2009: It’s Finally Over!

Well, am I glad that’s [finally] over! 2009 was a year to remember—and a year of stuff to forget.

• Remember, because we need to recall, review, & analyze how things happened to have a chance of avoiding their recurrence in our lifetime
• Forget, because we really, really, really want & need to forget we actually experienced a lot of that…stuff

Whether blessed or cursed, I have what I think is a keen sense of irony. Of course, that may be an expression of my arrogance; but, let’s just accept it, for now. Life, in 2009, was certainly full of irony…

The US Economy

Economic Recovery & Stimulus Programs

If either of my readers dissents with TARP and the Recovery Act; if either wonders—as I do—how our nation will pay off the interest and principle on the loans undertaken to finance these programs, fire away. Address the issues and offer rational responses. As for me, I look at our situation today, and as it was at the end of 2008, and look to our history for examples of actions that could have been used as models for us. And, there is one:

To wit: the reaction of the Hoover administration to the economic collapse of October 1929. Herbert Hoover, a remarkably competent and compassionate man and Republican, let the market work its magic to correct the economy following the stock market crash of October, 1929. The result:

Our first Great Depression.

Refinancing Mortgages

Many complain about using tax receipts to help fund programs to help people refinance their mortgages. They must believe that the federal government seeks to pay the mortgages of others (and reward “bad behavior”) while they must continue to pay their own mortgage.

Well, of course we can all agree that each person and family who purchased a home during the real estate bubble is personally responsible for the bad behavior of the mortgage lenders and the financial institutions that re-packaged securities so that they were backed by those mortgages.

The federal government is under no obligation—is it?—to help any citizen with his or her mortgage. I’m sure both of my readers agree that government should stand aside and let those people fend for themselves, instead.

According to some, taxpayers have no business getting involved and, government should not steal our money just to help support shelters for homeless individuals and families. That’s:

• Redistribution of income
  • Income redistribution is Socialism
    • Socialism is the worst sin government can visit upon its citizens
      • Right?

After all, that’s what Joe the Plumber said.

Corporate Recovery & Responsibility

Goldman Sachs, AIG, and others have clearly demonstrated that they don’t give a damn about the US public. Many banks and corporations wanted, even cried for, public support at the depth of the stock market crisis. But, they certainly don’t want the federal government to restrict the compensation boards and officers pay themselves.

Up to the fourth quarter of 2008, banks and financial institutions, such as AIG, thrived on the sale of mortgage-backed securities and derivatives. The larger the value of their mortgage holdings, the wealthier the bank. Or, so was the theory. Mortgages were tied to securities and used to back derivatives, and the Ponzi scheme grew and grew and grew. Until it didn’t, and then the system crashed. When the banks could not, or would not. lend money, companies as large as General Motors and as small as your local garden shop went belly-up. Of course, this happened after the federal government had significantly scaled back, or eliminated, much of the regulatory system that had been set during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration—a system established after the fact to prevent another Great Depression.

Current neo-conservative demagogues railed and ranted about onerous federal regulation and how it stifled innovation and competition in the marketplace. They found sympathetic ears through their lobbyists, and today we have…

A new Great Depression. Thanks, fellows!

Corporations & Shareholder Wealth

There’s the assertion that the duty of corporations is to increase the wealth of their shareholders. Did corporations—banks, financial institutions, energy corporations, and manufacturers—increased the wealth of their shareholders in 2009?

• Question: What is a stockholder to a corporate board?
• Answer: A barnyard animal; to wit—cash cow.

Corporations borrow money from those who purchase stock. If the value of the stock declines, the corporate board is only affected by the amount the corporation can continue to borrow from stockholders. So, with what are corporate boards and officers most concerned?

Those who govern large corporations care for nothing and no one unless they can “leverage” other people, places, or situations to increase their own wealth.

Let’s be clear about this: their greed is no different from yours or mine. All, or most, of us want to leverage things so that our individual wealth increases.

The differences between employees and contractors, on the one side, and those who run the corporations are that:

• Corporate officers are better able to control both your income and theirs
• Corporate officers don’t care about you and only care about your income if it affects theirs

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Economists, corporate officers, and government officials (elected and not) all know what will bring the economy out of its collapse and reinvigorate it.

And, they want us to start doing our part. As soon as possible, please. So, let’s see if we’re ready:

Rational Political Discourse

James Warren DeMint, a Republican, has represented the 4^th Congressional District of South Carolina in the US House of Representatives since 2005. In 2009, when the Republican Party was reeling from electoral losses in both houses of Congress and the White House, DeMint asserted that Barack Obama’s program to reform health care would be the President’s “Waterloo;” that Republicans could “break him” over that issue.

Republicans—with extremely few exceptions—have done their best to obstruct legislation in Congress merely because Democrats offered it and they are supported by the President. Rep. DeMint’s esteemed Republican colleague, The Honorable Joe Wilson, called the President a liar from his seat when Obama addressed both Houses of Congress in August.

The problem, of course, is that these people are hard at work to deny the President because he is not “their” President. Their arguments and dissents are not based on economic or programmatic facts but on the person and personality of the President. In itself, this is not new. Previously, others worked hard or ranted about [fill-in-the-blank] (George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson…George Washington) simply because he was not who they wanted as President.

This is inexcusable; it’s intellectually, personally, and politically dishonest and bankrupt. But, that’s just my opinion.

Tea Parties

People dressed in Colonial or Revolutionary costumes held “tea parties” and anti-Obama political rallies across the nation and in Washington, D.C. on April 15^th and on the 4^th of July. What got this started?

On February 19, 2009, in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CNBC market commentator Rick Santelli, criticized the government plan to refinance mortgages as “promoting bad behavior” by “subsidizing losers’ mortgages,” and raised the possibility of a “Chicago Tea Party.” This is where the name “Tea Party” for these protests originated.

Most of us are dismayed and overwhelmed by the scope of the programs, such as TARP and the Recovery Act, undertaken to prevent a horrid situation from becoming the Second Great Depression. But, this tea party metaphor is just absurd. Why?

The original “tea party” was conducted by colonial dissidents (patriots) who destroyed 342 chests—about 600,000 pounds—of tea imported by the East India Company into Boston.

The main issue for the colonial Whig party (or, also known as the Sons of Liberty) and its supporters involved the right of Parliament to levy taxes on colonists without colonial representation in the Commons. The Tea Act of 1773, submitted by the government of Lord North and passed by Parliament, established taxes for tea legally imported into Great Britain and the colonies that set different levels of taxes for each and over which colonial governments had no influence.

This is a far cry from the situation in 2009, when legislators, elected by their constituents, found it necessary to pass legislation to reinforce the rapidly collapsing and deflating economy.

Do I believe no one has the right to complain, protest, or dissent?

Absolutely not.

I think it’s idiocy to dress up in costume and protest serious legislation based on a pathetic misunderstanding, pawned off by others, of the historical metaphor.

Town Hall Meetings

Representatives, Senators, and the President held town hall meetings to explain the pending legislation and talk with constituents about the bills, particularly those concerning health insurance.

Groups of dissidents did their best to deny their fellow citizens the ability to present their own ideas and, especially, to hear many of the legislators. One example of this was the town hall meeting held by Representative Barney Frank in his district.

Do I believe constituents should ask questions of, or confront, their elected representatives?

Absolutely.

I think it’s stupid to go to and try to disrupt a meeting and prevent anyone from learning the facts by throwing out the drivel that’s been handed you.

This is neither rational nor discourse, not by any means.

US Health Care Reform

Many words have been shouted, and many rallies have been held, about the attempt by the Democrats and the Obama administration to “reform” health care in the United States.

The simple fact is that there is no effort to reform health care in our country. Period.
Not by Democrats; not by Republicans.

Instead, the emphasis is on changing the way people use insurance to pay for health care. As things stand now, the House of Representatives have passed a bill (HR 396213/01/2021, 14:36) and the Senate has passed its version of a health care reform bill (Senate Amendment 2786 to HR359013/01/2021, 14:37).

Newsflash!

It seems to me that the legislation reconciled by conferees from the House and Senate should be more aptly named “The Save American Medical Insurance Companies Act of 2010.” Why? Government will force us to purchase insurance without providing any means to lower cots through competition. Government will seek to prevent service refusals—such as for pre-existing conditions—through additional reporting requirements, administrative reviews, complaint forms, and so forth. The beneficiaries of this legislation may be the insurance companies, which will capture more money because the uninsured will be required to be insured.

The Global War on Terror

On September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked by murderers; terrorists who pay allegiance to no nation but to a concept of religious zealotry.

Just as we must never forget December 7, 1941, we must remember that we are expending our wealth and our people to achieve victory against those who attack us.

Somehow, we’ve realized that this war has to be financed, both in blood and in dollars. The creative financing schemes we’ve used over the past eight years are not working. We have used and reused again our National Guard and Reserve units because we cut our Armed Services in the past to save money. We have financed the war by borrowing more and more money, and lenders are very tight, today.

We must remember to keep an eye on ourselves, too. There are too many of us who repeat the chants of religious zealotry, albeit directed against the zealots who attacked our country. Zealotry and bigotry are zealotry and bigotry, regardless of the cause into which they are pressed. We do ourselves, our families, and our progeny no favor by becoming that against which we defend ourselves.

Iraq

I have never believed that we should have attacked Iraq. I did not like or support Saddam Hussein or the Baathist Party there. I completely support our actions during the Persian Gulf War of 1990–1991. I just cannot abide the justification used for our invasion in 2003.

But, we did invade Iraq and we made some horrid mistakes. For one, we disbanded the Iraqi Army and police forces. Afterwards, whom could we expect to maintain law and order? Our Department of Defense stated that was not a mission of the coalition armed forces.

So, Iraq very quickly fell into civil war while an insurgency against US and coalition troops and administrative staff developed. Ultimately, troops policed Iraq, although there were too few to do the job as it should have been done—as it was done in occupied Germany and Japan after the Second World War.

General David Petraeus deftly managed and led the surge in US ground forces in Iraq and encouraged the Sunni Awakening. Enlightened? Yes; the surge was designed and implemented to serve our enlightened self-interests.

At least, no one has said “Mission Accomplished!” recently.

Afghanistan

We should have stayed and completed the missions in Afghanistan that we undertook in 2002. General McCrystal seems to have a well-designed strategy and operations plan; time will tell. I can only say that it’s about time our government took charge of itself and our interests in Afghanistan, and that our interests seem to correspond with those of the Afghan peoples, too.

What will happen, ultimately, in Afghanistan and, even more importantly, in the nuclear powder keg that is Pakistan? Who knows? All we can do now is work and pray for the best.

Domestic Security

Were you surprised that, in 2009, an aspiring Al Qaeda “soldier” was aboard a US airline over US airspace and tried to blow that aircraft up?

Well, I am not happy about it, either. But I was not greatly surprised by it, either. Responding to the attacks of Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, our government overhauled our domestic intelligence system by adding more bureaucracies to it, the:

• Department of Homeland Security
  • Transportation Security Administration
• Director of National Intelligence

These were created and staffed along with the National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Service Cryptologic Agencies (SCAs) of the Department of Defense, and intelligence organs of the Federal Bureau of Information and Department of State.

What’s the “intelligence process?” First, an item has to be found, its significance identified, and analyzed by staff of an agency before it can be classified by its intelligence value. If the initial analysts recognize its value, they prepare a report explaining the intelligence fact and transmit that report to all who are on a given message distribution list. Second-tier analysts review the report to determine any additional intelligence value of the item, if any. Then, they prepare a followup report, or they direct a technical query to the initial analysts, and transmit it.

Transmission speeds can be very, very fast today with extremely high-speed fiber optic communication lines and such. Still, there are layers and layers of intelligence staffs through which any given intelligence item must pass, and the value of that item must be recognized by staff in each of those agencies.

Clausewitz wrote of the “fog of war;” that is nothing compared with the bureaucratic fog that continues to haunt and daunt intelligence collection, analysis, and reporting in our country.

It will get to the point when each potential passenger on an airliner will be required to undergo a strip search before boarding. Passengers will have to arrive up to six hours before their flights to have enough time to go through all the security check points, and there won’t be enough time, still.