opa-opines.net

The United States Secretary of the Treasury recently asked Congress for authority to spend another 350 billion dollars to counteract the current economic crisis. I am still attempting to discover what benefit resulted from the previous 350 billion. What is happening to our leaders?

The problem with our current leaders may be a very ancient one. More than 2000 years ago Plato wrote about civic leaders. Plato suggested that, in a democracy, there may exist a state of appetite with an unlimited desire for wealth (and power). Of course, unlimited desire and claims lead to conflict. Is it possible that in our world the “unlimited desire” of business and governmental leaders drive them to become tyrannical personalities?

This unlimited desire can affect any appetite, for example money, power, and fame. The feeling of power may have led us into our current economic failure. The thirst for wealth may be preventing the current administration from solving the crisis.

Could it be that the reason the first 350 billion dollars failed to help is that those receiving the money decided to keep it rather than make the investments and loans necessary to break the credit impasse? Is it possible that when the current administration announced that our economy was failing and demanded emergency funds of 700 billion dollars, that they did not have a plan? Did they ever explain why exactly 700 billion? Why not 600 or 800 billion? Who invented the number?

Many news reports now claim that Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, attached no real conditions or accounting on the 350 billion. Was Hank simply giving money to his friends? When the Associated Press approached banks that had received funds and asked them what happened to the money, the banks refused to answer.

What can we the citizens and taxpayers of the United States do about this mismanagement of our money? Are the banks that received part of the “bailout” liable? Can Secretary Paulson be investigated and possibly prosecuted for incompetent actions?

One thing is certain to me: Paulson should not get the second half of the money.

Lately President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been speaking out concerning the torture of American prisoners. Cheney was quoted as saying that they had lawyers in the Justice Department review the matter and determine, essentially, that it is ok to torture people who are not members of a recognized armed force of a nation that signed the Geneva Accords. Cheney further claimed that “water boarding” is not torture.

Shame on them and shame on us for allowing this practice.

Water boarding has been specifically named as torture in international law for many years. The Geneva Convention, at the request of the United States, does not just talk of prisoners of war, it talks about moral behavior, and condemns torture of anyone, regardless of their military status. The United States insisted upon trying war criminals after World War II, and convicted several of “Water boarding”.

As I wrote in a commentary this summer, The New York Times reported July 3rd that the United States government used an old study from the 1950’s to establish their interrogation procedures for prisoners in the “war on terrorism.” Seems that the Chinese, during the Korean conflict, developed techniques to get American prisoners to confess to “war crimes”. The Chinese were able to force American POWs to confess to crimes they did not commit (like mass use of poison gas).

What possible reason could lead any American official to exploit such materials? The excuse would probably be utilitarian – it worked for the Chinese. But did it? The Chinese purpose was propaganda not intelligence gathering. Some government officials claimed that using these techniques would provide valuable information and save American lives. I fail to see the logic. How could we make the inductive leap of suggesting that techniques useful for obtaining admission of false information would be successful in gaining accurate (true) information? And how would we check the validity of information gained?

Vice President Cheney claimed that torturing one prominent terrorist provided “most” of our actionable intelligence concerning terrorist threats. FBI sources recently verified that more that 90 percent of the information gained by torture led to “false leads” that wasted valuable time. Further, the FBI director reluctantly stated that to his knowledge torture yielded no security benefit for the US and did not prevent any terrorist actions.

The larger concern, however, is ethical and moral. The American nation has long seen itself as an inspiration. We have democracy, freedom, protected human rights, and the rule of law. Ever wonder how that image is now viewed abroad?

As a people, we must stop this activity. Maybe a prisoner will tell us tales after being isolated, subjected to cold, starvation, ridicule, and “water boarding”. Could the information obtained be worth our becoming like our enemies, possibly worse than our enemies?

American soldiers are taught about the Geneva Convention rules, but Cheney never served and Bush probably missed the class. Neither the Vice President nor the President has the authority to revise law – they “administer” laws passed by congress, and if congress passed a law authorizing torture, I can’t find it (neither can Senator McCain). Is it possible that a sitting American President can violate the law? Can the President be tried and found guilty of a crime? It may be possible to prosecute this case, but will that fix our new reputation abroad?

Our society is economically troubled. Often I wonder about the source of our problems. Is it mortgage companies anxious to make marginal home loans then foreclose in hopes of financial gain? Is it government too bent upon avoiding responsibility while insuring personal gain? Is it the very rich too focused upon protecting their pot of gold? Or is it the working class too selfish by insisting that their children are sheltered, fed, and healthy?

Recently congressional republicans, stressed about a proposed “bailout” of American automobile companies, who led me to question. Essentially they ask: “who is worthy of a “bailout” and “under what conditions should society help?” Are giant financial companies who squandered investments on such gambles as sub prime loans and credit default swaps worthy of aid? Should small businesses who need operational loans to conduct operations, be helped? Could automobile manufacturers, whose executive management have avoided upgrading their product to compete with foreign imports, be rescued?

The only clear message I saw from congressional republicans was that any aid to automobile manufacturing should exact punishment upon the United Auto Workers union. Why target them? Are the republicans suggesting that the UAW caused the problems of GM, Chrysler, and Ford? The republicans do complain about UAW pay and benefits (healthcare, retirement), but they also are against government supported healthcare and retirement. The republicans tend to prefer “private” healthcare and retirement plans and say that people should invest in such plans. How?

If business limits workers to minimum wage (or less), how could they afford healthcare or retirement savings? If fact, at the recent cost of living in most of America, workers for police and firefighting agencies have trouble affording such luxuries. School teachers have experienced difficulty for decades.

So, congressional republicans, we know that your UAW objection is really a political move prompted by your big business supporters. Some “experts” contend that the demise of American automobile manufacturing could cost more than two million jobs. Please do not use the nation’s current crises to attack the UAW. Help us fix the economy and attack the UAW later. It is two different issues and at this time, we need the jobs.

The United States is now officially in a recession. Many companies are struggling and many in the working class are unemployed and increasingly desperate. Our current government has tried a 700 billion dollar “bailout” of the financial industry, which has had little effect. The automobile industry has requested a bailout of their own, and may receive guaranteed loans. Few of us really believe that keeping the American automobile industry alive will really help, especially if the companies layoff workers. So discouragement reigns. Why aren’t our efforts helping?

Several observations: The very rich are not loaning money to business clients who would otherwise be considered worthy; The upperclass limits their investments and spending in order to protect their nest egg; the working class spends less because they are now unemployed or afraid of becoming unemployed; The lower class spends only for survival. Our economy is build more on consumer spending than on business production.

In my opinion the problem now is fear among the people and poor leadership in our government.

When I look at my personal options, I don’t see any. I have not been challenged to help our society overcome this tragedy. If anyone has challenged the very rich or the large investment companies who benefitted from the recent “bailout”, I have not heard that challenge.

We need a leader. Somehow I am reminded of two former Presidents: FDR and JFK. Franklin Roosevelt told Americans that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. FDR challenged people, redirected industry and put people to work on government projects. John Kennedy told us to “ask what you can do for your country” and began projects to put us to work in the Peace Corps, in education, and on research and space exploration.

Isn’t there something for all of us to do? I pray that our President Elect can be the inspirational leader the world needs in this time of need. We are waiting to be led.

The election is finally over (unless you live in Minnesota or Georgia). No more misleading, often slanderous, television ads that play on the fears and prejudices of our citizens. Sure we are in a “lame duck” session, but events seem to be friendly and more honest. Our national problems, of course, continue during this time of waiting between administrations.

The last three weeks have provided a contrast between the President and the President Elect. President Bush appears to be ignoring the economic crises and focusing on executive orders he can issue before he leaves office. He is pardoning a few people. He is releasing governmental barriers that prevent companies from drilling and mining on National Park land. Accordingly Bush is upsetting his opponents.

Normally we expect a President Elect to use the time between the election and the inauguration to select an administrative team and cabinet. We know that it takes time to organize an administration that will manage the most powerful government in the world. This time is different. Pundits were asking what Obama was doing to solve our nation’s problems just a few days after the election. I remember explaining to many people that the power of the presidency begins on the 20th of January. In my circles I was a lone voice. People want action and are impatient.

Obama has risen to the call. He is finding subtle ways to send symbolic messages to foreign leaders. He has held several press conferences to discuss the economy and announce appointments of his economic team. The stock market has responded. With simple, positive actions, President Elect Obama is acting like he is the President and the world seems happy to get him early.

So, fasten your seat belts because the Obama Administration is going to be an exciting ride.