opa-opines.net

How do we treat our casualties of war?   Since the first Bush administration, the US has banned media from the ceremonies at Dover AFB, Maryland. The media claims that our citizens need to see the cost of the war. How can we accomplish that and still respect our beloved dead and their families? Often funeral services, especially graveyard services, have encountered groups of demonstrators who attempt to disrupt the ceremonies. How can we allow their demonstrations and still respect the casualties of our wars?

Dover is currently our mortuary. The bodies are brought there without the benefit of mortuary services. So the bodies are not cleaned or treated because the goal is to swiftly return them to US soil. The atmosphere is solemn and the ceremonies meaningful to the military participants and families. It is very personal and emotional. Media snapping pictures and asking questions would seriously interfere with this process.

During my time in the military I served as a casualty assistance officer and conducted graveyard services. Casualty assistance notifies the family of the loss of their loved one and organizes administrative, financial, and ceremonial support for the family. The family is always in shock for several days. Some family members become almost non-functional while they begin to process their grief. Vital decisions must be delayed. I cannot see the media being present when the families first see the remains.

Recently, John Barry offered an interesting suggestion. He suggested that we adopt the Canadian method for handling casualties. The Canadians off load bodies, without media present, then ship them over a hundred miles across busy streets and highways to the mortuary site. The hearses are escorted by police, and traffic is required to yield to the convoy.

Maybe we should adapt the Canadian system to our own use. Barry suggests we fly the remains to Andrews AFB and transport them over one hundred miles to Dover through Washington DC. If we adopted that concept we would make the citizens of our nation aware of the costs of the war, the media could cover the convoy, and the families could join the convoy or meet their loved one at Andrews, Dover, or both.

I can see it now, a ceremonial parade driving slowly past the Lincoln memorial, the Capitol building and the White House. Streets lined with citizens hailing our honored dead. News media filming the grand ceremony, filled with flags and honor guards saluting our fallen heroes.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Recently Newsweek*, claimed that Former Treasury Secretary Paulson thought it was “too hard” to put a pricetag on bank’s bad loans.  So instead of focusing the bailout upon the bad loans, he gave the money to the banks who in turn were reluctant to loan money because they still had lots of those bad loans.

The first part of TARP was of little help to our economy. I think that was because Paulson gave the money to the same people who led us into this mess. We need to focus first on “bad” home loans. If we wish to improve, we need to set a price on those “bad loans” (which were bad mostly due to poor bank management, not bad homeowners). I suggest we set that new price and insist that it is the real value of the home.

I disagree with Paulson. I think it is not that tough to put a pricetag on “bad loans” – at least in the real-estate market. A good friend and excellent analyst once told me that he always wanted to be the first to establish a number, because everyone else would need to accept it or justify a different number. The problem is not math, it is leadership. A home is valued at exactly what will be paid for it – that is the theory appraisers have been using for many years. They call this approach “market value”. When appraising a house, they look at what people have paid for similar houses for the past year. I guess they judge that if some folks paid an average of $180,000 for houses with similar features and location, then new buyers will pay the same for the comparison house.

So, using the best number theory, let us look at what people have paid.

According to the National Association of Realtors, the average home price in the United States appreciated -15.78% between December 2007 and December 2008. So, if a house was valued at $100,000 in 2007, it is now valued at $84,220, while a house valued at $350,000 is now worth $294,770.

Since this is a national average, it could be applied to all loans in the US, or Treasury could use regional numbers, which are also available. The math is the same. This is, as they say, not rocket science. I hope the new Treasury Secretary is better at math, and much better at leadership.

As I ponder the problems our federal government is having with efforts to “stimulate” the economy, I am beginning to believe that attitudes have changed on several key political points. One of those is attitude towards welfare.

For many years I have heard politicians and many citizens condemn people that accept public welfare. We were told that these people are lazy, “deadbeats”, and are undesirable people. Being on welfare was viewed as an unacceptable state, something of which to be ashamed.

Then there are the moral judgements I frequently hear. How are these folks on welfare going to learn if we bail them out? They must pull themselves out of their situation and earn their place in society.

How times have changed. Suddenly wealthy people are coming to the government for “bailouts”. I see little difference between a company asking the government for financial support and a citizen asking that same government for aid. One difference I have noticed is that while disadvantaged people on welfare spend the money they are given, the companies on welfare do not.

So, do these wealthy CEOs who come to Congress pleading for help for their companies, then pocket large portions of the “bailout” through “bonuses”, feel ashamed? Those CEOs who invest taxpayer’s money in purchasing other companies, benefitting themselves, are “deadbeats? Those CEOs that do not spend the gift to improve the economy, are unacceptable?

Do we apply the same moral judgements on these CEOs? How are these folks going to learn if we bail them out? They must pull themselves out of their situation and earn their place in society. Why not apply the same standards? Through greed these CEOs drove their companies into failure.

I have said it before, do not provide funds for CEOs that drove their companies into failure. How can we expect their behavior to change? Instead, give the money to “lower class” people as they will most certainly spend it. The idea is to stimulate the economy , not line the pockets of already overpaid business executives.

Yesterday I heard a commentator on television say that if we really want transparency on the economic “bailout” or TARP, that we must speak up to our federal representatives. I thought that happened in November.

I remember when Secretary Paulson announced the need for a 700 Billion dollar bailout of the financial sector of our economy. My first reaction was why. Many of us asked our representatives to assure the need and ensure that the money was used wisely.

Both candidates for President in the recent election said that it would be vital to track the money and confirm that financial titans use the money to ease the credit crisis. When congress debated the bailout bill they said that strings would be necessary to guarantee that the money was used to solve our national problem.

How foolish we were. Many of us actually thought that congress was serious. Lately we learn that Secretary Paulson was allowed to simply throw the money at financial institutions and did so without “strings” or even monitoring.

Anyway, one thing I clearly remember was that Obama promised transparency. Considering that promise, why should the people be required to speak again? After all, It is taxpayer funds.

But considering that news commentators are suggesting that transparency may not happen, I think everyone needs to contact their congressional representatives and speak again. Let us all insist on transparent use of the nearly one trillion dollars we are asked to fund with our tax dollars.

Somehow our representatives must get the message. As taxpayers we are not in the business of financing new airplanes, resort vacations, and huge bonuses for rich business executives.

A recent article in Newsweek mentioned that an increasing number of politicians are trying to pressure the administration to avoid their districts when relocating Gitmo detainees.

Two weeks into office, President Obama has said that he intends to close Gitmo within the next year, but has not detailed what he intends to do with the prisoners. That is not surprising because the Bush administration, other than using them as intelligence sources, was unable to decide what to do with these people 4 to 6 years after capturing them.

Who are these detainees? How “dangerous are they? What crimes did they commit? Does their native country wish them returned? The news media have not given us a clear report on the subject, and there is much debate. If we have cases against them, why not try them where they are and dispose of them within the year?

Currently there is no way Obama can be certain about the cases in Gitmo. His Attorney General just took office. The heads of CIA and other security forces have only recently been approved for their job. And, of course, considering the issues in the recent election, Obama may not have decided who he can trust on these issues.

I can understand that no politician wants terrorists incarcerated in their district or state, but I have yet to hear a constructive suggestion concerning the location they suggest. It is all “not in my backyard”. Someone needs to yield on this subject.

I do have one suggestion. How about Alcatraz? I know it is a national park now, but that means the nation owns the land. It would need some remodeling, but that would provide a few jobs. Alcatraz is an island in the middle of San Francisco bay. It was once considered escape proof as the water is too cold for a long swim.

If anyone else has a suggestion, comment on this blog. We will need an acceptable solution.