Mr. President, bring the troops home

If General Stanley McChrystal's request of President Obama for 40,000 additional troops for Afghanistan is to be met, the cost would be $40 billion to $54 b. a year, according to an internal government estimate published by The New York Times on November 15. The General originally requested 80,000 additional troops. 

The Times reports, "The rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant." The same article quotes Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), chairman of a subcommittee on defense appropriations, as saying that "total spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would surge past $1 trillion next year, which could hamper the economy for years to come." 

It is almost a foregone conclusion that the president will not authorize the 40,000 soldiers requested, but in all probability, he will authorize a smaller number. Any increase, as opposed to embarking upon an immediate exit strategy, would be a grave error.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (22)

As far as public opinion is concerned, Maj. Nidal Hasan is a terrorist

I believe the burden of proof has shifted to those in and out of government who believe the public should withhold its opinion on whether Major Nidal Malik Hasan was a terrorist or simply deranged. I have concluded that he was a terrorist.

I also believe that the US Army should allow Muslims, who consider fighting other Muslims a violation of their religious beliefs, to opt out and be sent to other regions and combat zones. In Word War II, I believe Japanese American soldiers were sent to the European Theater of Operations. It is noteworthy that Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran have no religious problem in killing each other. They do it every day, sadly in large numbers. Muslim women and children are also injured and killed by Muslim suicide bombers entering local markets before blowing up themselves to wreak the most havoc.

The eight-year war between Iraq and Iran left an estimated million casualties. Sunnis killed Shi'ites and Shi'ites killed Sunnis. They also killed one another on holy Muslim holidays like Ramadan while western countries like the US and Great Britain were importuned to delay their attacks out of respect for Ramadan.

The Times of November 10 pointed out:

The imam whom Major Hasan made contact with is an American citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. He wrote on Monday on his English-language Web site that Major Hasan was 'a hero.' The cleric said, 'He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.'"

Finally, the article made the point that the radical imam lied with his comments on prior terrorist acts:

After the September 11 attacks, Mr. Awlaki was quoted as disapproving of such violence and was portrayed as a moderate figure who might provide a bridge between Islam and Western democracies. But since leaving the United States in 2002 for London and later Yemen, Mr. Awlaki has become, through his Web site, www.anwar-alawlaki.com, a prominent proponent of militant Islam."

He surely is not the only terrorist to lie so.

US public opinion is far too intelligent to jump to a conclusion, but it is also intelligent enough to understand when it is being conned by our own government.

It seems to me that political correctness has reached the point where the FBI and the US Army have allowed it to influence their investigations in life and death situations.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (51)

For the jobless, the Great recession continues

According to The New York Times of October 30, "The nation's gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the quarter that ended in September, matching its average growth rate of the last 80 years." 

I'm no economist, but that tells me we are no longer in a recession, even if some of that is attributable to the government's huge spending in that period.   

The nation doesn't feel secure, however, and the reason is obvious. Our unemployment rate is currently at 9.8 percent. If you count the unemployed people who are no longer looking for jobs, the actual rate is much higher.

During my mayoralty, particularly the earlier years, I would often say to my critics who wanted government to do more, that if a person had a job, that individual could handle most other problems without government help. I still believe that to be true. 

That is why it is disappointing that the federal government has not, as it did in the 30s under FDR, come up with job programs like the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC), the Public Works Administration (PWA), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). I am not suggesting make-work programs. I am proposing much-needed programs to deal with the nation's crumbling infrastructure such as its bridges, roads and power grid.  Again, I am not an expert, but I constantly read of the deteriorating quality of our drinking water, a problem that needs attention and funding.

Also, why don't we have bullet trains like Japan and France, capable of speeds of 200 miles an hour? I could go on and on, but by now it is clear that much work needs to be done to strengthen our nation for the decades ahead. We've been told by economists that there is always a lag, sometimes lasting years, between economic recovery indicators like increases in the gross domestic product and the reduction in unemployment. But that doesn't have to be the case.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (3)

We need to stand up and shout 'No'

We still don't have full liquidity. Even worse, many of the firms securing TARP funds did not fulfill their mission as lenders. Instead, they used TARP funds for investment purposes and became even richer than they were before the debacle they were responsible for. 

Graham Bowley of The New York Times summed it all up in his article of October 17, 2009.  He wrote: 

Titans like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase are making fortunes in hot areas like trading stocks and bonds, rather than in the ho-hum business of lending people money. They also are profiting by taking risks that weaker rivals are unable or unwilling to shoulder - a benefit of less competition after the failure of some investment firms last year.       

So even as big banks fight efforts in Congress to subject their industry to greater regulation - and to impose some restrictions on executive pay - Wall Street has Washington to thank in part for its latest bonanza.

'All of this is facilitated by the Federal Reserve and the government, who really want financial institutions to get back to lending,' said Gary Richardson, a research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. 'But we have just shown them that they can have the most frightening things happen to them, and we will throw trillions of dollars to protect them. I have big concerns about that.'"

Financial institutions are making huge profits as a result of having been saved by the taxpayers and TARP monies, and not having used those monies for lending purposes. They also know that our government still believes in the two axioms: "too big to fail" and "too big to jail."

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (28)

No money for a hospital?

I see no difference between the lack of concern displayed by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to the plight of the residents of New Orleans.

George Bush flew over New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and was photographed looking down at it.  Barack Obama visited the city for four hours on his way to a fundraiser in San Francisco. A person in the audience at a New Orleans town hall meeting asked the president for help in securing funds for the remaining hospital so that it could handle all situations. His reply, that he could not write a check to pay for expanded services to the city, might be technically correct. However, there are many things the president could do to enable the hospital and its staff to provide a full panoply of services.

For example, if President Obama could enlist the assistance of Acting Deputy Surgeon General, Rear Admiral Robert Williams, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, Thomas Frieden, and the Secretary for Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, I have no doubt that they, together with local and national officials, could come up with a plan to make the hospital a full-service facility, and obtain funding from FEMA or Congress.

Obama's staff took him to New Orleans without first finding out what the city needed and what he could bring. The president's staff should pay for their incompetence in New Orleans with their jobs. Lecturing the crowd in New Orleans on the US Constitution preventing him from "writing a check," sounded like the equivalent of George W. Bush's foolish statement: "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." When will President Obama fulfill our expectations?

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (8)

Too big to jail

On October 12, the insurance companies released a report they had commissioned on the impact of the Baucus Senate bill expanding health coverage, which will be voted on today, October 13.

According to The New York Times, the report, prepared by Price-Waterhouse Coopers, states that "premiums would climb sharply with the passage of comprehensive health legislation." The report also stated that "selected provisions of a bill from the Senate Finance Committee could increase premiums 18 percent more than they would otherwise rise in the next decade, to an average of nearly $26,000 for families and $9,700 for individuals in 2019." 

Under the Baucus bill, the insurance companies retain control over the premiums they charge customers, except that they may not discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. Take the insurance companies at their word. They will raise those premiums by those amounts. They have given Congress the best reason to include in the legislation a government option to compete with them. Such an option should have to compete fairly with no additional government subsidies or funding not provided to private sector insurance companies. The government option's ability to compete and provide lower prices would be dependent on its elimination of the profit now included by the insurance companies, which would undoubtedly increase with the addition of millions of additional customers after new universal health coverage legislation takes effect. 

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (4)

The ongoing battle against amnesty

In an editorial published on September 22, The New York Times renewed its opposition to the construction of a fence to deter illegal crossings from Mexico to the United States. 

The Times speculates that the current decline in border arrests "could be because of the bad economy as much as the fence." It's probably right. What I object to is the Times' insistence that a better solution to the problem of illegal immigration is "for Congress to reform the nation's immigration laws. No fence can keep a determined immigrant out or absolve Congress of that responsibility." What the Times means by "reforming our immigration laws" is providing amnesty and a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now living in the US.

The Times refuses to use the term "illegal aliens" when referring to people crossing our borders without permission. Instead, it calls them "immigrants," or "migrants." If people entered The New York Times building without permission and squatted there, would the Times call them migrants? Or would it call them trespassers and have them evicted?

I believe that the next legislative battle will be over amnesty and "a path to citizenship." Regrettably, President Obama and Senator John McCain stand shoulder to shoulder in support of such amnesty. 

I oppose the granting of amnesty except in cases demanding a compassionate response, e.g., children who are American citizens and whose parents are illegals. My solution to illegal immigration is prison for American employers who knowingly hire illegals. I do not support jailing the aliens, but would support paying their transportation costs back to their homelands. If their own countries want to give them preference in applying for US citizenship and allow them to jump ahead of those who have patiently waited in line, I would try in some way to accommodate that action. I doubt that will occur. 

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (2)

No quid pro quo for scrapping European missile defense shield?

President Barack Obama lost a golden opportunity last week and exhibited surprising naiveté in foreign affairs when he unilaterally agreed to scrap plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.   

The president decided to undo the actions of former president George W. Bush, who had continued president Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" concept by placing a radar station in the Czech Republic and an anti-ballistic missile site in Poland, all on the borders of Russia. 

The response of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev to Bush's strategic move was to threaten retaliation by having Russian ballistic missiles aimed at NATO countries. The US claimed that the two installations were defensive only, and were intended to shoot down nuclear missiles aimed at Western Europe, Israel and America by Iran, North Korea, or terrorists.

The Russians, of course, scoffed at Bush's explanation. Remember how the US under president John Kennedy reacted when the Soviet Union, then headed by Nikita Khrushchev, placed ballistic missiles in Cuba? We threatened war if they were not removed. We also imposed a blockade preventing Soviet ships from entering Cuban waters without first being searched for nuclear missiles. 

A third world war involving the US and the Soviet Union was avoided when the Soviet Union agreed to withdraw all of its nuclear ballistic missiles from Cuba and the US agreed to withdraw its ballistic missiles from NATO member Turkey.

President Obama should have secured a similar quid pro quo from Russia before he terminated the planned missile defense program in Eastern Europe. What do we need from Russia? We want Russia to use its influence with Iran to end Iran's research and development of nuclear weapons. If Iran declines to stop its nuclear weapons program, we want Russia's support for greater sanctions in a resolution to be voted on at the United Nations Security Council.  Russia has publicly stated it will oppose such a resolution. The leverage that Obama might have had with Russia was lost when he unilaterally gave Russia what it wanted.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (15)

To Obama: Don't get trapped in Afghanistan - let's get out now

President Obama did an excellent job, in both delivery and substance, when he addressed a joint session of Congress last week.  As I listened to him, I was reminded of my own days in Congress. Before I left Congress in 1977 to serve as Mayor of New York City, I attended similar addresses of Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. I sat in the House of Representatives Chamber thinking how lucky I was to live in such a great country and to have been given the opportunity to represent my fellow citizens in Congress. 

I recall when President Johnson appeared in that Chamber in January 1969 after President Nixon had been elected but before he took office. As Johnson entered the Chamber and walked down the aisle past me, I reached over and patted him on the shoulder.  Although he was unaware of my touch, I said to myself, "I forgive you." I was referring to the Vietnam War, the results of which caused him not to run for reelection. 

President Johnson had hugely increased the number of American soldiers sent to South Vietnam. I believe he ultimately poured in more than 50,000 combat troops. His enormous good works and reputation, as a result of his civil rights legislative record and "Great Society" initiatives, were lost as he became responsible in the public's collective conscience for the war and was blamed for the casualties, deaths and billions of dollars spent to prop up a corrupt Vietnamese government in an ongoing civil war. The United States was ultimately required to pull out in a publicly humiliating way. As the North Vietnam troops were entering Saigon, later renamed Ho Chi Min City, we ferried American military and civilians, as well as Vietnamese civilians, by helicopter from the roof of our embassy in Saigon to our Navy ships offshore. 

Many people, myself included, do not believe we can win the war in Afghanistan. The British and the Russians gave up on Afghanistan, as probably did Alexander the Great of ancient Macedonia. Even if we were to win, what would we have won?

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (13)

Unconscionable greed and Obama's betrayal

A $2.3 billion fine was recently levied against the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer for a health care fraud. The settlement with Pfizer, the largest ever imposed, was announced at a press conference by Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

The New York Times reported that Pfizer "had illegally marketed its now-withdrawn painkiller, Bextra," and that the company was turned in by "six whistle-blowers [who] will collect $102 million from the federal share of the settlement, and more from states' shares." 

The Times also reported that "the government charged that executives and sales representatives throughout Pfizer's ranks planned and executed schemes to illegally market not only Bextra but also Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, which treats nerve pain. While the government said the fine was a record sum, the $2.3b. fine amounts to less than three weeks of Pfizer's sales."

By way of background, the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) approved the sale of Bextra in 2001 to treat arthritis and menstrual cramps. The Times in its article pointed out that "the drug was not approved for the treatment of acute pain, nor was it shown to be any more powerful than ibuprofen. But Pfizer instructed its sale representatives to tell doctors that the drug could be used to treat acute and surgical pain and at doses well above those approved, even though the drug's dangers - which included kidney, skin and heart risks - increased with the dose, the government charged. The drug was withdrawn in 2005 because of its risks to the heart and skin."

While doctors can legally prescribe any F.D.A.-approved drug for any purpose, notwithstanding the drug's F.D.A. approval was for a specific treatment, drug companies are not allowed to urge its use for any purpose other than prescribed by the F.D.A. While the Times does not mention it, I believe I heard a television commentator state that Pfizer specifically asked the F.D.A. for permission to advocate the use of Bextra for other purposes. The F.D.A. rejected that request, which makes the alleged actions even more horrible.

The Times quotes one of the whistle-blowers as saying, "The whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales, and if you didn't sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player."

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (21)