Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Government of, by and for the middle man

As Naomi Klein illustrates so forcefully in Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, human calamity is great for business, at least in a macro sense.

Houses get knocked down by tidal surge? Sales of lumber and nails go up.

"Shock and awe" reigns over a decrepit, tin-pot power? The business of contracting "freedom" (and, of course, enabling Big Oil) goes through the roof.

Klein doesn't mention the tidal condition of Americans being up to their eyes in credit-card debt. But what better condition for capitalism? People keep buying, and with a spider's web of fine print, they become lifetime captors and profit generators for the money men. The merchants make a profit. The money men make a profit. GDP, baby. Bad-a-bing!

Much attention has been drawn to the number of homes being foreclosed at this scary moment. But consider this number: The average household owes 20 percent more than it makes each year. The personal savings rate is in the minus column.

Not all of the owing is simply based on goods purchased, understand. A lot of it is based on ratcheted-up interest rates, fees, penalties and steel traps in a barely accountable, accounting netherworld.

Consider the credit-card trick of offering to consolidate debts as a promotional interest rate, then applying one's payments to the newer debt. Meanwhile, the debt carrying the higher interest rate continues to burn holes down to Earth's molten core.

Last week Barack Obama invited executives from the nation's credit card companies to discuss the abuses associated with what they do. Now, you might say there's no such thing as abuse when profit (GDP) is the motive. Yes, you might.

"Caveat emptor," you say. That's why Texas continues to let loan sharks prey on the desperate with impunity.

What business had the president telling these hard-earning businessmen how to make their earnings?

Actually, it's the same kind of business that alerts the sheriff when a con man is knocking on doors offering to bring rain. Shame on the farmer for buying his spiel. But do we let the con man keep conning?

Speakng of fraud: We sorely miscalculated, in a GDP way, in assuming things were good when in fact, as Obama said, "40 percent of our profits came from a financial sector that was based on inflated home prices, maxed-out credit cards, over-leveraged banks and overvalued assets."

Well, things have changed, with things sinking so low that the federal government came to help prop up the banks that hold so much of the nation's consumer debt.

Since they asked for the government to be a partner, Obama has decided to be an active partner. Good for him and us.

Obama told the gathering that he seeks to find a balance between making a profit and using predatory practices, like thrifts' aforementioned practice of paying off the high-interest rate last. He wants to require the opposite, as does a bill in Congress.

Republicans in Congress oppose said measures, saying they will hurt lenders.

In other words, it's OK for the average American to be locked into a straight-jacket for life because it benefits an industry.

This reminds us of the argument against expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. The argument is that a small percent of those now insured under private plans will shift to CHIP. Maybe that's true. But millions, all the rest, who have no health insurance will have it and the preventive, cost-saving care it brings.

So, which is more important, a marginal loss for private insurers, or a major step in insuring more children? That seems like a slam dunk in terms of human welfare.

But, too often we put the corporate weal ahead of the common weal. Our health-care system is designed to comport to the profit motive — the business of being a middle man — rather than one that uses cumulative health care dollars at the front end, and more wisely, through universal coverage. That can change if we stop thinking of human suffering as a venture opportunity.

John Young writes for the Waco Tribune-Herald. jpyoung@grandecom.net


Friday, April 24, 2009

How to secede in politics

Did I hear someone call Rick Perry an idiot? I do believe I did. Do a Google search joining "Rick Perry" and "idiot" and see.

Well, listen: You don't become Texas' longest-serving governor by being an idiot.

The man's no Rhodes scholar, but that's no pea beneath his camo cap.

When he played to an anti-tax crowd with words sounding vaguely amenable to secession, he was using his political noggin.

When asked to clarify, and he didn't, and in fact spritzed the flames of controversy with more home-brewed hooch, he was thinking. Thinking, thinking, thinking.

About how to beat Kay.

Hutchison, that is. Sen. Kay.

In the quest to win the hearts and minds of the hard right, the bloc that typically swings Republican primaries in our time, some are conceding a croquet-style "well-played" for Perry's saying at a Texas tea party:

"When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that."

Kudos, added Democrats, printing T-shirts with his picture and: "Class of 2009: Rick Perry — most likely to secede."

Political consultant Bill Miller told The Dallas Morning News "there's no downside for him" in making such an appeal. Considering the voters Perry courts, said Miller, "He can ride that horse all day long."

Except: Texas doesn't have a closed primary system. Anyone can vote in the Republican primary. The only encumbrance would be to get "Republican" stamped on one's ticket, of which the only bearing on one's dignity or future would pertain to voting in a subsequent runoff.

So, in addition to Bible-toting, NRA-joining, aborted-fetus-sign-waving voters, the March GOP primary for governor will draw pro-choice moderates, independents and, yes, many Democrats seeing that particular race as a place to influence the future of Texas.

This should be interesting. It's self-evident that Perry still owns many hearts in this great state. But the spell definitely has worn off in the Statehouse, even among his fellow partisans. Witness that the Senate voted to accept the federal stimulus dollars for unemployment assistance that Sagebrush Rebel Rick said he'd reject.

As for voters: Large numbers apparently became convinced he was more interested in partisan matters than their own when he handcuffed a legislative session to a second-time-in-a-decade congressional redistricting imbroglio.

His big campaign appeal in '06, just enough to gain him 39 percent of the vote, was about banning something already illegal — gay marriage. Again, well-played.

Judging by his relationship with lawmakers and the general public, you could say that Perry fatigue isn't something a soldier wears in a sandstorm.

As for those who vote: Constant and calculated appeals — Karl Rove-style? — to the compacted core of his party make Perry increasingly vulnerable as one who no longer appeals to a winning bloc.

Ultimately, this approach made George W. Bush one of America's least popular presidents, even if it worked twice on presidential Election Day.

Interestingly, while Perry was appealing to the compacted core, Hutchison reportedly was making inroads with another bloc entirely: Hispanics who increasingly are dictating the way elections are won and lost in this state.

Some will say that's no way to win a Republican primary. That depends on who shows up to vote.

John Young writes for the Waco Tribune-Herald. jpyoung@grandecom.net


Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Warrants for our proxies

Before addressing the legal/semantic mess we've built for ourselves, ponder with me an odd quote from Cuba's Raul Castro.

Last week, Castro said he's willing to discuss a wide range of issues with President Barack Obama — "human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners, everything."

Maybe an interpreter put words in his mouth. But: "political prisoners"? No self-respecting dictator calls his prisoners that. Traitors. Spies. Enemies of the people. That's what a dictator says.

This brings up the subject of what a nation posing as leader of the free world says when accused of abusing human rights. Surely it's not: "Torture? Whatever you call it."

Sure, some are saying that techniques including waterboarding, sleep deprivation of up to 11 days, slamming a prisoner against a wall and introducing insects into confined spaces are not torture.

Others are saying, "So what? We got the information we wanted."

That's no defense, says retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Rather, it's the problem — bad information elicited under extreme duress.

McGovern, speaking in Waco last week, said the covert operations arm of the agency he served proudly from Kennedy through George H.W. Bush effectively gave a president "his own personal Gestapo."

That is manifest in the Feb. 7, 2002, White House memo headed "Humane Treatment of Detainees." It actually authorizes grossly inhumane techniques.

As McGovern spoke, the Obama administration was releasing CIA torture memos and saying it would not prosecute agents whom it believed had operated within parameters set by higher-ups.

That made big news. What didn't get much attention was this: A judge in Spain issued warrants for six former Justice Department officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for rubber-stamping the use of torture on Guantanamo Bay detainees. Spanish law gives its courts jurisdiction beyond national borders in cases of torture and war crimes based on a doctrine known as universal justice.

The judge, Baltazar Garzon, is the same one who issued an arrest warrant for former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet for killing and torturing prisoners.

Spain's government, likely under pressure from ours, says it doesn't support or intend to help facilitate Garzon's warrants.

U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York this week called for the impeachment of federal Judge Jay Bybee, who while an attorney under Gonzales helped parse the legalese behind what our proxies did to prisoners.

McGovern said it is absurd to focus on the lawyers when evidence points to direct authorization by President Bush and his innermost circle.

Many months ago, I wrote that impeachment of Bush and Dick Cheney was the answer — not necessarily to remove anyone from office but to question them under oath about alleged abuses. They're all out of office. What now?

New York Times editorial echoed Nadler's call for Bybee's impeachment, but within the framework of a search for the truth "after eight years without transparency or accountability." The Washington Post editorially called for an investigation comparable to the 9/11 Commission.

Truth and accountability. It is sadly comical to think of out-of-work Al Gonzales or one of his former lieutenants as the big fish in this operation.

For a nation that has been the world's foremost voice on human rights now to be so mute about something so counter to its principles is an embarrassment.

Ray McGovern says he came to work at the CIA headquarters every day under the John 8:32 inscription: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

Just who was that "you"?

John Young's column appears Thursday, Sunday and occasionally Tuesday. E-mail: jyoung@wacotrib.com.