Another Lesson Not Learned

Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan, is a dictator. As Wikipedia says: "He came to power in 1999 by effecting a military coup d'état and has suspended the constitution of Pakistan twice." He may have removed his uniform, but he's still calling the shots, and last I checked he wasn't elected in any fair and open sort of way.

Nonetheless, the US has decided to call him an ally. Reluctantly, perhaps, but since he serves our short-term interests, he's called an ally just the same. Where have I seen this before? Oh yeah, Iraq. Surely, things will work out better this time, though.

Or not.

The assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has pitched Pakistan into a political freefall and raised fears that increasingly bitter divisions in the society are turning the country into another Iraq.

Shocked citizens blame the deepening turmoil on President Pervez Musharraf and his U.S.-backed crackdown on Islamic extremists. Overwhelmingly poor and more concerned with survival than anti-Western terrorism, most crave stability above all, and many believe things will only get better if Musharraf resigns.

"The government of Musharraf has created an Afghanistan and Iraq-like situation in our country," said Zaheer Ahmad, 47, who works at a private clinic in Multan. "I don't know who killed Benazir Bhutto. But I do know that it is the result of Musharraf's wrong and bad policies." [emphasis added]

So if Pakistan dissolves into chaos and Musharraf is "forced" to resume his military dictatorship and suspend the constitution again, will the US once again become the object of scorn for a new generation of extremists?

The real question is whether our government will ever stop backing dictators. It's deplorable behavior for a country that claims its mission is to "spread democracy."

The Governator Proves He Really Is A Republican

This just in:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly leader Fabian Nunez are touting their plan to reform health care in California

Reform healthcare. That's what they're saying. The governor and the Democrats in the state Senate. Reform, as in "make better" or "fix." While it is somewhat discouraging to see that the Democrats in California are using that term, what's really irritating is that the media has picked it up as well. The governor's plan is not reform. It will do nothing to fix the healthcare crisis.

The governor's plan has a couple flaws.

1) It does nothing to address the real problem with healthcare, which is that it costs too damn much. Arnold's plan is simply to use taxpayer money to help people pay for overpriced private insurance, partially "with fees on hospitals." How is that supposed to reduce costs?

2) It forces people to buy private insurance. Pumping more money into the broken system is not going to fix it. That would be like trying to fix the problem of lobbyist influence in DC by forcing everyone to hire a lobbyist, and then using tax dollars to "subsidize" the expense.

Basically, Arnold's plan is to funnel more money from the middle class into the pockets of the already wealthy CEOs of the bloated inefficient insurance industry. If there were any doubts that he's really a Republican, this should help to crush them. What's most surprising is that the Democrats are going along with him. Providing insurance for everyone is a laudable goal, but Arnold's plan is the wrong way to go about it.

Meanwhile, the California Nurses Association is urging senators to reject the Assembly bill in favor of a government-run, single-payer health care system.

When will people realize that's the only way to fix this problem?

Bush Chooses Big Business Over Kids' Health

When President Bush vetoed the SCHIP bill on Wednesday, he didn't do it because he's hostile toward poor children. I'm sure Bush has nothing against poor kids, so long as they pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make it on their own, like he did. He didn't even do it becuase he simply doesn't care about poor kids. He did it because he had to. Bush had to stand up for the one thing that he truly believes in: Undying loyalty to big business.

Bush vetoed the expansion of the SCHIP program because he is afraid of it. Or rather, his corporate backers and the goons that run the RNC are afraid of it. SCHIP is the Republican party's greatest nightmare for one simple reason. It works. The program provides health insurance to poor people, mostly kids, at a rate far lower than any private insurance company can (or is willing to.) A look at the numbers tells the story that causes Bush to wake up screaming in the late evening.

Currently, the SCHIP program spends $5.04 Billion per year to provide healthcare to 6 million poor people, mostly children of people who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private insurance. That means that the program spends $840 per year per person. That's $70 per month.

Wait, let me repeat that. SCHIP, a government healthcare program, provides insurance at the cost of $70 per month per person. That's less than I (a single person) pay for my employer-subsidized insurance.

Under the expanded SCHIP plan, the government would spend roughly $12.04 Billion per year to provide insurance for about 10 million people. Again, mostly children. That works out to $1,204 per person per year, or $100.33 per month.

George Bush said that he vetoed this bill because "it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction." And he's right. This bill provides healthcare to poor children in a manner that is far more cost-effective than private insurance. As proof of his fealty to the industry, Bush's proposal, as presented in his State Of The Union Address last February was to give tax deductions to people who already have insurance. His plan has no cost benefit over SCHIP. As he said, "For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year." That works out to $375 per month ($26 less than SCHIP). That $375 isn't providing the family with healthcare, though. It's helping them to pay for private insurance. (Only someone who has never had to buy insurance ever in his life would believe that $375 per month is going to cut it in the private insurance world.)

Ultimately, Bush's plan is simply to push more tax dollars into the pockets of the Insurance industry. (Or as he calls them, "his base.") In his veto statement, Bush said, "our Nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage." At the same time, according to Marilyn Clement, "His proposed $15,000 income tax deduction for middle-class families would jeopardize both Medicare and Social Security..." And that's a never-ending goal of the Republican party.

So what is Bush really doing by vetoing the SCHIP expansion bill? He's trying to keep America from noticing that SCHIP is a federal insurance system that provides healthcare more cost-effectively than private insurance companies can. After all, that's not the sort of thing you want to become public knowledge when there's an election right around the corner.

Romney's Message To Atheists: Go To Hell

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

So there you have it. According to Mitt Romney, if you do not believe in the God of the Bible, then you are leading the US on a path to destruction. I'm not sure which is more annoying: Romney's pandering to the evangelicals in a last-ditch effort to win in Iowa, or his utter ignorance of the religious beliefs of our nation's founders.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.

Putting the words "In God We Trust" on our money had nothing to do with the Founders. According to the US Treasury, "The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War." And, "IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin."

As for the pledge, religioustolerance.org says, "In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words 'under God.'" I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Founders had nothing to do with that, either.

Of course, Romney's view of religion is predictably Christ-centric. He said, "I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God." So either he hasn't encountered that many faiths, or he feels that all religions have the same god.

It seems to me that Romney's view on religion is rather single-minded. Tolerance of religion means tolerance of his religion. Freedom to worship means freedom to worship the god of the Bible. Our rights come from his god. Our laws come from his god. Our nation exists only because of his god. If you're a person of faith, you're obviously worshiping his god. If you're not a person of faith, then you're what's wrong with this country.

So, Romney's message to all Atheists: Go to hell. America doesn't need you.

(All quotes from Romney's speech were grabbed from WCVB in Boston.)

Credit Where Credit Is Due

I am not a friend to the Democratic party. I feel that they have abandoned many (or most) of the principles that democrats are supposed to stand for --standing up for our liberties being the most important. I felt that the Senate Democrats made a huge mistake when they made Harry Reid the majority leader. Dick Durbin, from Illinois, would have been a much better choice.

Nevertheless, I have to give Harry Reid (and the Democrats) some credit with regard to the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that was released on Monday. There has been much talk about the information held in that estimate, and predictably, the Bush administration is spinning it to support their desire to march toward war. What seems to be glossed over in most accounts I've seen, is that this NIE, which I think everyone can agree reveals intelligence that is of vital importance, would not have been generated if not for the Democrats requesting it.

From Reid's statement (from the Senate Democrats' web site):

Democratic Committee leaders and I requested this assessment early last year so that the Administration could not rush this Congress and the country to another war based on flawed intelligence.

This underscores the importance of the Democrats taking back control of the Senate in the last election. If the Republicans had still been in the majority, there's no way they would have allowed the Democrats to request this NIE, and we'd all be counting down the days until Bush's World War III.

So to Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats, I have to say that despite how much I despise your lack of integrity and your inability to stand up to the Bush administration (until recently), you've done good. I think that all Americans (and indeed the entire world) should be thankful that you were able to inject at least one tiny glimmer of sanity into the madness of Bush's foreign policy.

Humor Is Where You Find It

Seeking some information on the Presidential Medal Of Freedom, I browsed over to what may or may not be the official web site. It has information on the recipients of the award over the years and even allows for listing by year or by president.

I don't know who runs the site, but I'm pretty sure it's a group of loyal Bush supporters. Or should I say lazy Bush supporters. The information obviously hasn't been updated since before the Iraq war. Even so, it proved to be a source of great amusement (unintended, I'm sure.) First item of note, whoever updated the site after George W Bush took office apparently scrubbed the Clinton bio clean off. (Unless there never was one, but since every other president has one, I find that hard to believe.)

So, what do we learn of George W Bush from this site? For starters:

Many political pundits and analysts have stated that President George W. Bush has surrounded himself with an all-star team comprised of the most qualified and diverse people our government has ever seen.

Yeah, that's a nice start to the stroke-fest.

Unlike the previous administration, this President has surrounded himself with an honest, qualified and hard working staff needed to most effectively serve the American people.

Ah, there's the first good laugh. Of course, this text is from before Bush's honest, qualified and hard working staff lied us into a war and outed a CIA operative for revenge. It was back in the good old days when the Bush administration only lied about inconsequential things like illegal warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, the "intelligence failure" that led to the 9/11 attacks, and rigging an election.

We all should be aware of those individuals who will shape the history of our nation in this time of crisis. The hunting down of Osama bin Laden, the bombing of Afghanistan, and the downfall of the Taliban government is in the hands of our National Security “Dream Team” hand picked by President Bush.

So how has Bush's "Dream Team" fared? Let's see, the hunting of Osama Bin Laden: um, nope. The bombing of Afghanistan: check. The downfall of the Taliban: not quite. But, hey, one out of three isn't bad. And at least they succeeded at the one where they bombed people. That's what matters most.

Then there is a short bit about each member of the "Dream Team," which consists of Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell. (Coincidentally, all four of those people served under Bush Sr. at some point.) Then, to sum it all up:

This glimpse into the people that define this administration has hopefully provided you with confidence in the leadership of this nation. George W. Bush has shown us his greatness through his leadership during this trying time, his willingness to surround himself with people who have proven their abilities time and time again and his undying faith in the American people and the American way of life. He knows that we will be triumphant and that America’s ability to unite in these times is what makes the United States the greatest country that the world has ever known.

Bush has "shown us his greatness?" Seriously, who wrote this? Katherine Harris?

The Lesson Of Greed

While reading about the impending crunch that is going to hit us as a result (in large part) of the subprime mortgage fiasco, I reviewed a newsletter from John Maudlin back in August, The Panic of 2007. In it, John explains how there is plenty of blame to go around, and several parties to share it. One thing he says is this:

But then in 2004 loan practices began to change and had got completely out of hand by 2006. In 2005-6, about 80% of subprime mortgages were adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs, also called "exploding ARMs." These loans are so-named because they carry low teaser rates that often reset dramatically higher, increasing the borrower's monthly mortgage payments by 25% or more.

Interesting. Subprime mortgages are given to people who are more likely to have difficulty making the payments. So what do the mortgage brokers do? They push these people toward the loans with low "teaser" interest rates. That way, the broker gets the closing (and the commission) and is out of the picture by the time the rate jumps and the borrower defaults and the bank forecloses.

Another item that caught my eye:

The loan application and review process for 'no-doc' loans was so lax that such loans are referred to as 'liar loans.' In a recent report by Mortgage Asset Research Institute, of the 100 loans surveyed for which borrowers merely stated their incomes on loan documents, IRS documents obtained indicated that 60% (!) of these borrowers overstated their incomes by more than half.

I had no idea that there is such a thing as a "no-doc" loan, or the "stated income" loan. Apparently, these loans allow people to get a mortgage without actually having to verify their income. They simply tell the bank how much they make. I'm sure that these loans were created for a legitimate purpose. The flaw, though, is the part of human nature that causes these to be referred to as "liar loans."

The bottom line is that deregulation and lack of oversight do not work. I understand that it has been a conservative wet-dream since at least the Reagan era to rid the country of all government interference in business, but time and time again, we see that businesses can't be trusted to regulate themselves. The concept of deregulation may look good on paper, but conservatives never seem to account for the one factor that always screws things up: greed.

The subprime catastrophe is the perfect example of the downward spiral of greed. Greenspan held interest rates at unreasonably low levels due to Bush's greed (It masked the failing economy so Bush could be "re"-elected.) Home buyers and speculators started buying more house than they should have, especially once home prices started climbing faster and faster. Banks eased the process of getting a loan because there was a lot of money to be made.

Eventually, of course, the sputtering economy caught up with the housing market and now we're seeing the beginning of the destruction that a lack of regulation and oversight brought to the mortgage industry.

For Some Reason, I Don't Believe Him

President Bush vetoed the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. In the statement that he sent to the House, he said that the bill simply spends too much money. Specifically, $10 Billion more than he wanted.

So all of a sudden, George W. Bush is a fiscal conservative. Stop laughing, he really is! Here's what he said:

Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars.

Bush said that on the same day that he signed the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense FY 2008 budget, which increased defense spending by $40 Billion.

The reason that I mention the defense budget is not to harp on the fact that the US spends waaaaayyyyyy too much on defense, but rather to point out the hypocrisy of Bush's statement about being a good steward of our tax dollars. For example, by the Pentagon's own admission, they have "lost" several trillion dollars over the years. If Bush wants to cut spending, maybe he should have vetoed the Defense Department budget and forced them to become a little more responsible with their money before giving them more of it. Who knows, if they're able to clean up their act, maybe they'll be able to afford Bush's Iraq Occupation.

Reality Is Overrated

President Bush is isolated form the world. That in itself is not unusual. Bush has admitted that he doesn't read much and relies on his advisers to provide what he thinks is an objective report on world events. In the current issue of Time magazine, John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN answers ten questions and provides a glimpse into the sort of insulation that our president has wrapped himself in.

Here's a particularly telling bit:

Q: What do you think is the root cause of the anti-American sentiment sweeping the nations of the world? -BEN WONG CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND

A: I don't think there's anti-American sentiment sweeping the world.

The only question is whether he actually believes that. Judging from the inability for anyone in the Bush administration to admit they ever did anything wrong, I suspect he does.

Another chilling exchange:

Q: How should Iranians feel about the unfriendly threats of war issued by the U.S.? -ALI FARROKHIAN, TEHRAN

A: Our concern is not with the Iranian people, and I think we've gone out of our way to make it clear. If it ever did come to the use of military force, we need to make it clear to the people of Iran that this is not aimed against them.

Isn't that what this administration told the people of Iraq before unleashing "Shock And Awe" on them?

Of course, Bolton was simply one of dozens, or even hundreds, of ideologues in the Bush administration who have been openly hostile toward the organization they were supposed to head / oversee / work with.

What, Me Worry?

Yesterday, the Pentagon issued a statement that they are not worried about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. This is a direct 180 from the concern expressed by Lt. General Carter Ham, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

A New York Times article quotes Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell as saying, "At this point, we have no concerns. ... We believe that they are under the appropriate control."

There has been some talk lately of how the US policy toward Musharraf (specifically, supporting an unpopular dictator who took power through a military coup) is similar to that of when the US stood behind the Shah in Iran for so many years. That situation, of course, led to strong anti-American sentiment among the people of Iran, which I think we're paying for right now, as will continue to for some time.

My concern with Pakistan, then, is not that Musharraf doesn't have a tight grip on his country's nuclear weapons. My concern is that the way things are going, there is a pretty good chance that he won't be in power much longer. What will become of the nuclear weapons once he is out of power? Will the US finally find out what happens when you back a dictator? If our failed policy with Iran is pushing us ever closer to another war, and has the Warmonger In Chief talking about World War III, what will happen when Musharraf is out of power, and the strong anti-American sentiment in Pakistan is backed with nuclear weapons?

Whatever the Pentagon's selling, I'm not buying.