Ruminations, January 11, 2009

Beer money

Beer money is a term that had its genesis in 1800 when the British Army stopped issuing a pint of beer per day to each soldier and instead gave each troop an allowance of a penny a day. That penny came to be known as beer money. The term has come to mean extra change, especially in cultures where tipping is prohibited by law or custom. For example, in Germany a tip for taxi driver is verboten. However, if your taxi fare comes to 29.10 Euros, you give the driver 30 and the extra is considered “beer money.”

Federal spending is by no means beer money. During the past year, our concept of federal spending and deficits has taken a paradigm shift. Last year, we were concerned about a deficit of $339 billion, which we thought was a lot of money. This week the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the deficit for this year would be $1.2 trillion – interest alone on the debt will come to $448 billion. President-elect Obama said that that size deficit could be repeated for many more years.

Then, on Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appeared before Congress and said that he needed an extra $5 billion for Afghanistan. Five Billion? Pshaw!! Five billion is beer money.

Interrogating Obama on the CIA

President-elect Barack Obama has named Leon Panetta as the new Director of the CIA. Panetta, a former congressman, and chief-of-staff and Budget Director for President Bill Clinton, has no intelligence experience. How in the world did Obama end up with Panetta? Obama could have made other choices. For example:

• Many in the CIA had hoped that General Michael Hayden would stay on. According to ABC News, an official at the CIA said, "Morale is higher than it has been in years, there is a clear focus on the mission and there have been some notable successes. Playing offense against terrorists and countering weapons proliferation are among those successes. Those efforts have saved lives and helped keep the country safe." Wait a minute: Hayden was appointed by President Bush and has defended the CIA’s interrogation policies – he’s out.

• John Brennan would have been a good pick. Over his career, he held nine positions with the CIA and has worked with related intelligence organizations. He also served as Barack Obama’s campaign advisor on foreign policy and intelligence. Wait a minute: Brennan withdrew his name early on because he might be associated with the CIA’s interrogation policies. He’s out.

• What about CIA Deputy Director Steve Kappes? Kappes has served in the CIA since 1981 (with one year off) and, before that, five years in the Marines. Wait a minute: He worked with President Bush in the Libyan negotiations whereby Libya agreed to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs. He’s out.

• Representative Jane Harman (D, CA) served on the House Intelligence Committee and seemed a likely candidate. Wait a minute: Didn’t she support some Bush programs – like surveillance of foreign communications? She’s out.

• Then there is Bill Richardson, former ambassador to the UN who negotiated with Saddam Hussein, among other foreign missions at the behest of then President Bill Clinton. Richardson has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times. Wait a minute: Richardson is involved in a corruption scandal. He’s out.

• How about Sandy Berger? Berger has served as National Security Advisor to President Clinton and previously served as director of planning of policy planning for President Carter. Wait a minute: Didn’t Berger steal original classified documents from the National Archives and destroy them? He’s out.

Well, let’s see. That leaves, that leaves … Hey! How about Leon Panetta?

Go shopping

After the attacks of September 11, President George Bush was less than Churchillian when he told America to go shopping. A lot of people were – and remain – very critical of him for those remarks.

Actually, it was really a good piece of advice. Consider that the economy had gone into a downturn during the final year of the Clinton Administration. Turning it around was not an easy chore (growth was an anemic 1.2 percent increase in GDP during the second quarter of 2001).

And then the attacks of September 11 put an enormous drag on the economy – most economists predicted a shrinking economy for the fourth quarter. Physical destruction was in excess of $54 billion and insurance losses were as much as $60 billion. The New York City economy alone lost $17 billion and 110 thousand jobs worth $6.7 billion. The financial markets were dislocated for months and airlines began losing big time. As we well know today, the U.S. economy has a significant effect on the rest of the world and if the U.S. economy tanked in after September 11, the world was in trouble.

In a time of crisis, English Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” It was inspiring but, other than inspire, it did little.

Bush, in time of crisis, was less interested in inspiring than he was in righting the economy. Given the worsening economy and the enormous impact of the September 11 attack, Bush was practical; he focused on the fact that consumer spending accounted for 70 percent of the economy. In order to right the economy, consumers had to spend. Therefore, he said “go shopping” and Americans did. And we surprised the world with our recovery.

The anti-Bush crowd criticized Bush for his statement, but today, with the worsening economy, “go shopping” may have equal or greater applicability. People are, as they were in the fourth quarter of 2001, turning inward. Through the use of credit, Americans had been spending more than they earned and, according to the Wall Street Journal, economists are now predicting that savings may go from negative to a plus 3 percent to 5 percent in 2009. American consumers may stop shopping. That would further depress effect on the economy. How do we turn it around?

Maybe President Obama will use the bully pulpit of the presidency and tell America to “go shopping.” If he does, I hope he credits the quote.

Surly with the Fringe on top

With the movement of the presidency and congress from right-of-center to left-of-center comes a movement along the entire political spectrum. For instance, those who have been called the “angry left,” the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party as it were, are now moved, with no change in attitude, more toward the center and have become, instead of the lunatic fringe, the slightly deranged fringe of the Democratic Party.

Scott Horton, adjunct professor of law at Columbia and an editor of Harper’s magazine, is an example of a group that is becoming more mainstream. He recently appeared on NPR’s radio show “On Point” to discuss his article “Justice after Bush: Prosecuting an outlaw administration,”

(http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/0082303) – An indictment of President Bush’s alleged crimes. To Horton it seems (judging by the frequency with which he cites it) that President Bush’s most flagrant violation of the torture prohibition is that he says, “We do not torture.” I guess that’s proof enough. Horton contends that Bush and those in his administration should be tried for a long, long list of war crimes and violations of the U.S. Constitution including

·         Voter suppression by insisting that only legal voters vote

·         Surveillance of communications originating or terminating in a foreign country

·         Firing attorneys who serve at the president’s pleasure

·         Waging an “illegal war” that was approved by congress

·         Waging a “disastrous war” that is virtually won

·         Lying about Iraq pre-war intelligence by telling everyone what was known at the time

·         Issuing contracts to substandard vendors who were qualified vendors

·         Torturing prisoners through the use of non-torture

The seriousness with which Horton and his compatriots are taken will be a measure of how far to the left the Obama Administration positions itself.

Every cloud has a silver lining department

Bernie Madoff is a criminal who stole over $50 billion from investors and he should be severely punished. I have deep sympathy for those who lost fortunes investing with Madoff. Well, most of them anyway.

It seems that while Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was in full flower, he was also a philanthropist of sorts. He was donating large sums of money to nonprofits. Now, with those nonprofits bereft of Madoff’s largesse, MoveOn has been requesting its five million members to make up the difference through donations to:

• The Brennan Center for Justice. This organization has been fighting to reign in presidential power in the fight against terrorism.
• Human Rights Watch. This group campaigns to, among other things, oppose American exports to Colombia and shut down prison detention facilities at Guantanamo with no replacement facilities.
• The Advancement Project. These folks support immigrants' rights, fight Ohio’s election reform, support felon voter re-enfranchisement and affordable housing, and oppose mixed use development.
• The Center for Constitutional Rights. This group is “committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.” They have posited that “high-level officials of the Bush administration ordered, authorized, implemented, and permitted war crimes.” Oh, yeah — they also oppose Rick Warren delivering the invocation at Obama’s inauguration.

Feel free to offset the loss of Madoff’s donations — if you are so inclined.

Quote without comment

Ann Coulter, conservative author of Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America: "I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."

Robert J. Kulak