debt (essentially money we have borrowed to cover the deficits over a period of time) have risen to record rates, but we have little choice right now. By injecting capital and investing in projects such as infrastrcture and energy, extending benefits for unemployed and propping up state budgets, you minimize job losses in some sectors of business, increase employment in areas like construction and technology, and overall stabilize consumer spending, which then boosts numbers for other businesses who had lost customers and then jobs because of it. It is not a magical elixir, but the fundamental principals are sound. I'm not going to tell you that I think every dollar of the Stimulus Bill is money well allocated, but the overall impact of the Bill is 100% necessary. In addition to the Stimulus, the President and his economic team have increased spending in the budget for areas that have taken a back seat for far too long, such as education, healthcare, and renewable energy. The GOP proposal includes a spending freeze for all areas aside from National Defense and Veterans Affairs. This so far beyond unrealistic, it is hard for me to put in words. Gen. Colin Powell echoed that sentiment last night on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC when he said "spending freezes just don't work." His question, as with most logical thinking people is "what are you going to cut first? Not to mention that as of 2006, 19.7 million people work for the government on some level, a number that almost certainly has exceeded 20 million by now. How many of those do we want to join the unemployment ranks? We only saw another 742,000 jobs lost in March, meaning 5.56 million people are currently unemployed nationwide, not even mentioning those who are underemployed. Again, the economy will begin to improve when we employ people, enable people to spend, and enable our government to resume normal collection of revenues from increased employment, not from further job losses, reduced spending and reduced revenues. Hello? Can you hear me?
Then there's the graph that showed the projected spending difference between the two budgets from now until approximately 2080. 2080? Really? It indicates that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is the source, yet the CBO only projects out to 2019 right now. Just another exaggeration from a party that has become known more for imposing fear and paralyzation than hope and stimulation.
Another way this proposal lags behind any true vision for this country is in energy. There has never been a more critical time for us to become energy independent than right now, for a couple of different reasons. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, produced for the most part by countries who are not our biggest fans, reduces our potential for being held hostage by these same countries. Renewable energy development in this country would require job creation, and good paying jobs in a field that could NEVER be outsourced, no matter how bad our trade agreements are. And let's not forget the impact on our environment. Argue all you want on either side of the climate change debate, there is no question that the constant pouring of toxins into our air, our water, and our soil is just simply unhealthy, and needs to stop. The GOP proposal eliminates President Obama's Cap and Trade policy. Cap and Trade essentially places a cap on the amount of a company's polluting emmisions, and if they wishe to exceed those standards, they pay for the excess pollution. That is a crude explanation of the process, but in essence covers the concept. House Republicans, specifically Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, would have you believe this Cap and Trade program would increase the typical family's utility costs by approximately $3,100 per year. Here's what Reid Detchon, of the Energy Future Coalition says - "The surprising secret is that a carbon cap would be an economic stimulus for low and middle-income consumers. If the revenue from a carbon cap is returned to the public, most consumers will come out even, and consumers whose energy use is below average will come out ahead - their rebate checks will be larger than the increase in their energy costs. " Now, I am a realist, and believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Projections I have seen would mean maybe an $80 per year increase in energy costs in a typical household, or $6.67 per month. The trade off for significantly reduced toxic emissions is a bargain. They also want to expand offshore drilling, continuing to fall back on the "drill baby, drill" that was so influential during the recent campaign. Renewable, clean energy should be our focus, our priority, and our mandate.
There is also an aspect of their proposed budget that covers healthcare and entitlements (Social Security, i.e.), but I am going to leave that for another blog, as I will have enough trouble limiting that one subject into a short diatribe.
The bottom line is this "proposal" does not create the deficit reduction or debt reduction even in it's projections to offset the setbacks it would impose on so many areas of our country that simply cannot afford more setbacks. The Republicans have been labeled "the party of NO" since the election for their unwillingness to suppport anything they haven't proposed, but maybe now that they have proposed something, we can change it to "the party of NO NEW IDEAS".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
