Let's pretend:
Let's imagine the Most Wise, the Most Just, Most Compassionate (MWJC) was just installed as our President. What would this new President's strategy be in Iraq?
From one side of the room: "Our freedom at home depends on THEIR freedom there. Only by our military might can we install democracy. If we pulled out now their insurgency would lead to the same kind of tyranny we fought to displace. We must see this to the end, even if it takes decades!"
From another side: "While we were never for this war, we agree that we can't just cut and run, it would leave Iraqis defenseless and make the situation even worse. We must see this through by building up Iraq's own security force."
The new President pondered all this, when a small, still voice called out: "Try truth, try justice." The President asked for more explanation. The voice answered, "The war was wrong and based on lies, but we can't go back we must deal in the now. So it is NEVER TOO LATE to act with truth and justice.
"Many on the side of war dismiss the rest of the world. They have always rejected that world's ONE political representative body, the United Nations. But it is within the UN in which we can start to make progress.
“If we went and admitted our past wrong--which for you, being the new President would be easy--and ask the world representatives to help fashion a safe and just future for Iraq, this would set a tone and base from which we can begin to make a just and lasting peace.”
The President thanked everybody and left. The MWJC consulted in silence with the Highest Authority and chose the course to take.
He addressed Congress, “Ladies and gentlemen. I will address the United Nations myself and here is what I will say:
‘Ladies and gentlemen of the world, I thank you for being here. I come to see what together we can do to improve the lot of our world’s citizens. Admittedly our country has not always fully bought in to this. We have been drunk with the wine of our supreme power and might and have, in a very human manner, tended to depend on that more than on honestly dealing with you.
‘My predecessor went around this body to make war in Iraq. This was an understandable exercise in self-defense when seen through his fear-laden perspective in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Some of our leaders feel that many of you, perhaps as retaliation for our admitted unilateralism, don’t really care about our safety or success, and that we should therefore not hamstring ourselves by subordinating our strength to your deliberations.
‘However, we failed to understand that to GET RESPECT, we must honestly GIVE RESPECT. And it is with this attitude that I pledge our nation to you and your citizens.
‘So I ask your help in Iraq. I ask that we work together to develop a plan for peace and safety for the Iraqi people and the region. We must deal with the situation as it exists now, but together we can begin to make it better.
‘From there we can begin to work more closely and honestly for the benefit of our citizens on all other issues. When any of us start to go astray, to focus excessively on self-interest, or otherwise act in a way contrary to what benefits us as a whole, then we must be open to hearing about this from each other and get back on track.
‘From the bottom of my heart and from my fellow American citizens, I thank you.’”
The Senate leader asked, “But what do you suppose the UN could offer?”
The MWJC said, “First, they will feel empowered to do good and we NEED their help, we always have. Second, we always have our military and economic might. THEY know this, too. We leverage that power by not abusing it. We best use our power by leaving it dormant and instead showing honest respect and deference.
“We should look at all nations as equal partners in the quest for peace and justice, after all we still have veto power on the Security Council when we need it. Who knows what good ideas will arise from the atmosphere of trust and goodwill that we will help lead.” The MWJC thanked them and left.
----------------------
“Pollyanna, idealistic and unrealistic” thinking many of you say. I wholeheartedly disagree. I remain open to more and better FACTUAL information of which I, nor you, have.
But the approach and attitude of the imagined MWJC President is undoubtedly correct. Applied with wisdom and perseverance it will create a better world.
Rfd 6/29/05
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Pearls in the Oil Crisis
Oil—is there an infinite supply to fuel our Manifest Destiny or are we nearing the point of exhausting it? Many learned experts say it’s about gone—30 years of known oil reserves—while others, including the Bush administration say, or at least ACT, as if there’s a bottomless well.
Oil interests only win if there is in fact a plentiful supply. And they can explode that victory to massive profits in the scarcity-filled atmosphere that now exists, especially if they know of a bountiful supply that's in the hole.
Combine this fact with a hope that were this crisis real President Bush would surely respect the national interest enough to talk about conservation, accelerated hybrid productions, etc.--and it LOOKS as if there is plenty of oil.
Then comes Matthew R. Simmons, who in Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy convincingly shows that the Saudis are nearing peak production. This would be Armageddon for a nation of people who feel it their birthright to consume with an unquenchable desire.
The great news, really great news, is that the solution depends not on the level of supply. That is absolutely the wrong way of looking at it. In any situation Universal Moral Principles can direct the way forward.
In regard to resource usage those principles dictate: a) a use of humanity’s highest intelligence to get the MOST productivity out of the LEAST expenditure of resources, b) a use of only what is needed—“waste not, want not”, c) a show of the same respect for others’ needs and wants as that which we give to ourselves.
Our national policy then becomes abundantly clear—and a moral imperative: require vehicles getting at least twice, up to 4 times the fuel efficiency as well promote and incentivize conservation by citizens and businesses.
The energy crisis is actually a major opportunity. We will encourage students to apply their gaming skills to devise new ways of conservation. Whole industries will evolve devoted to efficiency, while those with desire and aptitude will work on new ways of energy creation and delivery. Already bio-fuels and other non-oil sources are showing real promise.
It IS doable, but only with a focus on what best benefits the Greater Public Interest instead of what maximizes the profits of the oil or automotive industries or that of any entrenched special interests. This renewed focus on the greater common good is yet another benefit of the energy crisis.
We might still be able to have our cars and drive them too. But our destination must be clear, just and worthy.
Richard F. Dawahare 6.28.05
Oil interests only win if there is in fact a plentiful supply. And they can explode that victory to massive profits in the scarcity-filled atmosphere that now exists, especially if they know of a bountiful supply that's in the hole.
Combine this fact with a hope that were this crisis real President Bush would surely respect the national interest enough to talk about conservation, accelerated hybrid productions, etc.--and it LOOKS as if there is plenty of oil.
Then comes Matthew R. Simmons, who in Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy convincingly shows that the Saudis are nearing peak production. This would be Armageddon for a nation of people who feel it their birthright to consume with an unquenchable desire.
The great news, really great news, is that the solution depends not on the level of supply. That is absolutely the wrong way of looking at it. In any situation Universal Moral Principles can direct the way forward.
In regard to resource usage those principles dictate: a) a use of humanity’s highest intelligence to get the MOST productivity out of the LEAST expenditure of resources, b) a use of only what is needed—“waste not, want not”, c) a show of the same respect for others’ needs and wants as that which we give to ourselves.
Our national policy then becomes abundantly clear—and a moral imperative: require vehicles getting at least twice, up to 4 times the fuel efficiency as well promote and incentivize conservation by citizens and businesses.
The energy crisis is actually a major opportunity. We will encourage students to apply their gaming skills to devise new ways of conservation. Whole industries will evolve devoted to efficiency, while those with desire and aptitude will work on new ways of energy creation and delivery. Already bio-fuels and other non-oil sources are showing real promise.
It IS doable, but only with a focus on what best benefits the Greater Public Interest instead of what maximizes the profits of the oil or automotive industries or that of any entrenched special interests. This renewed focus on the greater common good is yet another benefit of the energy crisis.
We might still be able to have our cars and drive them too. But our destination must be clear, just and worthy.
Richard F. Dawahare 6.28.05
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Time to Impeach
While doing some research on another matter, I coincidentally came upon this piece, which I had written Oct. 2002 during the run-up to the war in Iraq. That whole year, beginning with Bush's "axis of evil" speech in Jan/Feb and his CONTINUAL, PRE-DETERMINED DECISION to go to war in Iraq, I was aghast at the dis-information, whether deliberate (I truly believe it was) or not. I felt compelled with all the light given me to do what I could to prevent this atrocious injustice--done with my tax dollars and by the corrupted government of the country I love. I also joined the local peace movement and helped organize and lead the anti-war rally that fall.
My totally serendipitous discovery of my article, which I was not aware the Kentucky Post even ran, confirms for me the path we must now take as a country, as unpopular as this will seem to many of you. Of course, the hindrance to doing this (see below) is the still deep national division about the rightness of this war. It is similar to Vietnam, wherein many Americans still believe we should have been there, and the only mistake was not nuking them. The very fact that this position is not "correct" as history and reason has conclusively proven, is similarly applicable to the current mess in Iraq.
The war, so obviously wrong before we waged it, remains so. The question of what to do vexes us. Do we "cut and run?" Do we wait on adequate Iraqi security capabilities? The key point is that THIS ADMINISTRATION is utterly incapable of any just, effective solution, as they will continue to make all decisions based on their warped view of the "rightness" of their war.
I pondered whether I should parrot the existing cries for impeachment. After all, with the House and Senate in Republican hands it looks like an exercise in futility, so all I'd be accomplishing is further alienating those friends on my "conservative" list. Yet in my heart and soul I believe that only with NEW leadership can a credible and just corrective plan materialize. Thus, I believe a re-call of this president is necessary and the only way Constitutionally to accomplish this is through the impeachment process.
Personally, I've discovered meditation and through it a better sense of peace. I fret and fume less and am starting to have more clarity. So it is with love and compassion for all concerned, and a desire to see the most good for the most people, that I be true to soul and reason in recommending this course.
Respectfully, Richard
------------------------------------
PEACEFUL RESOLUTION IS RIGHT, JUST RESPONSE TO IRAQ.(Editorial)(Column)Source: The Kentucky Post (Covington, KY)Date: 10/30/2002
Byline: Richard F. Dawahare
Deep in our souls we know. Stripped of the paralyzing fear that smothers our minds and dulls our hearts we know that war in Iraq would be an immoral obscenity, a terrible wrong that would only exacerbate our problems instead of solving them.
Quite naturally, the 9/11 attacks exponentially increased our fear of vulnerability. When combined with the continuous demonization of Saddam Hussein we feel an impending doom if we do not attack. I, too, admit to these feelings.
Yet all that frightens is not fearsome. That is, there is just too much credible information that refutes the danger that Iraq is made to pose. A calm review of all the relevant information will show that Saddam Hussein, appalling tyrant that he is, does not present the clear and present threat requiring war.
First, the world community, including Iraq's own neighbors, oppose war and regime change.
Second, our own former lead weapons inspector has courageously challenged the threat Iraq is alleged to present. Scott Ritter, who spent 7 years in Iraq as the United Nation's lead weapons inspector, calls the Bush Administration's push for war "a tragic joke perpetrated on the American public and the world."
He says the inspectors had destroyed 95 percent of Iraq's weapons as well as their capacity to build them. While Ritter is certain that Iraq is nowhere close to nuclear capability, he believes inspectors must go back to continue the job.
Ritter has no motive to lie. A Republican, he says his Marine code of honor requires him to tell the truth. He concludes that an America that pushes for war and regime change under these circumstances, especially when there are other alternatives available, "is not the country I want to be a part of."
To further enhance our fear and justify attack the hawks keep telling us how Hussein gassed his own people. This refers to the old charge that he gassed the Kurds in 1988. Forget for a second that we have already punished him for this atrocity. The bigger news is that it may not have happened the way we have heard it.
A Pentagon report by Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College concluded "we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used against the Kurds."
Further, regarding charges that Iraq used chemical weapons at Halabjah in March, 1988 the same report concluded that Iran, not Iraq was likely responsible. It concludes, "Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information." (Not that it matters but we were Saddam Hussein's ally in Iraq's war against Iran.)
This is not to say that Saddam Hussein is not a dangerous guy. I believe that he is. But there are other methods short of war - such as inspections and containment - that will more effectively secure peace.
Our fear is also amplified by Hussein's portrayal as a psychotic madman. This may well be as he no doubt has performed heinous acts of brutality. But at crucial times he also has acted rationally. For example, during the Gulf War he did not use the chemical or biological weapons that we claim he had - not against Israel, not against us, not against his own citizens.
This can only mean that a) he did not have them, or b) he had them but knew that to use them would invite a devastating retaliation on his country. This is the kind of sane, rational thinking that spared the world a nuclear holocaust throughout the cold war as each side feared mutually assured destruction.
We also fear that Hussein could provide biological or germ weapons to terrorists. Yet there is no evidence he has done so. In fact, he historically has considered Islamic radicals as an enemy to his regime. Indeed, he fought Iran to prevent Khomeini's fundamentalist revolution from overtaking Iraq.
Unfortunately, there are many enemies who might be inclined to help terrorists. How futile to believe we can war our way to safety when the only way to ensure a just and lasting peace is through dialogue and diplomacy. As even Iraq's own neighbors have suggested, war will only inflame hostilities and increase terrorism, not reduce it.
The Bush Administration has backed off its claim that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. Regardless, the hawks use the appeasement argument to justify an attack. That is, a refusal to attack Hussein now will lead to future catastrophe similar to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.
The much more relevant history, however, is Vietnam where we did follow the appeasement lesson by going to war to "stop the spread of Communism." Our fear then turned out to be a tragic mistake that killed 57,000 Americans, 3 million of "them" and created a truly unfortunate class of veterans.
I was 8 when the trumped up Gulf of Tonkin resolution led to full-scale war in Vietnam. Huckleberry Hound, Pleasant Valley Sundays, the Beatles, and the many hundreds of fun things the '60s offered us boomers took precedent over a war fought ostensibly to protect our ability to live the American Dream.
The protestors were "pinko drug-loving hippies." The establishment did all it could to discredit them. But the voice of truth was too powerful and the American middle class, after eight years of horrific tragedy, demanded peace, albeit "with honor."
If our leaders then had studied the history of the Vietnamese and their suffering under domination from the French and Japanese, they would have realized that all they ever wanted was to be free of the yoke of colonialism - they had no intention of world wide revolution.
(In an eerily similar coincidence, America was actually allied with Ho Chi Minh during World War II against Japan as we were with Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war with Iran.)
I have often wondered what I would have done in 1964 had I been an adult with this understanding. Would I have acquiesced to the pro-establishment, "support the president" position I knew inside to be wrong, but popular. Or would I have stayed true to my knowledge of a higher truth and joined the protestors?
Because there are workable alternatives to war - inspections, the lifting of sanctions and the re-incorporation of the Iraqi people into the international community - that would create a more permanent and just solution today's decision is easy.
Deep inside I know. We all do.
Richard F. Dawahare is an attorney and businessman from Lexington.
My totally serendipitous discovery of my article, which I was not aware the Kentucky Post even ran, confirms for me the path we must now take as a country, as unpopular as this will seem to many of you. Of course, the hindrance to doing this (see below) is the still deep national division about the rightness of this war. It is similar to Vietnam, wherein many Americans still believe we should have been there, and the only mistake was not nuking them. The very fact that this position is not "correct" as history and reason has conclusively proven, is similarly applicable to the current mess in Iraq.
The war, so obviously wrong before we waged it, remains so. The question of what to do vexes us. Do we "cut and run?" Do we wait on adequate Iraqi security capabilities? The key point is that THIS ADMINISTRATION is utterly incapable of any just, effective solution, as they will continue to make all decisions based on their warped view of the "rightness" of their war.
I pondered whether I should parrot the existing cries for impeachment. After all, with the House and Senate in Republican hands it looks like an exercise in futility, so all I'd be accomplishing is further alienating those friends on my "conservative" list. Yet in my heart and soul I believe that only with NEW leadership can a credible and just corrective plan materialize. Thus, I believe a re-call of this president is necessary and the only way Constitutionally to accomplish this is through the impeachment process.
Personally, I've discovered meditation and through it a better sense of peace. I fret and fume less and am starting to have more clarity. So it is with love and compassion for all concerned, and a desire to see the most good for the most people, that I be true to soul and reason in recommending this course.
Respectfully, Richard
------------------------------------
PEACEFUL RESOLUTION IS RIGHT, JUST RESPONSE TO IRAQ.(Editorial)(Column)Source: The Kentucky Post (Covington, KY)Date: 10/30/2002
Byline: Richard F. Dawahare
Deep in our souls we know. Stripped of the paralyzing fear that smothers our minds and dulls our hearts we know that war in Iraq would be an immoral obscenity, a terrible wrong that would only exacerbate our problems instead of solving them.
Quite naturally, the 9/11 attacks exponentially increased our fear of vulnerability. When combined with the continuous demonization of Saddam Hussein we feel an impending doom if we do not attack. I, too, admit to these feelings.
Yet all that frightens is not fearsome. That is, there is just too much credible information that refutes the danger that Iraq is made to pose. A calm review of all the relevant information will show that Saddam Hussein, appalling tyrant that he is, does not present the clear and present threat requiring war.
First, the world community, including Iraq's own neighbors, oppose war and regime change.
Second, our own former lead weapons inspector has courageously challenged the threat Iraq is alleged to present. Scott Ritter, who spent 7 years in Iraq as the United Nation's lead weapons inspector, calls the Bush Administration's push for war "a tragic joke perpetrated on the American public and the world."
He says the inspectors had destroyed 95 percent of Iraq's weapons as well as their capacity to build them. While Ritter is certain that Iraq is nowhere close to nuclear capability, he believes inspectors must go back to continue the job.
Ritter has no motive to lie. A Republican, he says his Marine code of honor requires him to tell the truth. He concludes that an America that pushes for war and regime change under these circumstances, especially when there are other alternatives available, "is not the country I want to be a part of."
To further enhance our fear and justify attack the hawks keep telling us how Hussein gassed his own people. This refers to the old charge that he gassed the Kurds in 1988. Forget for a second that we have already punished him for this atrocity. The bigger news is that it may not have happened the way we have heard it.
A Pentagon report by Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College concluded "we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used against the Kurds."
Further, regarding charges that Iraq used chemical weapons at Halabjah in March, 1988 the same report concluded that Iran, not Iraq was likely responsible. It concludes, "Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information." (Not that it matters but we were Saddam Hussein's ally in Iraq's war against Iran.)
This is not to say that Saddam Hussein is not a dangerous guy. I believe that he is. But there are other methods short of war - such as inspections and containment - that will more effectively secure peace.
Our fear is also amplified by Hussein's portrayal as a psychotic madman. This may well be as he no doubt has performed heinous acts of brutality. But at crucial times he also has acted rationally. For example, during the Gulf War he did not use the chemical or biological weapons that we claim he had - not against Israel, not against us, not against his own citizens.
This can only mean that a) he did not have them, or b) he had them but knew that to use them would invite a devastating retaliation on his country. This is the kind of sane, rational thinking that spared the world a nuclear holocaust throughout the cold war as each side feared mutually assured destruction.
We also fear that Hussein could provide biological or germ weapons to terrorists. Yet there is no evidence he has done so. In fact, he historically has considered Islamic radicals as an enemy to his regime. Indeed, he fought Iran to prevent Khomeini's fundamentalist revolution from overtaking Iraq.
Unfortunately, there are many enemies who might be inclined to help terrorists. How futile to believe we can war our way to safety when the only way to ensure a just and lasting peace is through dialogue and diplomacy. As even Iraq's own neighbors have suggested, war will only inflame hostilities and increase terrorism, not reduce it.
The Bush Administration has backed off its claim that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. Regardless, the hawks use the appeasement argument to justify an attack. That is, a refusal to attack Hussein now will lead to future catastrophe similar to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.
The much more relevant history, however, is Vietnam where we did follow the appeasement lesson by going to war to "stop the spread of Communism." Our fear then turned out to be a tragic mistake that killed 57,000 Americans, 3 million of "them" and created a truly unfortunate class of veterans.
I was 8 when the trumped up Gulf of Tonkin resolution led to full-scale war in Vietnam. Huckleberry Hound, Pleasant Valley Sundays, the Beatles, and the many hundreds of fun things the '60s offered us boomers took precedent over a war fought ostensibly to protect our ability to live the American Dream.
The protestors were "pinko drug-loving hippies." The establishment did all it could to discredit them. But the voice of truth was too powerful and the American middle class, after eight years of horrific tragedy, demanded peace, albeit "with honor."
If our leaders then had studied the history of the Vietnamese and their suffering under domination from the French and Japanese, they would have realized that all they ever wanted was to be free of the yoke of colonialism - they had no intention of world wide revolution.
(In an eerily similar coincidence, America was actually allied with Ho Chi Minh during World War II against Japan as we were with Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war with Iran.)
I have often wondered what I would have done in 1964 had I been an adult with this understanding. Would I have acquiesced to the pro-establishment, "support the president" position I knew inside to be wrong, but popular. Or would I have stayed true to my knowledge of a higher truth and joined the protestors?
Because there are workable alternatives to war - inspections, the lifting of sanctions and the re-incorporation of the Iraqi people into the international community - that would create a more permanent and just solution today's decision is easy.
Deep inside I know. We all do.
Richard F. Dawahare is an attorney and businessman from Lexington.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
I made two A's in high school
I made two A's in high school writing, both my senior year. The first was a 1972 civics class paper on my idea for WELFARE REFORM that pretty much presaged the Clinton Administration's reform (except mine did not have the time limits beyond which welfare recipients are totally cut off).
The second paper was an essay entitled "Man's Past--Key to His Future." In it I noted the 20th century's worst atrocities, from WWI, the Crash and Depression, WWII, the Holocaust. I was not then aware of the FIRST holocaust--that of the Turkish extermination of TWO-THREE MILLION Armenians; and being trapped in the "establishment fog" could not see the extent of our error in Vietnam, so the paper did not cover them.
I truly know not from whence my insight came--I didn't study all that hard, wasn't a book worm, not on any fast track--but something somewhere compelled my exposition, ingraining within me this eternal truth: that the atrocities we faced then, COULD happen once again IF--IF--IF we do not really LEARN from the past.
I have been trying to find my life's purpose. I also believe in Karma, a spirit that is coincidence, yet also beyond coincidence. I somehow feel my unlikely authorship of those two "A" papers, and the growing tendency of our leading politicians to totally ignore, or worse MIS-READ, history is related.
Further, it is the following two NY Times editorials from today's papers that inspire THIS impromptu-I'm-running-late-to-work post. The first details the tired but true story of the Bush/GOP re-establishment of the pre-Depression corporate aristocracy, the second is Nicholas Kristof's reminder of Darfur, yet another holocaust.
We WILL eventually learn. Only how much pain must we suffer first.
_________________________________________
"This (BUSH TAX CUTS) is not about giving wealthy people more money to invest back into the economy. At this level, it's really about giving more money to those who have nothing to do with it except amass enormous estates for their heirs. Fixing the problem will require members of Congress to summon the courage to say no to a president who wants more for the richest of the rich at the expense of everyone else. We're not holding our breath."
The Bush Economy
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tues1.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print
Uncover Your EyesBy NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html?pagewanted=print
The second paper was an essay entitled "Man's Past--Key to His Future." In it I noted the 20th century's worst atrocities, from WWI, the Crash and Depression, WWII, the Holocaust. I was not then aware of the FIRST holocaust--that of the Turkish extermination of TWO-THREE MILLION Armenians; and being trapped in the "establishment fog" could not see the extent of our error in Vietnam, so the paper did not cover them.
I truly know not from whence my insight came--I didn't study all that hard, wasn't a book worm, not on any fast track--but something somewhere compelled my exposition, ingraining within me this eternal truth: that the atrocities we faced then, COULD happen once again IF--IF--IF we do not really LEARN from the past.
I have been trying to find my life's purpose. I also believe in Karma, a spirit that is coincidence, yet also beyond coincidence. I somehow feel my unlikely authorship of those two "A" papers, and the growing tendency of our leading politicians to totally ignore, or worse MIS-READ, history is related.
Further, it is the following two NY Times editorials from today's papers that inspire THIS impromptu-I'm-running-late-to-work post. The first details the tired but true story of the Bush/GOP re-establishment of the pre-Depression corporate aristocracy, the second is Nicholas Kristof's reminder of Darfur, yet another holocaust.
We WILL eventually learn. Only how much pain must we suffer first.
_________________________________________
"This (BUSH TAX CUTS) is not about giving wealthy people more money to invest back into the economy. At this level, it's really about giving more money to those who have nothing to do with it except amass enormous estates for their heirs. Fixing the problem will require members of Congress to summon the courage to say no to a president who wants more for the richest of the rich at the expense of everyone else. We're not holding our breath."
The Bush Economy
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tues1.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print
Uncover Your EyesBy NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html?pagewanted=print
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Bankrupting Democracy
In the Kentucky Post Wednesday, June 1, 2005
Bankruptcy Act a ruse
By Richard F. Dawahare
The "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act" is a hypocritical sell-out of our greater public interest to the favored few.
Like the "Clear Skies Act" and "Healthy Forest Initiative," its misleading title is geared to sucker our acceptance of poison made to look like honey. After all, who would argue that those who abuse bankruptcy laws should be prevented from doing so?
However, the vast majority of bankruptcies are legitimate cases of financial devastation wrought by catastrophic medical expenses, job loss, death or divorce. In fact, the non-partisan American Bankruptcy Institute estimates that at most only 3 percent of filers "abuse" the system by getting debts discharged that they could actually pay.
Yet Congress and the president demean hard-hit working Americans suffering illness, downsizing or outsourcing by lumping them with the scant few who do abuse the system. And while punishing the innocent, they protect the wealthiest and most flagrant abusers.
The rich, whether an Enron executive or a run-of-the-mill millionaire, can still shield their cash in "asset protection trusts" that are beyond the reach of creditors. But median income earners will be put in a quasi-debtor prison by allowing creditors to snatch future earnings to pay off debts that for over 100 years have been rightfully forgiven.
The new law will deny a "fresh start" to many hapless families by replacing the judge's review of actual income, expenses and circumstances with a rigid formula that ignores reality in favor of standardized assumptions. More ominously, the law ends protection against eviction and makes it harder for one to keep their car.
Worst of all, President Bush and Congress has further legitimized the credit industry's unethical predatory behavior. The law is so bad that 90 of the country's top law professors wrote a letter to the Senate opposing its passage: "In our view, the fundamental change over the last 10 years has been the way that credit is marketed to consumers. Credit card lenders have become more aggressive in marketing their products, and a large, very profitable, market has emerged in sub prime lending."
Profitable indeed. The credit industry pocketed $30 billion in profits last year alone - $30 billion, and most of it from exorbitant interest rates, late fees and penalties on the poorest among us, those just following the president's call to join "the ownership society."
It is unconscionable that our leaders have aided and abetted the credit industry in what amounts to legalized usury. They have sanctioned the onerous practices that have many debtors paying more in interest and fees than their original balances. Why?
Could the $100 million the credit and banking industry gave in campaign contributions since 1999 (according to the Center for Responsive Politics) have played a role in commanding such allegiance? Perhaps that is why they allowed the credit lobbyists to write this law.
Shockingly, the bill's supporters are the most vocal moralizers for biblical values regarding social issues. So why are they not applying the clear and numerous biblical sanctions against usury and abuse of society's most vulnerable citizens? Have they forgotten Jesus' most passionate display of emotion as he chased the moneychangers from the temple?
Richard F. Dawahare is a Lexington lawyer and businessman.
Copyright 2005, The Kentucky Post
Bankruptcy Act a ruse
By Richard F. Dawahare
The "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act" is a hypocritical sell-out of our greater public interest to the favored few.
Like the "Clear Skies Act" and "Healthy Forest Initiative," its misleading title is geared to sucker our acceptance of poison made to look like honey. After all, who would argue that those who abuse bankruptcy laws should be prevented from doing so?
However, the vast majority of bankruptcies are legitimate cases of financial devastation wrought by catastrophic medical expenses, job loss, death or divorce. In fact, the non-partisan American Bankruptcy Institute estimates that at most only 3 percent of filers "abuse" the system by getting debts discharged that they could actually pay.
Yet Congress and the president demean hard-hit working Americans suffering illness, downsizing or outsourcing by lumping them with the scant few who do abuse the system. And while punishing the innocent, they protect the wealthiest and most flagrant abusers.
The rich, whether an Enron executive or a run-of-the-mill millionaire, can still shield their cash in "asset protection trusts" that are beyond the reach of creditors. But median income earners will be put in a quasi-debtor prison by allowing creditors to snatch future earnings to pay off debts that for over 100 years have been rightfully forgiven.
The new law will deny a "fresh start" to many hapless families by replacing the judge's review of actual income, expenses and circumstances with a rigid formula that ignores reality in favor of standardized assumptions. More ominously, the law ends protection against eviction and makes it harder for one to keep their car.
Worst of all, President Bush and Congress has further legitimized the credit industry's unethical predatory behavior. The law is so bad that 90 of the country's top law professors wrote a letter to the Senate opposing its passage: "In our view, the fundamental change over the last 10 years has been the way that credit is marketed to consumers. Credit card lenders have become more aggressive in marketing their products, and a large, very profitable, market has emerged in sub prime lending."
Profitable indeed. The credit industry pocketed $30 billion in profits last year alone - $30 billion, and most of it from exorbitant interest rates, late fees and penalties on the poorest among us, those just following the president's call to join "the ownership society."
It is unconscionable that our leaders have aided and abetted the credit industry in what amounts to legalized usury. They have sanctioned the onerous practices that have many debtors paying more in interest and fees than their original balances. Why?
Could the $100 million the credit and banking industry gave in campaign contributions since 1999 (according to the Center for Responsive Politics) have played a role in commanding such allegiance? Perhaps that is why they allowed the credit lobbyists to write this law.
Shockingly, the bill's supporters are the most vocal moralizers for biblical values regarding social issues. So why are they not applying the clear and numerous biblical sanctions against usury and abuse of society's most vulnerable citizens? Have they forgotten Jesus' most passionate display of emotion as he chased the moneychangers from the temple?
True and just reform benefiting both the greater public interest and the credit industry would include:
- A limit on interest to a set amount above the fed rate.
- Caps on late fees.
- Elimination of universal default clauses and all other hidden fees.
- Strict guidelines on eligibility and credit limits.
- Elimination of asset protection trusts.
- Prohibition of deceptive teaser ads.
- Secondary school instruction on financial management.
"Personal responsibility" falls most heavily on those with power. Since the laws are so unfairly tailored for the credit industry the average consumer is powerless, especially when beset by tragedy. Yet instead of acting responsibly many creditors do just the opposite by tripping debtors in order to profit from their fall.
Their failure is a clarion call for new senators and representatives who will, at all times and on all issues, make supreme our greater public interest. Anything less will bankrupt our democracy.
Richard F. Dawahare is a Lexington lawyer and businessman.
Copyright 2005, The Kentucky Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)