Quotations

"(The president) began by saying that he was struck by the paradox that, while labor leaders were often mediocre and selfish, labor as a body took generally enlightened positions on the great issues; while businessmen were often enlightened as individuals but invariably took hopeless positions on public issues."

"As I look back over the last year and a half, the main - and persisting - error of the . . . administration has been the appeasement of business. This appeasement has been political and psychological rather than intellectual: that is, the President does not believe in the business ideology of the business community but does believe that, because of the weight of the pro-business sentiment in the Congress and because of the need of active business collaboration in economic growth and in foreign policy, it is necessary to propitiate business and yield to its particular prejudices. . . . I would guess he does not have much respect for their ideas but has considerable for their experience and feels that this experience gives them certain clues to the operation of the economy which the intellectuals, for all their superior theories, do not possess."

"(A friend) said, 'What is wrong with the President when it comes to dealing with Congress? These people spend all their time obstructing and sabotaging his program, and yet he treats them with constant consideration and respect. I suppose that is because he still views them as one senator viewing his colleagues and equals. . . . I am used to Presidents who understood their power over Congress and would not stand this nonsense. Roosevelt wouldn't. Truman wouldn't.' I said that it had taken Truman nearly three years to get over his senatorial habits and that (this President) had only been in office two years."

Now you might think these quotations are about President Barack Obama, but you'd be wrong. All three are from Arthur M. Schlesinger's book, Journals, 1952-2000, and concern President Kennedy. What strikes me here are of course the parallels. Kennedy struggled with Congress, most notably about civil rights, though he was hardly a profile in courage on the subject. He managed to get an accelerated public works program through Congress, an economic stimulus plan if you will, plumped for a rapid advance into orbital space, and negotiated a nuclear test ban treaty with the USSR. He didn't hesitate to send the military into action to defend what he thought were America's national interests. He maneuvered the Soviets into removing their missiles from Cuba without any bloodshed. (One surveillance planes pilot was killed, shot down by a SAM over Cuba.) He must bear much responsibility for the Vietnam inbroglio, however.

President Obama staked his first term on the stimulus of 2009 and the Health Care Reform Act, many of the benefits of which have not kicked in yet. It has been a struggle against an intractable Congress and despite Obama's statement that he would "call out" obstructionists, he has not managed to frighten any congressman except his supporters. President Obama considered his options for months before committing additional troops to the mountains of Afghanistan but it remains doubtful whether the "surge" there was worthwhile. He has struck hard at the Libyan tyrant without sending any ground troops and without a single casualty (so far).

Is Kennedy vindicated by history? I think he had a mixed record, but he did inspire many people and he did begin to nudge the United States away from the cold war mentality that had gripped the country during the 1950's. The Peace Corps did much good and persuaded people around the world that Americans could be their friends.

And President Obama? Will he be vindicated by the voters next year? To steal a remark from one of his most implacable critics, "Bank on it. Cash the check."

Grandfatherhood

It's still less than forty-eight hours since my son Joe and his heroic wife Amy became parents of a wonderful baby girl, Violet Baker Baril. I would not be exaggerating to say my cup runneth over.

Part of it is the confidence I feel that Joe and Amy will be excellent parents. The photos of my son looking adoringly at his daughter do my heart good, and call to mind the emotions I felt on first seeing my own children.

Another part is the confidence they feel, and I share, that the world is in decent enough shape that they can bring new life into it with the expectation she will have more good times in her life than bad ones. Individually her happiness will lie in her own hands to a great extent, but we can hope and trust there will not be any Hitlers or Stalins in the world she will inhabit.

Finally, there is the matter of my own mark in the world. Little Violet might live to see the first years of the twenty-second century, and twenty-five percent of her is me. Long after I've gone the way of all mankind, she might have an occasional thought for her old granddad. Historians concentrate on the politicians, generals, inventors, business magnates and so forth. They'll have nothing to say about me. Violet will remember that I, as well as her other grandparents, existed. It's a comforting thought.

So I'm thrilled to be a grandpa. Violet's arrival has put a smile on my face that nothing has erased in the last two days. Best of luck to her always, may she have a long healthy and happy life. She will be loved, I know that for sure.

By the way, I called Amy "heroic" at the beginning of this piece, and I mean it sincerely. Women are my heroes generally. They're the ones who go through pregnancy, labor and delivery, even knowing how difficult the whole process is. I don't know if I could do it, even if it was biologically possible.

Teaparty History 101?

Johnny's Hist'ry Lesson by Nixon Waterman I think, of all the things at school A boy has got to do, That studyin' hist'ry, as a rule, Is worst of all, don't you? Of dates there are an awful sight, An' though I study day an' night, There's only one I've got just right - That's fourteen ninety-two. Columbus crossed the Delaware In fourteen ninety-two; We whipped the British, fair an' square, In fourteen ninety-two. At Concord an' at Lexington. We kept the redcoats on the run, While the band played Johnny Get Your Gun, In fourteen ninety-two. Pat Henry, with his dyin' breath - In fourteen ninety-two - Said, "Gimme liberty or death!" In fourteen ninety-two. An' Barbara Frietchie, so 'tis said, Cried, "Shoot if you must this old, gray head, But I'd rather 'twould be your own instead!" In fourteen ninety-two. The Pilgrims came to Plymouth Rock In fourteen ninety-two, An' the Indians standin' on the dock Asked, "What are you goin' to do?" An' they said, "We seek your harbor drear That our children's children's children dear May boast that their forefathers landed here In fourteen ninety-two." Miss Pocahontas saved the life - In fourteen ninety-two - Of John Smith, an' became his wife In fourteen ninety-two. An' the Smith tribe started then an' there, An' now there are John Smiths ev'rywhere, But they didn't have any Smiths to spare In fourteen ninety-two. Kentucky was settled by Daniel Boone In fourteen ninety-two, An' I think the cow jumped over the moon In fourteen ninety-two. Ben Franklin flew his kite so high He drew the lightnin' from the sky, An' Washington couldn't tell a lie, In fourteen ninety-two.

"Bureaucrats"

In the recent mayoral election here in Colorado Springs, though it was supposed to be non-partisan, everyone knew who was the Democrat and who was the Republican. In the last days before the election the candidate favored by the GOP ran television commercials attacking his opponent as a "tax and spender" who even wanted to give pay raises to "bureaucrats."

It's an old hobby horse, but he rode it right into the mayor's office. "Bureaucrats" are the people we love to hate - sipping coffee through the day in cubicles while they thwart every effort to improve society or turn an honest dollar, quoting and enforcing obscure laws and regulations that defy common sense, then leaving at five o'clock on the dot to make use of the tax dollars we pay them.

The ads got me thinking about government employees. When they refer to "bureaucrats" just who do they really mean? Police officers are bureaucrats, at least in the sense that they are government employees. Who would begrudge a raise for a cop? The same thing applies to firefighters and paramedics. In a city like ours, where the hospital is city owned (though for how much longer is questionable - our new mayor might very well sell it) the nurses and orderlies are bureaucrats.

Teachers - the people we entrust our children to - are bureaucrats. One hardly imagines teachers sipping coffee all day and so forth, but they do work in socialized institutions, our public schools. Is there anyone who doubts that teachers work long hours? Is there anyone who would deny that teachers often buy school supplies with their own money? And yet they're vilified as "bureaucrats," more of those anonymous faceless parasites living off the fat of the land.

I just finished reading Timothy Egan's "The Big Burn" a history of the great wildfire that swept through parts or Idaho and Montana in August 1910. About 3.2 million acres were charred, an area the same size as Connecticut, and 87 people were killed, of whom 78 were firefighters. Much of the land was National Forest, created just a few years earlier by President Theodore Roosevelt over the opposition of many western congressmen. These members of Congress, mostly from Roosevelt's own Republican party, unable to prevent TR from declaring public lands would now be protected from reckless consumptive use, tried to "starve the beast" by cutting appropriations for the new agency. Forest rangers were paid poorly and often lacked the equipment they needed. They were treated badly by the local people near national forests who believed the rangers were obstructing development - that is, keeping them from using up forest resources to get rich.

In the aftermath of the fire - well I'll write a lengthy quote from Egan to illustrate the point.

"So once again the rangers felt obligated to cover the cost of what had been placed in their stewardship, the human and the natural world. A hollowed-out Forest Service had lived with the daily humiliations, but this was a new low. Hospital bills mounted, upward of $5000 for the injured in Wallace (Idaho) alone. The Red Cross raised $1000, leaving the rest of the debt to the (rangers). Just as congressmen had shortchanged the rangers of shovels, axes and trail-building funds, charging them for the cost of horses and mules, and. . . essentially forcing them to pay firefighters out of their own pockets, they stiffed the rangers again on medical costs. All these men, their fingernails melted off, skin raised and infected, lungs permanently compromised by smoke, joints strained and bones broken, muscles torn and hair lost, were left to fend for themselves. Give the enemies of the Forest Service credit, a few rangers noted - their antipathy was consistent." (page 225)

"Bureaucrats," the people we hate to love.

By the way, Egan's book is recommended for any Roosevelt scholars out there.

Time to be Bold

Germany is right to opt out of nuclear

The rejection of nuclear power is a result not of German angst but of economic thinking. We must invest in renewable energy

• • Tweet this
  • Share304
  • reddit this
• Comments (253)

• 
• • Ulrich Beck
  • guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 June 2011 07.00 BST
  • Article history

Niederaichbach nuclear power station in Germany. Photograph: Armin Wiegel/DPA

"You Germans are on your own" was the reaction of Stewart Brandt, the American environmentalist, to Germany's plans to exit nuclear energy. He also added that Germany's decision was irresponsible. Economic considerations and the threat represented by greenhouse gases meant that we simply could not renounce nuclear energy. George Monbiot andMark Lynas have argued along similar lines.

Having been a member of the special expert commission appointed by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, in the wake of Fukushima, I disagree. Ultimately, the rejection of nuclear is not a result of German angst but of economic thinking. In the long run, nuclear power will become more expensive, while renewable energy will become cheaper. But the key point is that those who continue to leave all options open will not invest.

A hesitant Germany would fail to achieve the push of self-fulfilling prophecy in energy change that is required. Supporters of nuclear energy block their own access to the markets of the future because they are not investing in energy-saving products and in renewable energy – not even in "green" professional training and research institutes.

The situation we are facing at the dawn of the 21st century is comparable to other turning points in energy generation. Just imagine what would have happened 250 years ago if people had brushed aside the suggestion that they should invest in coal and steel, steam engines, power looms and, later on, railways.

Or what the world would be like now if 50 years ago people had seen the Americans suddenly investing in microprocessors, computers, the internet and the new markets that those technologies opened up and dismissed it all as the product of American angst.

If we could open up just a part of the world's deserts for solar energy, we could satisfy the energy needs of the whole of civilisation. No one can take possession of sunlight; no one can privatise or nationalise it. Everyone can open up this source of energy for himself or herself and profit from it. Users of energy produced by a nuclear power plant have their electricity cut off if they fail to pay their bills. This cannot happen to people using electricity generated by the solar panels installed on the roofs of their houses. Why, of all nations, do the Americans, the French and the British – nations that value freedom so highly – persist in remaining blind to these emancipatory consequences of the coming change in power generation?

People everywhere are proclaiming and mourning the death of politics. Paradoxically, the cultural perception of the danger may well usher in the very opposite: the end of the end of politics. To understand this, we need to go back to John Dewey's insight, formulated as early as 1927, in The Public and its Problems.

According to Dewey, a transnational public sphere powerful enough to create a community arises not from political decisions, but from the consequences of decisions that have come to seem problematic in the lives of citizens. Thus a publicly perceived risk triggers communication between people who would otherwise prefer to have nothing to do with one another. It imposes obligations and costs on people who resist – and who often have the prevailing law on their side. In other words, what is denounced by many as a hysterical over-reaction to the "risks" of nuclear energy is in fact a vital step towards ensuring that a turning point in energy generation becomes a step towards greater democracy.

The novel coalition between the state and social movements of the kind we currently see at work in Germany now has a historic opportunity. Even in terms of power politics, this change of policy makes sense. Only a conservative government close to industry is capable of pulling off such a shift in energy policy.

It could well be that those who criticise Germany's decision to opt out of nuclear energy have fallen victim to the caterpillar's mistake: as it emerges from the chrysalis, it laments the disappearance of the cocoon because it has no premonition of the butterfly of renewable energy it is destined to become.

Sorry About That

The post just a couple of minutes ago didn't come out the way I figured it would. Sorry.

Follow-up on Music

I didn't discover Phil Ochs until the end of 1968 or maybe later. But this was his most powerful song.

Crucifixion

By Phil Ochs

        Em                                      D And the night comes again to the circle studded sky     G                                       Bm The stars settle slowly, in loneliness they lie           Am           D          G             Em 'Till the universe explodes as a falling star is raised Am          D          G             Em Planets are paralyzed, mountains are amazed          Am       D                 G                 Em But they all glow brighter from the brilliance of the blaze          Am         D               Em With the speed of insanity, then he dies.  In the green fields a turnin', a baby is born His cries crease the wind and mingle with the morn An assault upon the order, the changing of the guard Chosen for a challenge that is hopelessly hard And the only single sound is the sighing of the stars But to the silence of distance they are sworn     Em          C    D So dance dance dance Em Teach us to be true                  C Come dance dance dance D         Em 'Cause we love you  Images of innocence charge him go on But the decadence of destiny is looking for a pawn To a nightmare of knowledge he opens up the gate And a blinding revelation is laid upon his plate That beneath the greatest love is a hurricane of hate And God help the critic of the dawn.  So he stands on the sea and shouts to the shore, But the louder that he screams the longer he's ignored For the wine of oblivion is drunk to the dregs And the merchants of the masses almost have to be begged 'Till the giant is aware, someone's pulling at his leg, And someone is tapping at the door.  To dance dance dance Teach us to be true Come dance dance dance 'Cause we love you  Then his message gathers meaning and it spreads across the land The rewarding of his pain is the following of the man But ignorance is everywhere and people have their way Success is an enemy to the losers of the day In the shadows of the churches, who knows what they pray For blood is the language of the band.  The Spanish bulls are beaten; the crowd is soon beguiled, The matador is beautiful, a symphony of style Excitement is estatic, passion places bets Gracefully he bows to ovations that he gets But the hands that are applauding are slippery with sweat And saliva is falling from their smiles  So dance dance dance Teach us to be true Come dance dance dance 'Cause we love you  Then this overflow of life is crushed into a liar The gentle soul is ripped apart and tossed into the fire. First a smile of rejection at the nearness of the night Truth becomes a tragedy limping from the light All the (canons|heavens) are horrified, they stagger from the sight As the cross is trembling with desire.  They say they can't believe it, it's a sacreligious shame Now, who would want to hurt such a hero of the game? But you know I predicted it; I knew he had to fall How did it happen?  I hope his suffering was small. Tell me every detail, for I've got to know it all, And do you have a picture of the pain?  So dance dance dance Teach us to be true Come dance dance dance 'Cause we love you  Time takes her toll and the memory fades but his glory is broken, in the magic that he made. Reality is ruined; it's the freeing from the fear The drama is distorted, to what they want to hear Swimming in their sorrow, in the twisting of a tear As they wait for a new thrill parade.  The eyes of the rebel have been branded by the blind To the safety of sterility, the threat has been refined The child was created to the slaughterhouse he's led So good to be alive when the eulogy is read The climax of emotion, the worship of the dead And the cycle of sacrifice unwinds.  So dance dance dance Teach us to be true Come dance dance dance 'Cause we love you  And the night comes again to the circle studded sky The stars settle slowly, in loneliness they lie 'Till the universe expodes as a falling star is raised Planets are paralyzed, mountains are amazed But they all glow brighter from the briliance of the blaze With the speed of insanity, then he died.  

Notes:

Chords supplied by tonmaas@xs4all.nl (Ton Maas) and James Barnett.

This is one of Phil's two songs about the late John F. Kennedy (although in his intro on the There and Now - Live in Vancouver 1968 album he extended it to Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and to ``hero killing'' in general), the other song being That Was The President. Phil was also quoted (on 15-Dec-1965) as saying this about the song: "It's a song about Christ-killing, how all America and even, especially, New York loves to create heroes to moralize to them and then kill them violently, bloodily and dig the death so much, every detail of the death. It's a song about Jesus Christ. It's called The Crucifixion. It's a song about Kennedy. And maybe a song about Dylan." (In an interview a few months earlier, Phil expressed the belief that it would soon be too dangerous for Dylan to play out in public because he had become one of those heroes.)

Christian Bartolf says that this song ``has been translated into German language by Walter Mossmann: The "Gorleben-Song" became the hymn of the civil disobedience movement against plutonium industry beginning of the Eighties. There was an influence of non-violent resistance against nuclear industry: Wyhl (Germany) - Seabrook (New Hampshire) - Gorleben (Germany). Walter Mossmann started to sing his political folk songs in Wyhl (Germany) during the Seventies.

---

Back to the Phil Ochs home page
Last modified 25 Dec 02 by trent

Rock of Ages

"You will always like best the music you listened to when you were nineteen."

That's what my sister says, and she should know. For myself, I turned nineteen in 1968, that awful year. In fact, Senator Kennedy was mortally wounded on my birthday. Also, that year included the murder of America's great moral conscience, the Tet offensive, riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago, and Richard Nixon was elected to his first term as president.

So, a bad year for the most part, but musically it was one of the best of the twentieth century.

I had been a folkie during my high school days, preferring Peter Paul and Mary to the various rock groups that adorned the early sixties. Surely we'd all agree in retrospect that their covers of "Blowin' in the Wind," and "Leavin' on a Jet Plane" have left a greater mark on us than "Duke of Earl" or "Soldier Boy." Those years popularized songs across a spectrum from "Ballad of the Green Berets" to "Eve of Destruction" and "Universal Soldier."

I remember the Doors, of course. "Light my Fire" really didn't have much of a lyric aside from the veiled drug reference, but it had that long instrumental passage in the middle (if you heard the six-minute version) with a pounding drum accompaniment and repetitive guitar licks. It broke the mold of the "three verses, two choruses and a coda" songs we were used to. "Somebody to Love" by Jefferson Airplane was in much the same style, driving beat, Grace Slick's powerful voice, and the beginnings at least of what came to be called psychedelic rock.

It was the year the Beatles turned out the White Album. The introspective "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," and the homage/satire of Bob Dylan, "Rocky Raccoon" are the songs I recall. The White Album falls between "Sergeant Pepper" and "Let it Be," so it might not get the attention it deserves.

But I was more interested in Simon and Garfunkel, at least at the start of the year. It was the year of "Mrs Robinson" and many of my friends and I had a definite sense that we wanted no part of the materialistic world our parents were making for us. Still, some of Simon's lyrics that year and subsequently didn't quite satisfy our expectations for profundity.

"Wish I was a Kellogg's corn flake,

Floating in my bowl taking movies,"

It's whimsical, but silly.

That summer I worked for the post office, delivering mail. I was assigned to a car with left hand drive, but had to deliver from the right side window, which required a lot of stretching. I tried driving on the wrong side of the road, but figured I'd be fired if they caught me doing it, so abandoned the idea. I bring all that up because the car had a radio and the hit song during the summer was a number called "The Letter," appropriately enough. Again, there wasn't much of a lyric. What I remember is the chorus.

"I'm gonna take a jet plane,

Ain't got time for a fast train.

I'm a-going home,

My lonely days are done,

My baby wrote me a letter."

The song didn't wear very well as I perspired through a Miami summer, cooped up in a car without air conditioning.

By fall, we were so benumbed by the torrent of news, most of it bad, that we were more than ready for Paul Simon's "Bridge Over Troubled Water." It seemed the best way to see out the year. Simon still thinks of that song as his best melody, but not his best lyric, but I always think of it as a solace when things go badly.

Those are my memories of the year I was nineteen. What are yours?

Patriotism

Right-wing radio host Michael Medved is fond of breaking for commercials on his show with the remark that America is "the greatest country on God's green earth." Lately I've been wondering what he means, what makes America the greatest, in his opinion or anyone else's.

We all say we love our country, but what exactly do we mean? Is it the landmass, particular things about it - purple mountains' majesty above the fruited plains - our Constitutional government, the American people, our love of liberty, or a combo platter of all these things? Maybe we love our weather, the resources buried in our soils, the soils themselves, the birds that fly overhead, the animals and plants that share the country with us. Possibly we revere our history, the brave patriots stretching from George Washington to the men and women we now send to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why is it then that the very people who are loudest in proclaiming their love of country seem to be the same people who are bent on despoiling it? If it's the American lands they love, why do they push to mine as much of it as possible as quickly as possible? Why do they want to slash the national forests, which is the real goal of what they call the "healthy forests initiative." Why do they drag their feet over every proposal to advance alternative energy development and public transportation. Why do they push for more off-shore oil drilling, even in the wake of last year's massive spill that still bedevils the Gulf coast. Why are they in favor of mountaintop removal coal mining.

If it's Constitutional government they adore, why do they insist on severely limiting government activity that promotes the general welfare and at the same time are ready to play fast and loose with Constitutional liberties as exemplified by the "Patriot Act" and their support of water boarding.

The American people need not take a back seat to any others in our willingness to defend ourselves, in our gifts to charity, or our respect for the liberties of one another. That being said, we are also the descendants of people who profited from the misery of the slave trade and slavery itself, and who seized the continent from its original inhabitants, who were only trying to live and to keep what they already had. As my old high school history teacher - a Goldwater Republican - used to say, "This is our country, we stole it fair and square." Nowadays, despite those contributions to charity and our volunteer services, we still have a population of homeless people wandering through our land (many of whom are veterans) and infant mortality lags far behind many other nations.

Shall I even discuss the birds, terrestrial animals and other resources - our marshes and swamps, our water and air quality? They think temporary convenience from exploitation of fossil fuels is more important than species survival, and believe we have no obligation to be good stewards of those animals, plants and other resources for our progeny.

Maybe it's our history, though they seem to garble it or try to rewrite it to fit their own preconceived ideas. We only need to recall Sarah Palin's pathetic attempt to explain Paul Revere's ride to illustrate the point. They espouse an "every man for himself and devil take the hindmost" perversion of the social contract and trumpet the idea of tax cuts as a panacea for all our problems. For the record, the revolutionaries of 1776 were not tax rebels per se, their slogan was, "No taxation without representation." The amount of taxation was not the issue, it was having laws enacted thousands of miles away without their having any say in the matter.

So what do they love? Just their own comfort, their own ease, their own possessions? Anyone who is on the political right and can answer is invited to do so.

So Utterly Irresponsible

By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

June 13, 2011

Reporting from Washington—

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the George W. Bush administration flooded the conquered country with so much cash to pay for reconstruction and other projects in the first year that a new unit of measurement was born.

Pentagon officials determined that one giant C-130 Hercules cargo plane could carry $2.4 billion in shrink-wrapped bricks of $100 bills. They sent an initial full planeload of cash, followed by 20 other flights to Iraq by May 2004 in a $12-billion haul that U.S. officials believe to be the biggest international cash airlift of all time.

• RELATED
• Amid talk of democracy, Iraqi activists decry detentions
• Anti-U.S. cleric's followers turn out in force in Baghdad
• Double bombing in Iraq kills 27, injures dozens
• U.S. insurer faces criminal investigation over Iraqis' unpaid death benefits
• Iraqis buying tons of U.S. military surplus items (July 2010)
• Database: California's war dead

This month, the Pentagon and the Iraqi government are finally closing the books on the program that handled all those Benjamins. But despite years of audits and investigations, U.S. Defense officials still cannot say what happened to $6.6 billion in cash — enough to run the Los Angeles Unified School District or the Chicago Public Schools for a year, among many other things.

For the first time, federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an office created by Congress, said the missing $6.6 billion may be "the largest theft of funds in national history."

The mystery is a growing embarrassment to the Pentagon, and an irritant to Washington's relations with Baghdad. Iraqi officials are threatening to go to court to reclaim the money, which came from Iraqi oil sales, seized Iraqi assets and surplus funds from the United Nations' oil-for-food program.

It's fair to say that Congress, which has already shelled out $61 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for similar reconstruction and development projects in Iraq, is none too thrilled either.

"Congress is not looking forward to having to spend billions of our money to make up for billions of their money that we can't account for, and can't seem to find," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), who presided over hearings on waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq six years ago when he headed the House Government Reform Committee.

Theft of such a staggering sum might seem unlikely, but U.S. officials aren't ruling it out. Some U.S. contractors were accused of siphoning off tens of millions in kickbacks and graft during the post-invasion period, especially in its chaotic early days. But Iraqi officials were viewed as prime offenders.

The U.S. cash airlift was a desperation measure, organized when the Bush administration was eager to restore government services and a shattered economy to give Iraqis confidence that the new order would be a drastic improvement on Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The White House decided to use the money in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq, which was created by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to hold money amassed during the years when Hussein's regime was under crippling economic and trade sanctions.

The cash was carried by tractor-trailer trucks from the fortress-like Federal Reserve currency repository in East Rutherford, N.J., to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, then flown to Baghdad. U.S. officials there stored the hoard in a basement vault at one of Hussein's former palaces, and atU.S. military bases, and eventually distributed the money to Iraqi ministries and contractors.

But U.S. officials often didn't have time or staff to keep strict financial controls. Millions of dollars were stuffed in gunnysacks and hauled on pickups to Iraqi agencies or contractors, officials have testified.

House Government Reform Committee investigators charged in 2005 that U.S. officials "used virtually no financial controls to account for these enormous cash withdrawals once they arrived in Iraq, and there is evidence of substantial waste, fraud and abuse in the actual spending and disbursement of the Iraqi funds."

Pentagon officials have contended for the last six years that they could account for the money if given enough time to track down the records. But repeated attempts to find the documentation, or better yet the cash, were fruitless.

Iraqi officials argue that the U.S. government was supposed to safeguard the stash under a 2004 legal agreement it signed with Iraq. That makes Washington responsible, they say.

Abdul Basit Turki Saeed, Iraq's chief auditor and president of the Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit, has warned U.S. officials that his government will go to court if necessary to recoup the missing money.

"Clearly Iraq has an interest in looking after its assets and protecting them," said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States.

paul.richter@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

A Modest Proposal

No, this is not a modest proposal like Jonathan Swift's, who suggested that poor Irish people could sell their babies to the English, who would eat them. This is truly a modest proposal to help the working people of America, and lo and behold, it fits right in with the GOP mania for tax cuts.

Prior to 1981, that is before the "Reagan Revolution," people who itemized their tax deductions could write off interest paid on personal debt - that is interest paid on car loans, credit card debt and so forth. Since so many people of modest means were already itemizing to use the deduction for interest paid on a mortgage, quite a few people were using this deduction.

Trying to encourage thrift instead of consumption, President Reagan and the Congress we all know and love removed the deduction, and created exemptions for thrift savings accounts. What this did of course was to shift the tax burden downward onto the shoulders of the people who could least afford to pay more tax.

So, my proposal is simply to restore the deduction for interest paid on personal debt. Doing so would put more money into the hands of the people who are most likely to spend any additional money they have, increasing personal consumption, reducing inventories of unsold goods, and getting the old economy humming again. And, using the Republicans' own logic which seems akin to "the more you spend the more you save," tax revenues would actually go up!

What could be wrong with that?

You say it will encourage even more indebtedness? I say, shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves how far they go into debt? Don't they already cringe at the necessity of piling up debt? How could the current indebtedness plight of ordinary working people possibly be worse?

Isn't it worth a try?

Politicians: What Could They Be Thinking?

Representative Anthony Weiner's skinny anatomy is now plastered all over the Internet, after he claimed he didn't know if the first picture was of him. Setting aside the idiocy of his disclaimer, he is now clearly an arrogant liar. The honorable course for him would be to resign from Congress and then, if he cares to, run for election and let the voters decide if they want him back in Washington. (Actually, many of the voters might want to send him back to the capital if only to get him out of their neighborhood.)

Weiner is only the latest among a depressing coterie of politicians who seem to think they are above the law and the normal conventions of behavior. A senator solicited sex from a man in a Minneapolis airport restroom and claimed he just had a "wide stance" on the toilet. Let me just say, when a man has his pants around his ankles he doesn't have a "wide stance." Another congressman posted an email proposition to an underage page, thinking the message would never see the light of day.

What was going through their tiny minds?

Which brings us to Sarah Palin's incoherent version of American history, her garbled explanation of Paul Revere's ride. At first she said Revere was riding to warn the British, ringing bells as he went. Then she tried to cover her original gaffe by explaining he wanted to warn the British that the Americans were ready for them. At best that would make Revere a time-server, and at worst a traitor. In either case he wouldn't in any way deserve the praise successive generations have given him.

So, we have an arrogant liar and an ignoramus. I think I'll spend the day looking at Loony Tunes.

The Shame of a Nation

The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts

By Zaid Jilani on Jun 7, 2011 at 9:15 am

We could've guaranteed health care for every child for the cost of the Bush tax cuts.

Today marks the 10th anniversary of former President George W. Bush signing into lawhis 2001 tax cuts (he passed a second round in 2003). While doing so, Bush promised prosperity and growth, but the nation got neither.

The cost of these budget-busting 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was, as estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice, roughly $2.5 trillion through 2010. But America didn’t have to go down this route of cutting taxes and hoping for growth to miraculously appear. There were other policy options available to policymakers.

ThinkProgress, using data on various social spending projects from the National Priorities Project — which does these calculations for the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars — has estimated ten other possible policies we could’ve paid for at the same $2.5 trillion price of the Bush tax cuts. While not all of these policies are currently performed by the federal government, they do represent an accurate calculation of the monetary tradeoffs, and each one individually would cost the same as the Bush tax cuts. Here are ten alternatives we could’ve pursued instead:

- Give 122.7 Million Children Low-Income Health Care Every Year For Ten Years

- Give 49.2 Million People Access To Low-Income Healthcare Every Year For Ten Years

- Provide 43.1 Million Students With Pell Grants Worth $5,500 Every Year For Ten Years

- Provide 31.5 Million Head Start Slots For Children Every Year For Ten Years

- Provide VA Care For 30.7 Million Military Veterans Every Year For Ten Years

- Provide 30.4 Million Scholarships For University Students Every Year For Ten Years

- Hire 4.19 Million Firefighters Every Year For Ten Years

- Hire 3.67 Million Elementary School Teachers Every Year For Ten Years

- Hire 3.6 Million Police Officers Every Year For Ten Years

- Retrofit 144.6 Million Households For Wind Power Every Year For Ten Years

- Retrofit 54.2 Million Households For Solar Photovoltaic Energy Every Year For Ten Years

The tradeoffs paint a stark picture. For the same price as the Bush tax cuts, which did little to help the economy, we could’ve sent tens of millions of students to college, retrofitted every household in America with the capacity to generate alternative energy, hired millions of firefighters and police officers, effectively ended our national shame of having kids who lack health care coverage, or put millions of more teachers into classrooms. But instead, Congress passed budget-breaking tax cuts, and then went on to pass even more in 2003. In 2010, Congress then went on to renew the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years, and the political will for the sort of public investments listed above appears to have dried up.