Thinking about our continuing controversial political and military involvement in Iraq, though it should be winding down a great deal over the next year or two, and our growing, troubling involvement in and commitments in Afghanistan, I'm one of those who is even more concerned with what's going on in neighboring Pakistan with its 173 million almost entirely Muslim population and the consequent potential impact on our military forces and our limited available financial resources.
What's going on and why am I very concerned? Religious conservatives in the Swat Valley in the northwest of Pakistan close to the border with Afghanistan have been rebelling against the secular laws of the federal government since 1969 when the formerly independent region became part of Pakistan. A consequence of this is that these conservatives have increasingly become sympathetic to the radical Islam Taliban movement whose primary battleground for many years has been Afghanistan. In December 2008 Taliban insurgents captured the Swat Valley, surprisingly without a lot of resistance from the large Pakistan army. Among other anti-social policies in the area, they immediately banned education of girls, use of televisions and the playing of music.
In February this year, in an effort to secure peace in the region, the captive regional government of the area, supported by the weak and fragile government of Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani agreed with a leading Taliban cleric that harsh Islamic or Sharia law should replace the current secular laws.
Since that time the Taliban has moved forces into the adjacent Buner District only 60 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The U. S. has been suspicious for years that elements in the Pakistani military and especially in Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, though officially denied, have been secretly working against the policies and interests of the Pakistani government in support of some of the insurgent groups.
There is increasingly widespread concern, as evidenced recently by blunt statements by Secretary of State Clinton and some high-ranking British sources, that the Taliban pose a major near-term threat to the rest of the country and its federal government. President Obama's special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke said in an interview yesterday that "Pakistan is an emergency situation." We should all be greatly oncerned because Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the Taliban have recognized links to al Qaeda. Our worst fear would be that al Qaeda gets even close to control or access to any nuclear weapons.
The U. S. therefore needs to continue and further increase its political pressure on the Pakistan government and its military leaders, including the head of the army, Ashfaq Kayani, to get much more serious in dealing effectively with this Taliban threat. It's positive that Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has recently talked to General Kayani, and that Mr. Holbrooke has been regularly talking to Mr. Zardari, who is scheduled to come to Washington, D. C. on May 6th to talk to President Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai about how to combat the threat that is a continuing danger to both nations and also a potential danger to U. S. interests. Hopefully Mr. Obama will make it extremely clear what we expect and how their subsequent actions will impact continuing U. S. aid and financial support.
That this threat has been allowed to develop as it has is ridiculous! Pakistan has 650,000 active, reasonably well-trained duty personnel in the military, a paramilitary force of 300,000, and reserves of 520,000, giving a combined military force of nearly 1.4 million! The Taliban apparently has a comparatively small force of some 5,000 fighters. What's the problem? As I understand it, the problem seems incredibly to be primarily two-fold: questionable national political consensus and will and, secondly, the fact that the military has 80% of their troops firmly positioned near the Indian border, in anticipation of another possible war with that country, especially in view of the massacre in Bombay in November 2008 committed by Pakistanis, possibly assisted by some ISI insiders. Of course, another major factor in the Pakistani deployment is the longstanding national tensions associated with territorial disputes in the Kashmir region.
It should not be necessary for the U. S. to get directly involved militarily in dealing with this threat, at least with combat troops on the ground. If the Pakistani government and military allow the Taliban to capture the country's nuclear facilities, or significantly increases its control of other regions in Pakistan, the U. S. should seriously consider disabling or destroying the nuclear facilities in collaboration with the other members of the U. N. Security Council and our major allies.
This is obviously a highly sensitive and challenging situation for many reasons. The Security Council would most likely be divided on any appropriate military action. Despite the serious threat, China and Russia would probably veto any U. N. supported military action proposed by the U. S. and perhaps try to conduct bilateral negotiations with Taliban leaders, even though Russia had a bitter war with the Taliban in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. China supplied much of the technology used by Pakistan for their nuclear facilities and probably is concerned with maintaining a balance between the military power of Pakistan and India for greater stability in the region.
Considering everything already on their plates, President Obama and Mrs. Clinton will deserve a lot of credit if they can get this matter resolved satisfactorily. Most preferably, this would be convincing the Pakistani leaders not to be unduly concerned with any threat from India, redeploying their forces as needed, and to quickly retake control of their country without requiring any significant U. S. military or financial assistance. Since the Taliban have been active moving fighters and training camps back and forth across the loosely guarded northern Afghan Pakistani border with ease for years as opportunities for their terror and mischief campaigns arose, success in killing or capturing militants in Pakistan will help the U. S., our allies there and Karzai's government in Afghanistan as well.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?
President Obama will apparently reveal publicly in May his plan for a comprehensive reform of our legislation on immigration to include de facto amnesty and a "pathway to citizenship" for the 15-20 million illegals living in this country. He brought the issue up again at a speech in Costa Mesa, California, on March 18th. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to be strongly in favor of the expected plan. My guess is, therefore, that it will be difficult for opponents to stop the legislation, although it will probably be feasible to influence some of the specific provisions.
Some of my readers may remember that I posted a blog on the subject of Illegal Immigration way back on 9/22/07 and a related one titled U. S. Mexico Border Fence on 4/02/08 in which I gave many of my views on this general topic. While I think President Obama is doing a good job overall so far and I support him on most issues, I will most probably not agree with him on what one can expect to see in his plan, and I intend to pass on my views to his Administration.
I suspect the most sensitive and controversial part of his prospective plan will be the "path to citizenship" to be offered to most illegals, presumably those not convicted of any crime other than breaking the law by entering the country illegally or over overstaying their visas. Keep in mind that the majority of these 15-20 million illegals have broken one or more other laws such as driving a car or truck without a valid license, driving without insurance, lying on one or more employment applications, using fake Social Security numbers, and not filing income tax returns and paying amounts due. Depending on one's definition, virtually any "path to citizenship" is a de facto amnesty, even if the path requires payment of a fine, proper registration with federal, state, and local authorities, payment of income taxes owed, and if the applicants for citizenship have to go to the end of the line.
The history of amnesty legislation in recent times goes back to 1986 when President Reagan signed the Immigration and Reform Control Act which made hiring undocumented workers illegal and provided a blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens. There have been six other pieces of legislation since 1986 that have provided amnesty for various groups of illegal aliens. The amnesties were well intended, as President Obama's no doubt will be, but they haven't worked in terms of stopping or even slowing down more illegal immigration, which in most cases was one of the objectives.
One of President Obama's main points in justifying the de facto amnesty plan is that "we can't deport them all." Unfortunately that's probably true. However, we know from our long experience that a big part of the problem has been a lack of proper enforcement of existing laws and regulations and inadequate border patrolling. We also know that the Mexican government has not done very much to help, such as government reforms and initiatives to provide better education and job opportunities for the illegals in Mexico, making it much less necessary and attractive for the illegals to risk their lives trying to cross the border into California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
As I mentioned in my earlier blogs, there are substantial costs and risks associated with the illegals, although there is no question that the great majority of them work very hard, especially in lower wage jobs in construction, picking crops in farming, garden maintenance, and the food service and hospitality industries. The majority of illegals do not own property and therefore do not pay property taxes. In addition, the majority do not pay income taxes, either because they don't earn enough or because they don't file returns in order to help evade detection and their tax liability. Yet their children go to public schools, their families use emergency medical services at our decreasing number of hospitals, and, like the rest of us, use most other municipal and state services, including, unfortunately, for many thousands a lot of time in our court system and space in our costly prisons.
So what should be done, then? Obama's plan to be revealed in May should include a requirement for immediate compliance for businesses in not hiring any illegals, with stiffer penalties for violations, and much more effective border controls. Those actions should not require new legislation, unless it proves necessary for new funding. Obama needs to follow up with Mexican President Calderon to seriously discuss joint efforts to stop illegal immigration as much as possible. I'm confident he will pursue that, though I frankly don't expect to be favorably impressed with the outcome.
In the plan to be presented to Congress there should be a provision to deport those who have come across the border in the recent past, say 12 months, those who have no job, reasonable prospects for a job, or other legal means to reasonably support themselves, and those who have committed any felonies. A "path to citizenship" should be reserved for those who have lived in the U. S. for at least five years, have learned to speak and write English at some elementary or better level, and have a track record of employment and acceptable "citizenship" in terms of obeying our laws and paying taxes. It should not be automatically made available to every illegal, just by paying a modest fine and agreeing to learn English. The third group, those who should not be deported and don't yet qualify for citizenship, should be considered for a guest worker program or an extended visa, depending upon individual qualifications and family issues.
I would support a plan along the above lines that sharply reduces illegal immigration from all countries, deports new illegals and the group mentioned above, is fair to the millions of illegals who have lived here for more than five years and are in good standing with their communities, and reasonably protects the unemployed millions of Americans who are seeking new jobs at this very moment. However, the plan must also be fair and reasonable to the legal American taxpayers and take account of our current very serious national, state and local economic circumstances. This point should not be sacrificed to serve the interests of those politicians who seek Hispanic votes at upcoming elections or those who insist we must demonstrate compassion by offering citizenship to everyone. As also mentioned in the earlier blogs, I still think that the 14th Amendment giving automatic citizenship to children of illegals born here should be repealed or reinterpreted by the courts to take away this benefit.
It's a difficult issue in several respects, but that doesn't justify no action or anything close to a blanket de facto amnesty. The new plan must differentiate between different categories of illegals in a pragmatic, reasonable and fair manner. Furthermore, we must not find ourselves in a similar position five or ten or more years down the road, facing what to do with many more millions of illegals.
Some of my readers may remember that I posted a blog on the subject of Illegal Immigration way back on 9/22/07 and a related one titled U. S. Mexico Border Fence on 4/02/08 in which I gave many of my views on this general topic. While I think President Obama is doing a good job overall so far and I support him on most issues, I will most probably not agree with him on what one can expect to see in his plan, and I intend to pass on my views to his Administration.
I suspect the most sensitive and controversial part of his prospective plan will be the "path to citizenship" to be offered to most illegals, presumably those not convicted of any crime other than breaking the law by entering the country illegally or over overstaying their visas. Keep in mind that the majority of these 15-20 million illegals have broken one or more other laws such as driving a car or truck without a valid license, driving without insurance, lying on one or more employment applications, using fake Social Security numbers, and not filing income tax returns and paying amounts due. Depending on one's definition, virtually any "path to citizenship" is a de facto amnesty, even if the path requires payment of a fine, proper registration with federal, state, and local authorities, payment of income taxes owed, and if the applicants for citizenship have to go to the end of the line.
The history of amnesty legislation in recent times goes back to 1986 when President Reagan signed the Immigration and Reform Control Act which made hiring undocumented workers illegal and provided a blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens. There have been six other pieces of legislation since 1986 that have provided amnesty for various groups of illegal aliens. The amnesties were well intended, as President Obama's no doubt will be, but they haven't worked in terms of stopping or even slowing down more illegal immigration, which in most cases was one of the objectives.
One of President Obama's main points in justifying the de facto amnesty plan is that "we can't deport them all." Unfortunately that's probably true. However, we know from our long experience that a big part of the problem has been a lack of proper enforcement of existing laws and regulations and inadequate border patrolling. We also know that the Mexican government has not done very much to help, such as government reforms and initiatives to provide better education and job opportunities for the illegals in Mexico, making it much less necessary and attractive for the illegals to risk their lives trying to cross the border into California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
As I mentioned in my earlier blogs, there are substantial costs and risks associated with the illegals, although there is no question that the great majority of them work very hard, especially in lower wage jobs in construction, picking crops in farming, garden maintenance, and the food service and hospitality industries. The majority of illegals do not own property and therefore do not pay property taxes. In addition, the majority do not pay income taxes, either because they don't earn enough or because they don't file returns in order to help evade detection and their tax liability. Yet their children go to public schools, their families use emergency medical services at our decreasing number of hospitals, and, like the rest of us, use most other municipal and state services, including, unfortunately, for many thousands a lot of time in our court system and space in our costly prisons.
So what should be done, then? Obama's plan to be revealed in May should include a requirement for immediate compliance for businesses in not hiring any illegals, with stiffer penalties for violations, and much more effective border controls. Those actions should not require new legislation, unless it proves necessary for new funding. Obama needs to follow up with Mexican President Calderon to seriously discuss joint efforts to stop illegal immigration as much as possible. I'm confident he will pursue that, though I frankly don't expect to be favorably impressed with the outcome.
In the plan to be presented to Congress there should be a provision to deport those who have come across the border in the recent past, say 12 months, those who have no job, reasonable prospects for a job, or other legal means to reasonably support themselves, and those who have committed any felonies. A "path to citizenship" should be reserved for those who have lived in the U. S. for at least five years, have learned to speak and write English at some elementary or better level, and have a track record of employment and acceptable "citizenship" in terms of obeying our laws and paying taxes. It should not be automatically made available to every illegal, just by paying a modest fine and agreeing to learn English. The third group, those who should not be deported and don't yet qualify for citizenship, should be considered for a guest worker program or an extended visa, depending upon individual qualifications and family issues.
I would support a plan along the above lines that sharply reduces illegal immigration from all countries, deports new illegals and the group mentioned above, is fair to the millions of illegals who have lived here for more than five years and are in good standing with their communities, and reasonably protects the unemployed millions of Americans who are seeking new jobs at this very moment. However, the plan must also be fair and reasonable to the legal American taxpayers and take account of our current very serious national, state and local economic circumstances. This point should not be sacrificed to serve the interests of those politicians who seek Hispanic votes at upcoming elections or those who insist we must demonstrate compassion by offering citizenship to everyone. As also mentioned in the earlier blogs, I still think that the 14th Amendment giving automatic citizenship to children of illegals born here should be repealed or reinterpreted by the courts to take away this benefit.
It's a difficult issue in several respects, but that doesn't justify no action or anything close to a blanket de facto amnesty. The new plan must differentiate between different categories of illegals in a pragmatic, reasonable and fair manner. Furthermore, we must not find ourselves in a similar position five or ten or more years down the road, facing what to do with many more millions of illegals.
John Demjanjuk Case
Who the heck is John Demjanjuk and why do you bother spending time posting a blog on him? These are fair questions many of my readers are no doubt asking. Mr. Demjanjuk, 89, is a naturalized U. S. citizen who has gained notoriety after being accused of car crimes related to alleged Holocaust involvement in World War II. I'm writing about this case because I see it as an example of the federal government wasting a lot of taxpayer moneys at a time when we're in an economic crisis, have a large budget deficit, and certainly have many other higher priority needs for funding that are not being met.
His is a complicated, long drawn-out legal case, but, born in the Ukraine, he is believed to have been a Nazi SS guard at the notorious Treblinka extermination camp in occupied Poland in 1942 and 1943, as well as at one or two other similar camps, and allegedly was actively involved in torturing and exterminating many thousands of prisoners, primarily Jews. He, his wife and a child came to the U. S. in 1952 and became citizens in 1958, apparently aided by the concealment of most of his activities during the war.
At the request of Israel he was deported to that country in 1986 to stand trial. In 1988 the Israeli court found him guilty on all charges and sentenced him to death by hanging. However, in 1993 five Israeli Supreme Court judges overturned the guilty verdict on appeal, based on doubt about the validity of some of the evidence brought out in his trial. Demjanjuk was then released and returned to the U. S.
In 1999 the U. S. Justice Department filed a new civil complaint against him, having to do with his guard jobs at two other Polish camps and one in Germany. He was put on trial in 2001 and 2002 and the court agreed that the Justice Department had proved its case, resulting in their ruling that Demjanjuk could be stripped of his U. S. citizenship. In 2005 an immigration judge ordered him to be deported to Ukraine. Demjanjuk appealed all the way to the Supreme Court but was unsuccessful. Then out of the blue Germany announced it would seek his extradition for trial there for his role in the Holocaust. But the latest is that deportation was halted and he has for now returned to his home in Ohio.
There is little doubt that Demjanjuk was a guard in several Nazi death camps during the War and participated in some horrible activities. I understand those who maintain that he should be held accountable, regardless of age. But how much money is the government going to spend on prosecuting and deporting this guy?? How many federal employees are going to be involved when they could be doing more important things for the benefit of the country? We should also keep in mind that he was acquitted in Israel of similar charges to those brought up in the U. S. and Germany. Furthermore, not only is he 89, he is extremely frail and highly likely would not survive what is believed to be a prospective two year trial in Germany.
Far too much federal money has already been spent on this case. I think the Obama administration should advise Germany that the U. S. Government has decided for pragmatic and humanitarian reasons to cease any further action against Demjanjuk, discourage any extradition, and let him live his remaining limited days with his family in Ohio. I would think Germany also has better things to do with their taxpayer Euros. This is also another case which demonstrates why we need reform in our justice system to speed up prosecutions and our appeals process to conserve taxpayer dollars.
His is a complicated, long drawn-out legal case, but, born in the Ukraine, he is believed to have been a Nazi SS guard at the notorious Treblinka extermination camp in occupied Poland in 1942 and 1943, as well as at one or two other similar camps, and allegedly was actively involved in torturing and exterminating many thousands of prisoners, primarily Jews. He, his wife and a child came to the U. S. in 1952 and became citizens in 1958, apparently aided by the concealment of most of his activities during the war.
At the request of Israel he was deported to that country in 1986 to stand trial. In 1988 the Israeli court found him guilty on all charges and sentenced him to death by hanging. However, in 1993 five Israeli Supreme Court judges overturned the guilty verdict on appeal, based on doubt about the validity of some of the evidence brought out in his trial. Demjanjuk was then released and returned to the U. S.
In 1999 the U. S. Justice Department filed a new civil complaint against him, having to do with his guard jobs at two other Polish camps and one in Germany. He was put on trial in 2001 and 2002 and the court agreed that the Justice Department had proved its case, resulting in their ruling that Demjanjuk could be stripped of his U. S. citizenship. In 2005 an immigration judge ordered him to be deported to Ukraine. Demjanjuk appealed all the way to the Supreme Court but was unsuccessful. Then out of the blue Germany announced it would seek his extradition for trial there for his role in the Holocaust. But the latest is that deportation was halted and he has for now returned to his home in Ohio.
There is little doubt that Demjanjuk was a guard in several Nazi death camps during the War and participated in some horrible activities. I understand those who maintain that he should be held accountable, regardless of age. But how much money is the government going to spend on prosecuting and deporting this guy?? How many federal employees are going to be involved when they could be doing more important things for the benefit of the country? We should also keep in mind that he was acquitted in Israel of similar charges to those brought up in the U. S. and Germany. Furthermore, not only is he 89, he is extremely frail and highly likely would not survive what is believed to be a prospective two year trial in Germany.
Far too much federal money has already been spent on this case. I think the Obama administration should advise Germany that the U. S. Government has decided for pragmatic and humanitarian reasons to cease any further action against Demjanjuk, discourage any extradition, and let him live his remaining limited days with his family in Ohio. I would think Germany also has better things to do with their taxpayer Euros. This is also another case which demonstrates why we need reform in our justice system to speed up prosecutions and our appeals process to conserve taxpayer dollars.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Somali Piracy
After a one month European trip, it's time to get back to work, and I thought Somali Piracy, while seemingly an odd choice, is an appropriate subject, given a number of significant factors. Before I provide some brief background and provide my personal views, I want to make it clear right off that I feel strongly that the international community victims have handled this criminal piracy activity incredibly poorly.
For those that are not very familiar with Somalia or this subject, this is an Islamic country of 9.5 million largely poor people located on the horn of Africa, with the Gulf of Aden on the north, the vast Indian Ocean on the east, and the countries of Ethiopia and Kenya on the west and south. Its size of 246,000 square miles makes it just a little smaller than California. For the most part the people are Sunni Muslims and the languages spoken are Somali and Arabic. The capital is Mogadishu and the current country was formed in 1960 when British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland became independent and merged. There's a very weak, dysfunctional coalition central government with alleged links to al-Qaeda.
Piracy has been a threat to international shipping since the civil war which took place in the early 1990's. There's not a lot of reliable available information on the pirates, but they seem to be based in a number of smaller seaports and villages on the Indian Ocean coast, especially in and around the port of Eyl in the northeast and to a smaller extent on the northern coast by the Gulf of Aden across from Yemen. Ransoms collected from several ship seizures last year apparently totaled between $30 million and $50 million, which we understand have been used to cover their living expenses and to purchase weapons and related pirate equipment.
Most noteworthy among recent seizures were a Ukrainian ship carrying 33 battle tanks and a Saudi Arabian tanker vessel carrying $100 million worth of crude oil. The current total of seized vessels is more than twenty with 300 hostages. U. S. interest got greatly escalated when on April 8th, only a few days ago, a small number of pirates temporarily seized the U. S. registered 17,000 ton "Maersk Alabama" container ship bound for the Kenyan port of Mombasa with a cargo of food aid for several African countries, but at the time an estimated 400 miles off the coast northeast of Mogadishu. The ship is operated by a U. S. subsidiary of the huge Danish shipping concern, A. P. Moeller Maersk Group headquartered in Copenhagen.
As most people who follow international news know, the 20 member crew of the "Maersk Alabama" managed to expel the 4-5 pirates, but they managed to escape in their covered lifeboat with the ship's American captain, Richard Phillips, as a valuable hostage. Subsequently the lifeboat apparently ran out of gas and was bobbing relatively idle alone several hundred miles off the coast. Shortly afterwards the U. S. Navy's destroyer "Bainbridge" and frigate "Halyburton" arrived on the scene to monitor the situation and be prepared to take whatever action is decided upon by their superiors and the Pentagon. Clearly their top priority is keeping Phillips safe and rescuing him, secondarily trying to apprehend the pirates. So far no military action has been taken, but some radio contact has apparently been made with the pirates.
What has been done by the international community over the past year to deal with this highly unacceptable situation? In October 2008 the U. N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1838, calling on nations with vessels in the area to apply military force to repress acts of piracy in the area. India has called for a U. N. peacekeeping force under a unified command to tackle the piracy. But nothing much further been done, though yesterday the French navy initiated a military operation against pirates who had seized a French luxury yacht with 30 or so people onboard that appears to have been successful, though one or two hostages apparently died.
This is obviously a significant U. S. political issue at the moment, since an American vessel has been attacked by pirates for the first time in about 200 years, an American is held as a hostage, a sizable ransom appears to have been demanded, the Somali government is linked to al-Qaeda, and the U. S. is the key member of the U. N. Security Council which has voted to deal with this situation. Furthermore, those involved include the U. S. Department of Defense, the FBI, CIA, State Department, and probably also the National Security Council and President Obama himself.
Limited U. S. action to date to deal with the pirates no doubt is due to the facts that no U. S. vessel was seized before April 8th, our federal government has been understandably preoccupied with higher priority issues including, but not limited to, rescuing our economy and fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because the U. N. Security Council typically is not geared to come to agreement and follow up resolutions with effective action. As far as the shipping companies are concerned, their primary motives appear to be the safety of their crew and keeping their ships sailing as much as possible, quickly agreeing to ransoms which are covered by freight revenues and insurance against piracy. These are not adequate excuses, at least now.
It would be nice if there were a strong, unified central government in Somalia that could take effective action against the pirates under serious international pressure. However, that will most likely not happen in at least several years. I think the shipping companies should quickly reconsider their current widespread policy of having their crews unarmed with no hired security guards onboard. The risk to the safety of crews should be fairly limited with training and arming their crew with modern weapons and/or hiring a half dozen or so trained and experienced guards. The economic incentives of keeping their ships sailing and not paying ransoms should be adequate to do so.
Another practical option would be organizing to have the ships sail in periodic convoys, like in World War II, protected by a multinational naval force manned especially by the U. S., the British and the French, but also other NATO navies on a rotational basis to limit costs to any one country. This should be fairly easy to do, and be very effective, keeping in mind the pirates have
no submarines, like the Germans and Japanese during the war, and limited resources and weaponry. Isn't this really a no-brainer?
For those that are not very familiar with Somalia or this subject, this is an Islamic country of 9.5 million largely poor people located on the horn of Africa, with the Gulf of Aden on the north, the vast Indian Ocean on the east, and the countries of Ethiopia and Kenya on the west and south. Its size of 246,000 square miles makes it just a little smaller than California. For the most part the people are Sunni Muslims and the languages spoken are Somali and Arabic. The capital is Mogadishu and the current country was formed in 1960 when British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland became independent and merged. There's a very weak, dysfunctional coalition central government with alleged links to al-Qaeda.
Piracy has been a threat to international shipping since the civil war which took place in the early 1990's. There's not a lot of reliable available information on the pirates, but they seem to be based in a number of smaller seaports and villages on the Indian Ocean coast, especially in and around the port of Eyl in the northeast and to a smaller extent on the northern coast by the Gulf of Aden across from Yemen. Ransoms collected from several ship seizures last year apparently totaled between $30 million and $50 million, which we understand have been used to cover their living expenses and to purchase weapons and related pirate equipment.
Most noteworthy among recent seizures were a Ukrainian ship carrying 33 battle tanks and a Saudi Arabian tanker vessel carrying $100 million worth of crude oil. The current total of seized vessels is more than twenty with 300 hostages. U. S. interest got greatly escalated when on April 8th, only a few days ago, a small number of pirates temporarily seized the U. S. registered 17,000 ton "Maersk Alabama" container ship bound for the Kenyan port of Mombasa with a cargo of food aid for several African countries, but at the time an estimated 400 miles off the coast northeast of Mogadishu. The ship is operated by a U. S. subsidiary of the huge Danish shipping concern, A. P. Moeller Maersk Group headquartered in Copenhagen.
As most people who follow international news know, the 20 member crew of the "Maersk Alabama" managed to expel the 4-5 pirates, but they managed to escape in their covered lifeboat with the ship's American captain, Richard Phillips, as a valuable hostage. Subsequently the lifeboat apparently ran out of gas and was bobbing relatively idle alone several hundred miles off the coast. Shortly afterwards the U. S. Navy's destroyer "Bainbridge" and frigate "Halyburton" arrived on the scene to monitor the situation and be prepared to take whatever action is decided upon by their superiors and the Pentagon. Clearly their top priority is keeping Phillips safe and rescuing him, secondarily trying to apprehend the pirates. So far no military action has been taken, but some radio contact has apparently been made with the pirates.
What has been done by the international community over the past year to deal with this highly unacceptable situation? In October 2008 the U. N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1838, calling on nations with vessels in the area to apply military force to repress acts of piracy in the area. India has called for a U. N. peacekeeping force under a unified command to tackle the piracy. But nothing much further been done, though yesterday the French navy initiated a military operation against pirates who had seized a French luxury yacht with 30 or so people onboard that appears to have been successful, though one or two hostages apparently died.
This is obviously a significant U. S. political issue at the moment, since an American vessel has been attacked by pirates for the first time in about 200 years, an American is held as a hostage, a sizable ransom appears to have been demanded, the Somali government is linked to al-Qaeda, and the U. S. is the key member of the U. N. Security Council which has voted to deal with this situation. Furthermore, those involved include the U. S. Department of Defense, the FBI, CIA, State Department, and probably also the National Security Council and President Obama himself.
Limited U. S. action to date to deal with the pirates no doubt is due to the facts that no U. S. vessel was seized before April 8th, our federal government has been understandably preoccupied with higher priority issues including, but not limited to, rescuing our economy and fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because the U. N. Security Council typically is not geared to come to agreement and follow up resolutions with effective action. As far as the shipping companies are concerned, their primary motives appear to be the safety of their crew and keeping their ships sailing as much as possible, quickly agreeing to ransoms which are covered by freight revenues and insurance against piracy. These are not adequate excuses, at least now.
It would be nice if there were a strong, unified central government in Somalia that could take effective action against the pirates under serious international pressure. However, that will most likely not happen in at least several years. I think the shipping companies should quickly reconsider their current widespread policy of having their crews unarmed with no hired security guards onboard. The risk to the safety of crews should be fairly limited with training and arming their crew with modern weapons and/or hiring a half dozen or so trained and experienced guards. The economic incentives of keeping their ships sailing and not paying ransoms should be adequate to do so.
Another practical option would be organizing to have the ships sail in periodic convoys, like in World War II, protected by a multinational naval force manned especially by the U. S., the British and the French, but also other NATO navies on a rotational basis to limit costs to any one country. This should be fairly easy to do, and be very effective, keeping in mind the pirates have
no submarines, like the Germans and Japanese during the war, and limited resources and weaponry. Isn't this really a no-brainer?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Evaluation of President Obama
I find it interesting and revealing that critics of President Obama, seeming to be primarily ideological conservatives on the right of the political spectrum, especially in the U. S. Senate and certain media talk show hosts, have been quick and rather critical in evaluating his performance to date.
Ladies and gentlemen, he's only been in office for a little over five weeks! He inherited a deep recession, a very serious financial market crisis, a big housing problem, a huge federal budget deficit, a large and increasing unemployment rate, a sharp decline in the stock and bond markets, and two difficult, expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also inherited critical Social Security and Medicare programs that for many years have needed restructuring and reform. Let's be reasonable and give him some more time to perform.
He and his staff have stumbled a little in vetting a number of important nominations for his cabinet and perhaps more details could have been provided earlier for their plans for dealing with the troubled banking system. However, given what's on his plate and how short a time he's been in office, I think he and his administration have done quite a bit and very well. With an approval rating averaging 70% since he became President, and very recently at 63%, the general public seems to agree.
In domestic affairs, of course, despite noisy partisan objections, he has obtained approval by Congress and signed into law the $787 billion stimulus package called the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He has also developed and promoted plans to invigorate our very weak banking system to get badly needed credit flowing again, developed a housing plan to stem foreclosures, made an outstanding speech on his vision for domestic initiatives and priorities to Congress, and presented a massive and comprehensive $3.6 trillion budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1st. In foreign affairs he has traveled to Ottawa to meet with Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper and by all counts had a very cordial and productive meeting with the leader of our biggest trading partner. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently returned from a useful trip to the Far East where she met with senior government leaders in China, Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia, among the most important countries in Asia and vital trading partners. A new strategic plan for our sensitive military and political activities in Afghanistan is in the works.
His Republican critics have a right to be concerned with a much bigger and activist federal government, more large budget deficits, and growing national debt. I am as well, particularly if they become long lasting. However, given current circumstances, what realistic options are there, at least for the next two three years? There is virtually no chance that a passive federal government would work. Neither would employing primarily thinly regulated free markets, leaving everything for the private business sector or individual Americans to turn the economy around. There is also no good reason to believe that the stimulus package could have been more effective if it had had a smaller level of infrastructure and other federal projects , and a corresponding higher level of tax cuts, as many congressional Republican leaders have long maintained. It isn't very instructive to point to any historical political example to support one's view. We're living in a different new world now with a unique, highly globalized economy and key technologies that largely did not exist 20-30 years ago.
Almost everyone agrees that the position of President of the U. S. is the most important and probably the most challenging of any in the world, especially today. I think we are very fortunate to have a man as bright, articulate, self-confident, and cool-headed as Barack Obama serving in the prime of his life. It is reassuring that he has surrounded himself with a lot of experienced and capable people who are not afraid to provide their opinions, and that he is a good listener. We certainly do not know for sure that he will ultimately be successful. We do know that he has a highly ambitious agenda and that he will face serious partisan political obstacles in getting many of his initiatives approved in the form he will be seeking.
However, even many strong critics maintain that he is very likely to be reelected in four years if he and his policies are able to do just two things: turn our economy around on a reasonably sustainable track, and keep us free of any terrorist attacks in this country, regardless of what else he does not get done. I'm not sure if that's entirely true, but I'm cautiously optimistic he will be reasonably successful. All Americans should hope that it works out this way, because we are all important stakeholders, especially those of us who happen to earn less than $250,000 annually. Let's not forget that. He needs and deserves our strong support.
Ladies and gentlemen, he's only been in office for a little over five weeks! He inherited a deep recession, a very serious financial market crisis, a big housing problem, a huge federal budget deficit, a large and increasing unemployment rate, a sharp decline in the stock and bond markets, and two difficult, expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also inherited critical Social Security and Medicare programs that for many years have needed restructuring and reform. Let's be reasonable and give him some more time to perform.
He and his staff have stumbled a little in vetting a number of important nominations for his cabinet and perhaps more details could have been provided earlier for their plans for dealing with the troubled banking system. However, given what's on his plate and how short a time he's been in office, I think he and his administration have done quite a bit and very well. With an approval rating averaging 70% since he became President, and very recently at 63%, the general public seems to agree.
In domestic affairs, of course, despite noisy partisan objections, he has obtained approval by Congress and signed into law the $787 billion stimulus package called the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He has also developed and promoted plans to invigorate our very weak banking system to get badly needed credit flowing again, developed a housing plan to stem foreclosures, made an outstanding speech on his vision for domestic initiatives and priorities to Congress, and presented a massive and comprehensive $3.6 trillion budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1st. In foreign affairs he has traveled to Ottawa to meet with Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper and by all counts had a very cordial and productive meeting with the leader of our biggest trading partner. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently returned from a useful trip to the Far East where she met with senior government leaders in China, Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia, among the most important countries in Asia and vital trading partners. A new strategic plan for our sensitive military and political activities in Afghanistan is in the works.
His Republican critics have a right to be concerned with a much bigger and activist federal government, more large budget deficits, and growing national debt. I am as well, particularly if they become long lasting. However, given current circumstances, what realistic options are there, at least for the next two three years? There is virtually no chance that a passive federal government would work. Neither would employing primarily thinly regulated free markets, leaving everything for the private business sector or individual Americans to turn the economy around. There is also no good reason to believe that the stimulus package could have been more effective if it had had a smaller level of infrastructure and other federal projects , and a corresponding higher level of tax cuts, as many congressional Republican leaders have long maintained. It isn't very instructive to point to any historical political example to support one's view. We're living in a different new world now with a unique, highly globalized economy and key technologies that largely did not exist 20-30 years ago.
Almost everyone agrees that the position of President of the U. S. is the most important and probably the most challenging of any in the world, especially today. I think we are very fortunate to have a man as bright, articulate, self-confident, and cool-headed as Barack Obama serving in the prime of his life. It is reassuring that he has surrounded himself with a lot of experienced and capable people who are not afraid to provide their opinions, and that he is a good listener. We certainly do not know for sure that he will ultimately be successful. We do know that he has a highly ambitious agenda and that he will face serious partisan political obstacles in getting many of his initiatives approved in the form he will be seeking.
However, even many strong critics maintain that he is very likely to be reelected in four years if he and his policies are able to do just two things: turn our economy around on a reasonably sustainable track, and keep us free of any terrorist attacks in this country, regardless of what else he does not get done. I'm not sure if that's entirely true, but I'm cautiously optimistic he will be reasonably successful. All Americans should hope that it works out this way, because we are all important stakeholders, especially those of us who happen to earn less than $250,000 annually. Let's not forget that. He needs and deserves our strong support.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Justice Reform for Taxpayers
Reading two inconspicuous articles in the California section of today's Los Angeles Times reminded me of the need to reform our justice system in fairness to us taxpayers, while maintaining the current basic civil rights for our citizens and legal alien residents.
In one article, a Superior Court jury in San Diego yesterday found that four male firefighters were sexually harassed while driving a fire truck in a 2007 gay pride parade and were entitled to $34,300 in damages from the city, which apparently plans to appeal. The firefighters had sued the city because they were ordered to drive the truck in the 90 minute parade, even though firefighters in previous gay pride parades had reported being taunted with sexual innuendos. In his arguments to the jury the successful attorney for the firefighters claimed the city "disrespected these men and violated their rights." Understandably, after the lawsuit was filed, the Fire Chief changed department policy and made participation in gay pride parades voluntary.
I have several reactions. There are too many attorneys looking for clients. Too many jurors are not really qualified to serve capably. A case like this should not be decided by a jury, but by a judge, if it should be adjudicated at all. The fire fighters should have been able to deal with the harassment without resorting to lawsuits, especially when they should have known that it was likely going to take place. The gays involved should have behaved better and not doing so probably harmed sympathies for their rights in the community at large. The city should win on an effective appeal. Far too much taxpayer moneys were used, because of how this case was handled, not only for the $34,300, but the probably larger and unnecessary courtroom costs involved.
The other article reported that a San Quentin inmate on death row for murdering a 12 year old girl in 1981 died of natural causes at 65, after spending twenty-two years fighting execution. The girl had been on a camping trip with her mother and a friend in Cleveland National Forest in Orange County. The girl's friend was also shot, but survived. The inmate apparently didn't know the girls at all, and his motive for shooting the girls never clearly emerged in the lengthy trial held originally in 1983.
All inmates, especially those on death row, should, of course, have the right to appeal their sentences. No one can credibly argue that point. However, it's not reasonable and not fair to the taxpayers that a legal appeal process can last more than twenty years. It really should not be necessary and appropriate to last more than five years in most cases and ten years in exceptional cases, without unfairly affecting their civil rights. At 1/1/08 there were 3,309 death row inmates in the U. S., of which 667 were in California, 397 in Florida, and 373 in Texas. It is difficult to come up with accurate figures, but the cost of legal appeals, housing, feeding, guarding and providing medical care to these inmates adds up to a great deal of money, probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. My understanding is that the average time spent on death row is more than 20 years. If the appeals process could be limited to an average of, say, eight or ten years, these very large total costs could no doubt be cut in half, with huge savings for taxpayers.
The highly sensitive subject of capital punishment is another important different, though closely related, issue. Some people favor abolition of capital punishment, others favor retaining capital punishment for the most serious crimes, and still others favor swifter capital punishment for a broader category of crimes. Justification for their respective views vary. The majority of the justifications seem to include concern that some of those scheduled for execution may actually be innocent, which I share, a desire for "justice" for those murdered or otherwise harmed, a perception of deterrence to other prospective criminals, and a desire to save unnecessarily spent money for the taxpayers, which I also share. Certainly all these views have merit and should be respected, though many experts maintain that capital punishment is not really a deterrence to a great many hardened criminals.
In any case, it's obvious that we have material weaknesses with our current system of justice. A comprehensive and serious review of how best to improve it is needed. One of the major objectives of such a review, aside from maintaining basic and reasonable civil rights for the accused and convicted, should be clearly identifying and quantifying how an improved system of justice can appropriately save taxpayers unnecessarily spent moneys.
In one article, a Superior Court jury in San Diego yesterday found that four male firefighters were sexually harassed while driving a fire truck in a 2007 gay pride parade and were entitled to $34,300 in damages from the city, which apparently plans to appeal. The firefighters had sued the city because they were ordered to drive the truck in the 90 minute parade, even though firefighters in previous gay pride parades had reported being taunted with sexual innuendos. In his arguments to the jury the successful attorney for the firefighters claimed the city "disrespected these men and violated their rights." Understandably, after the lawsuit was filed, the Fire Chief changed department policy and made participation in gay pride parades voluntary.
I have several reactions. There are too many attorneys looking for clients. Too many jurors are not really qualified to serve capably. A case like this should not be decided by a jury, but by a judge, if it should be adjudicated at all. The fire fighters should have been able to deal with the harassment without resorting to lawsuits, especially when they should have known that it was likely going to take place. The gays involved should have behaved better and not doing so probably harmed sympathies for their rights in the community at large. The city should win on an effective appeal. Far too much taxpayer moneys were used, because of how this case was handled, not only for the $34,300, but the probably larger and unnecessary courtroom costs involved.
The other article reported that a San Quentin inmate on death row for murdering a 12 year old girl in 1981 died of natural causes at 65, after spending twenty-two years fighting execution. The girl had been on a camping trip with her mother and a friend in Cleveland National Forest in Orange County. The girl's friend was also shot, but survived. The inmate apparently didn't know the girls at all, and his motive for shooting the girls never clearly emerged in the lengthy trial held originally in 1983.
All inmates, especially those on death row, should, of course, have the right to appeal their sentences. No one can credibly argue that point. However, it's not reasonable and not fair to the taxpayers that a legal appeal process can last more than twenty years. It really should not be necessary and appropriate to last more than five years in most cases and ten years in exceptional cases, without unfairly affecting their civil rights. At 1/1/08 there were 3,309 death row inmates in the U. S., of which 667 were in California, 397 in Florida, and 373 in Texas. It is difficult to come up with accurate figures, but the cost of legal appeals, housing, feeding, guarding and providing medical care to these inmates adds up to a great deal of money, probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. My understanding is that the average time spent on death row is more than 20 years. If the appeals process could be limited to an average of, say, eight or ten years, these very large total costs could no doubt be cut in half, with huge savings for taxpayers.
The highly sensitive subject of capital punishment is another important different, though closely related, issue. Some people favor abolition of capital punishment, others favor retaining capital punishment for the most serious crimes, and still others favor swifter capital punishment for a broader category of crimes. Justification for their respective views vary. The majority of the justifications seem to include concern that some of those scheduled for execution may actually be innocent, which I share, a desire for "justice" for those murdered or otherwise harmed, a perception of deterrence to other prospective criminals, and a desire to save unnecessarily spent money for the taxpayers, which I also share. Certainly all these views have merit and should be respected, though many experts maintain that capital punishment is not really a deterrence to a great many hardened criminals.
In any case, it's obvious that we have material weaknesses with our current system of justice. A comprehensive and serious review of how best to improve it is needed. One of the major objectives of such a review, aside from maintaining basic and reasonable civil rights for the accused and convicted, should be clearly identifying and quantifying how an improved system of justice can appropriately save taxpayers unnecessarily spent moneys.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Campaign Finance Reform
The significant level of criminal, illegal, unethical, inappropriate and generally unacceptable behavior by our elected representatives in federal, state and local governments in recent years has been shameful and embarrassing. Recent scandals demonstrate that some politicians are more than happy to trade away their offices for private gain, often referred to as "pay-to-play" practices. It understandably but unfairly makes voters cynical and suspicious of all our politicians, the great majority of whom are most probably honest and hard-working, and also has had an adverse impact on the governments' productivity and efficiency to the detriment of the public's best interests.
It's my view that much of poor behavior is directly associated with campaign financing practices and the complex and frequently violated underlying laws and regulations. Major reforms are needed in one form or another. It was therefore rather surprising and disappointing that so little attention to this issue seemed to be given in last year's presidential campaigns.
What unacceptable behavior am I thinking about? Two of the most notable decades ago were those involving U. S. Senator Joe McCarthy and his very questionable congressional hearings held in the early 1950's, and the the Watergate scandal involving President Richard Nixon in the early 1970's, forcing his resignation.
More recently, a noteworthy example is associated with disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who provided free lunches, luxurious golf outings, and luxury box seats at professional sporting events to well-known politicians in return for legislative favors helpful to Abramoff's clients in violation of government rules. Abramoff pleaded guilty to three felony counts, including conspiracy to bribe lawmakers, mail fraud, and tax evasion. Some of those implicated were President Bush's senior advisor, Karl Rove, former Congressman Bob Ney, and former House Majority Leader Tom De Lay.
Other examples include the scandal involving former Congressman Randy Cunningham, who resigned in November 2005 for taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors, and former Congressman Mark Foley, who sent solicitative emails and sexually explicit text messages to young men who previously served as congressional pages. Then we have the recent scandal involving U. S. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, convicted of seven corruption counts in October 2008. Finally, among many others, there's former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, arrested for trying to sell his nomination to replace Barack Obama as Senator for the state who's possibly facing up to thirty years in prison.
There's no doubt that greed, a deep desire to gain and maintain political power, and a belief many of these characters have that they will never be caught and prosecuted were factors in this very poor behavior. However, I think it's clear that a bigger factor in most of these, and many other examples that could be cited, are the increasingly high costs of election campaigns and our complicated campaign finance laws and regulations.
In the 2004 presidential election the candidates spent a total of $718 million. In the 2008 presidential election Barack Obama reportedly spent $730 million alone and John McCain spent another $333 million. It's crazy. The way it is now you can't compete unless you are very wealthy or are prepared and able to spend a great deal of time and effort in fundraising to support your campaign financing needs. Most of the larger contributors expect tangible political favors, good jobs in the administration, or special access for themselves or hired lobbyists after the elections. As we've seen, this breeds actual or de facto corruption and impedes efficency and good government. Major reform is needed, notwithstanding objections from those who lean heavily on First Amendment rights related to free speech.
Campaign costs need to be greatly reduced and regulations need to be greatly simplified with limited, if any, loopholes. An important goal of the reform should be to make running for office more affordable and attractive, and make massive and time-consuming fundraising less necessary. One approach to this is strong bipartisan support for reasonable spending limits. Another approach is to pursue voter approval for public financing covering, for example, up to 50% of presidential and congressional campaigns with a fixed upper limit. A third approach, which perhaps is best, is to use the leverage of the Federal Communications Commission to secure a certain level of free and equal TV and radio time for the major candidates in general elections, coupled with an agreed spending limit for other needs.
Regrettably I'm frankly not optimistic about the near-term prospects. There are so many other important issues that seem to have a higher priority, including foreign policy, healthcare, education, energy, and Social Security. In addition, legislative efforts to rein in campaign spending have almost always attractived stiff resistance. Unfortunately, there are so many entrenched interests who want to retain the status quo, including incumbent politicians, the hospitality industry, and wealthy individual and corporate campaign contributors who want favors in Washington.
It's my view that much of poor behavior is directly associated with campaign financing practices and the complex and frequently violated underlying laws and regulations. Major reforms are needed in one form or another. It was therefore rather surprising and disappointing that so little attention to this issue seemed to be given in last year's presidential campaigns.
What unacceptable behavior am I thinking about? Two of the most notable decades ago were those involving U. S. Senator Joe McCarthy and his very questionable congressional hearings held in the early 1950's, and the the Watergate scandal involving President Richard Nixon in the early 1970's, forcing his resignation.
More recently, a noteworthy example is associated with disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who provided free lunches, luxurious golf outings, and luxury box seats at professional sporting events to well-known politicians in return for legislative favors helpful to Abramoff's clients in violation of government rules. Abramoff pleaded guilty to three felony counts, including conspiracy to bribe lawmakers, mail fraud, and tax evasion. Some of those implicated were President Bush's senior advisor, Karl Rove, former Congressman Bob Ney, and former House Majority Leader Tom De Lay.
Other examples include the scandal involving former Congressman Randy Cunningham, who resigned in November 2005 for taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors, and former Congressman Mark Foley, who sent solicitative emails and sexually explicit text messages to young men who previously served as congressional pages. Then we have the recent scandal involving U. S. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, convicted of seven corruption counts in October 2008. Finally, among many others, there's former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, arrested for trying to sell his nomination to replace Barack Obama as Senator for the state who's possibly facing up to thirty years in prison.
There's no doubt that greed, a deep desire to gain and maintain political power, and a belief many of these characters have that they will never be caught and prosecuted were factors in this very poor behavior. However, I think it's clear that a bigger factor in most of these, and many other examples that could be cited, are the increasingly high costs of election campaigns and our complicated campaign finance laws and regulations.
In the 2004 presidential election the candidates spent a total of $718 million. In the 2008 presidential election Barack Obama reportedly spent $730 million alone and John McCain spent another $333 million. It's crazy. The way it is now you can't compete unless you are very wealthy or are prepared and able to spend a great deal of time and effort in fundraising to support your campaign financing needs. Most of the larger contributors expect tangible political favors, good jobs in the administration, or special access for themselves or hired lobbyists after the elections. As we've seen, this breeds actual or de facto corruption and impedes efficency and good government. Major reform is needed, notwithstanding objections from those who lean heavily on First Amendment rights related to free speech.
Campaign costs need to be greatly reduced and regulations need to be greatly simplified with limited, if any, loopholes. An important goal of the reform should be to make running for office more affordable and attractive, and make massive and time-consuming fundraising less necessary. One approach to this is strong bipartisan support for reasonable spending limits. Another approach is to pursue voter approval for public financing covering, for example, up to 50% of presidential and congressional campaigns with a fixed upper limit. A third approach, which perhaps is best, is to use the leverage of the Federal Communications Commission to secure a certain level of free and equal TV and radio time for the major candidates in general elections, coupled with an agreed spending limit for other needs.
Regrettably I'm frankly not optimistic about the near-term prospects. There are so many other important issues that seem to have a higher priority, including foreign policy, healthcare, education, energy, and Social Security. In addition, legislative efforts to rein in campaign spending have almost always attractived stiff resistance. Unfortunately, there are so many entrenched interests who want to retain the status quo, including incumbent politicians, the hospitality industry, and wealthy individual and corporate campaign contributors who want favors in Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)